Nick Land is a Neonazi DA Your authors philosophy is grounded in neofascism – he thinks women should be limited to domestic servitude and that non-white races are inferior. The 1AC is a façade for spreading neofascist views – voting aff uniquely causes spread of Land’s ideas which are on the brink now
Bartlett 14 Jamie Bartlett Director of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at Demos, Specialises in online culture and the dark net. “Meet The Dark Enlightenment: sophisticated neo-fascism that's spreading fast on the net” The Telegraph January 20th 2014 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100012093/meet-the-dark-enlightenment-sophisticated-neo-fascism-thats-spreading-fast-on-the-net/ PBM SME
Since 2012 a sophisticated but bizarre online neo-fascist movement has been growing fast. It’s called "The Dark Enlightenment". Its modus operandi is well suited to a digital society. Supporters are dotted all over the world, connected via a handful of blogs and chat rooms. Its adherents are clever, angry white men patiently awaiting the collapse of civilisation, and a return to some kind of futuristic, ethno-centric feudalism. It started, suitably enough, with two blogs. Mencius Moldbug, a prolific blogger and computer whizz from San Francisco, and Nick Land, an eccentric British philosopher (previously co-founder of Warwick University’s Cybernetic Culture Research Unit) who in 2012 wrote the eponymous "The Dark Enlightenment", as a series of posts on his site. You can find them all here. The philosophy, difficult to pin down exactly, is a loose collection of neo-reactionary ideas, meaning a rejection of most modern thinking: democracy, liberty, and equality. Particular contempt is reserved for democracy, which Land believes "systematically consolidate and exacerbate[es] private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption." The neo-fascist bit lies in the view that races aren’t equal (they obsess over IQ testing and pseudoscience that they claim proves racial differences, like the Ku Klux Klan) and that women are primarily suited for domestic servitude. They call this "Human biodiversity" – a neat little euphemism. This links directly to their desire to be rid of democracy: because if people aren’t equal, why live in a society in which everyone is treated equally? Some races are naturally better to rule than others, hence their support for various forms of aristocracy and monarchy (and not in the symbolic sense but the very real divine-right-of-kings-sense). The whole bankrupt edifice, they think, is maintained by what they call "The Cathedral" (what conspiracy theorists call the New World Order): a cabal of universities, newspapers, and establishment forces which perpetuate the status quo and prevent dissent. Whenever someone is arrested for a racist tweet, it is taken as proof that the Cathedral is pulling strings. You become darkly enlightened when you start to see these constructs for what they really are: modern atrocities that go against the natural order of things which must be torn down. It’s all a little bit like the movie The Matrix (and indeed some adherents refer to the Red and Blue Pill scene, in which the protagonist is offered a choice between blissful ignorance and painful reality). So how many have been enlightened? No one knows, but unlikely to be many. Yet. There is certainly a growing interest in this type of rejectionist philosophy and politics. As I argue in a forthcoming essay for the think-tank IPPR, radical anti-establishment politics of all shades are on the rise, driven by a growing belief (and surveys bear this out) that our current way of doing things – our parliamentary system, our judicial system, our economic system – don’t work. While researching my book about internet subcultures, I’ve bumped into plenty of online movements that reject democracy, believe in racial superiority and fantasise about a purer more "natural" life before the French Revolution or the Normans came along and ruined everything. The internet has transformed the ability of niche movements to gain support across the world: already the Dark Enlightenment has picked up interest from the bigger (though still tiny) New Right and other reactionary neo-fascist movements. By bringing together diverse elements of alternative Right-wing and fantastical rejection of the system into a single political philosophy for internet intellectuals, this could well grow. I’ll be keeping an eye on them, and report back here with any interesting developments as they happen.
Land is a hack who can’t write and is a Nazi – not even in a “Nietzsche’s a Nazi” way – he’s actually a neo-nazi -- there’s no threat in his movement now, only a risk the aff changes that—his writing is intentionally vague to entice neofascismStanley 14 Tim Stanley, MA, Mphil, PhD in Modern History, “The 'neo-fascist' Dark Enlightenment is more sad than scary” The Telegraph Jan 22nd 2014 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100255944/the-dark-enlightenment-is-more-sad-than-neo-fascist-scary/ PBM SME
This paragraph is actually contained within a vaguely negative critique of white nationalism, but it's hard to tell it's intention because a) Land can't write and he appears to have a lot of sympathy for the discourse of "whites as victims". Land probably thinks that he walks a semantic line between reason and racism. But even just trying to do that is an indication of myopia and an invitation for Nazis to endorse him. There is no line to be walked between reason and racism. Racism and biological determinism are unscientific and immoral, and they have no place in a sane philosophy. Jamie interprets the rise of the Dark Enlightenment in terms of a resurgence of historical fascism. He maybe right. But I also think it's an insight into how desperate elements of the Right have become. They believe they've lost the battle for control of the West and would now like to withdraw from democracy altogether. Some are driven into the arms of Putin, some into the Far, Far Right and some up trees with guns. As such, the Dark Enlightenment is probably more tragic than it is scary. Or, at least, let's hope it stays that way.
They say they don’t support that part of his philosophy but they do – his concepts about death, desire and excess are intrinsically intertwined with his Nazism and his conceptions of continental philosophy – to be a Nazi, according to Land, is a logical follow of Bataille, DnG and Nietzsche’s philosophy.-We obviously don’t advocate the language or the implication of this evidence – it just shows how screwed up Land is
Land 93 Nick Land, Making it with Death, Nazbol.net [national bolshevism a pretty racist nationalist ideology] 1993 http://nazbol.net/library/authors/Nick%20Land/(1993)%20LAND%20--%20Making%20It%20with%20Death.pdf
What if – instead of ‘How Do You Make Yourself A Body Without Organs?’ – one were to ask: how do you make yourself a Nazi? For this is far more strenuous than the 1980 diagnosis suggests. 1) Wherever there is impersonality and chance introduce conspiracy, lucidity. and malice. Look for enemies everywhere, ensuring that they are such that one than simultaneously envy and condemn them. Proliferate new subjectivities; racia1 subjects, national subjects, elites, secret societies, destinies. 2) Burn Freud, and take desire back to the Kantian conception of will. Wherever there is impulse represent it as choice, decision, the whole theatrical drama of volition. Introduce a gloomy atmosphere of oppressive responsibility by couching all discourses in the imperative form. 3) Revere the principle of the great individual. Personalize and mythicize historical processes. Love obedience above all things. and enthuse only for signs; the name of the leader, the symbol of the movement, and the icons of molar identity. 4) Foster nostalgia for what is maximally bovine, inflexible, and stagnant: a line of racially pure peasants digging the same patch of earth for eternity. 5) Above all. resent everything impetuous and irresponsible, insist upon unrelenting vigilance, crush sexuality under its reproductive function, rigidly enforce the domestication of women, distrust art,classicize cities to eliminate the disorder of uncontrolled flows, and persecute all minorities exhibiting a nomadic tendency. Trying not to be a Nazi approximates one to Nazism far more radically than any irresponsible impatience in destratification. Nazism might even be characterized as the pure politics of effort; the absolute dominion of the collective super-ego in its annihilating rigor. Nothing could be more politically disastrous than the launching of a moral case against Nazism: Nazism is morality itself; heir to Europe's respectable history; that of witchburnings, inquisitions, and pogroms. To want to be in the right is the common substratum of morality and genocidal reaction; the same desire for repression – organized in terms of the disapproving gaze of the father – that AntiOedipus analyzes with such power. Who could imagine Nazism without daddy? And who could imagine daddy being pre-figured in the energetic unconscious? Nazism can turn you into a stiff before the messy passage into death.Death is too simple. too fluid. too disdainful of races and fatherlands to have anything much to do with the Nazis. Ressentiment was something they knew about. as was the aspiration to a mythic sacrifice, a Götterdämmerung that would inscribe them in the history books, but these things never stretch to dissolution-desire. After all, lose control and you might end up fucking with a Jew, becoming effeminate, or creating something degenerate like a work of art. Does anyone really think that Nazism is like letting go? Theweleit's studies of Nazi body posture should be sufficient to disabuse one of such an absurdity. Nazism can turn you into a stiff before the messy passage into death.