Christianity and Christchurch

Last updated on: March 19, 2019 at 10:57 pm by Chase Padusniak

Christianity and Christchurch 2019-03-19T22:57:32-04:00 Chase Padusniak

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

He’s not alone in being this way; he didn’t come from nowhere, popping out ex nihilo like matter on the first day of creation. As some have already argued, he’s an accelerationist. This term is a complicated one—and it applies on both the Right and the Left, though it’s typically used of the former. Most importantly it refers to the belief that one should use whatever means possible to push the ailing Liberal world into collapse so that something new might emerge. As long as certain Liberal structures like the U.N. and IMF exist (along with the stable national entities that preserve them), the world cannot truly change. Our world is a global one, based on certain principles. This order defends itself at all costs. It will destroy anything that opposes it, hence Al Qaeda, ISIS, North Korea, Venezuela, even (at a certain point) Greece and how these groups and places were treated by international organizations. The message is clear: “play by the rules or else.” Accelerationism argues that only the escalation of conflict can destroy these self-sustaining institutions and allow for the birth of a new world.

Nick Land is a major and important thinker in this tradition, whose work, unsurprisingly, has found its primary audience through the internet (Land himself has quite a bit to say about digitalization; in fact, he used to be a part of a collective called the “Cybernetic Culture Research Unit”). He is well-educated. Many on the Left seem to think of those on the Right as either self-deluded Trump voters or pimply teenagers deprived of sex and thus lusting for power, equipped at best with semi-coherent Reddit posts and anime love pillows, yearning for acceptance and bullying through the barrel of a gun when denied it. I am here to say they are wrong; Land shows that they are wrong. He is well-read and articulate; his thought presents a serious challenge to Left academia on its own terms. As McKenzie Wark has written at Verso (a major Left book publisher):

Some writers are curators of a culture they received from the past; others are the antennae of a culture around them. Nick Land is the latter. One reads him for the symptoms of the age. I’m interested in some earlier work, which still has a cult following. And how could it not, with a project such as this? Land: “Whenever its name has been anything but a jest, philosophy has been haunted by a subterranean question: What if knowledge were a means to deepen unknowing? It is this question alone that has differentiated it from the shallow things of the earth. Yet the glory and also the indignity of philosophy is to have sought the end of knowing, and no more.” (206)

Land achieved notoriety in recent years as a prophet of Neo-reaction. I’m not going to say much about those texts, although they do pose questions for reading the early work. I’m not inclined to read Land, or anyone, through a teleology in which the later positions were always present in embryo. I think writers careen through a garden of forked paths, where each decision opens up onto others, and others in turn. A position is just one possibility out of many for where a line of thought might stagger. (“On Nick Land”)

Or, as Mark Fisher has put it:

Land was our Nietzsche—with the same baiting of the so-called progressive tendencies, the same bizarre mixture of the reactionary and the futuristic, and a writing style that updates nineteenth-century aphorisms into what Kodwo Eshun called “text at sample velocity.” (“Terminator vs. Avatar: Notes on Accelerationism”)

What is Land? For starters, he’s a critic of capitalism. The world he envisions after it, however, is not much like the Marxist one. Here there is no utopic equality and optimal work-leisure balance. Rather, according to him, the new world can come only through the inhabiting and explosion of the old until we re-organize along lines that look more like well-read Steve Bannon than Bernie Sanders or Mumia Abu-Jamal:

Capital, in its ultimate self-definition, is nothing beside the abstract accelerative social factor. Its positive cybernetic schema exhausts it. Runaway consumes its identity. Every other determination is shucked-off as an accident, at some stage of its intensification process. Since anything able to consistently feed socio-historical acceleration will necessarily, or by essence, be capital, the prospect of any unambiguously ‘Left-accelerationism’ gaining serious momentum can be confidently dismissed. Accelerationism is simply the self-awareness of capitalism, which has scarcely begun. (“We haven’t seen anything yet.”)

At the time of writing, Left-accelerationism appears to have deconstructed itself back into traditional socialist politics, and the accelerationist torch has passed to a new generation of brilliant young thinkers advancing an ‘Unconditional Accelerationism’ (neither R/Acc., or L/Acc., but U/Acc.). Their online identities – if not in any easily extricable way their ideas – can be searched-out through the peculiar social-media hash-tag #Rhetttwitter.

As blockchains, drone logistics, nanotechnology, quantum computing, computational genomics, and virtual reality flood in, drenched in ever-higher densities of artificial intelligence, accelerationism won’t be going anywhere, unless ever deeper into itself. To be rushed by the phenomenon, to the point of terminal institutional paralysis, is the phenomenon. Naturally – which is to say completely inevitably – the human species will define this ultimate terrestrial event as a problem. To see it is already to say: We have to do something. To which accelerationism can only respond: You’re finally saying that now? Perhaps we ought to get started? In its colder variants, which are those that win out, it tends to laugh. (“A Quick-and-Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism”)

Go back Continue Reading

Previous Post

December 26, 2018

Left Faithful

Next Post

March 20, 2019 Secular Religion and Our Liberal Future

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Culture Politics Reviews Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 December 2020 November 2020 July 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What nation captured Jerusalem and took Daniel captive?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Assyria Babylonia Egypt Persia