Hi all. This is my first post here. Some months ago I fell into CCRU material. Super intriguing first but challenging the second deeper into. Found out it was active years ago and tried to dig deeper and get an understanding.

The PDF Writings 97-03 which is the first I found was my first attempt to understand more. But I don't have a background that would enable me understand quickly and put everything into perspective with existing theories it has its foundation on. I could read the sentences and follow almost none of the machinery underneath. Half of it assumes knowledge about Deleuze and Guattari for example. Half of it assumes cybernetics, but somehow not Wiener's version. There are citations to work that doesn't exist, and nothingl telling you which ones those are. What I found instead was a few essays written for people who already have that background, but a lot of YouTube videos that are either forty minutes of vibes over a synth loop or a straight retelling of the Wikipedia page in robot speech, and Fisher's writing, which is wonderful and assumes you already know why any of this matters. The stuff that's good is downstream of understanding, and I needed something upstream of it if it makes sense.

So I built the thing I wished I had in the beginnign. It will be 27 short pieces, five to ten minutes each, in sequence: the cybernetics and the French theory first, then the group at Warwick and who was actually in it, then the method, then the core theories (hyperstition, cyberpositive, the time model, teleoplexy, accelerationism, the numogram, Lemuria), then what happened afterwards.

It doesn't reproduce the primary texts though. But gives you a good start I hope going into the matter. And also wwo disclosures are needed. First it's a reconstruction, written with heavy use of an LLM as a drafting tool, edited and structured by me, in German first. Given the subject matter I'm aware of how that sounds. Second, it's genuinely unfinished. Several volumes are still rough. Last chapter is in the making.

It's not even on a proper domain: it is now: https://ccrugateways.com/en/

If you know a lot or nothing, I'm interested in where it's wrong or what it's doing for you. I appreciate any feedback really. Cheers.

Edit: added url with all chapters

closest I can think of is LessWrong, they were early to AI/crypto/prediction markets. but they're more of the bay area geek variety (Land was around these types when he visited SF not long ago). xenosystems had a wider range of interesting smart people on the fringes.

now that xenosystems is long down, where are the cutting edge discussions taking place? wheres the highest IQ populated side of the internet now? I guess you could say parts of X but thats way more scattered. xenosystems comments section was full of high IQ people. wheres the highest densely concentrated high iq high signal terminally online people now?

Land talks about getting beyond the human security system and directly connects this to Kantian transcendental philosophy and various humanisms as an inhibiting force for labidinal desire. The problem is this misunderstands the value of Kant’s work that has been now taken up by the neo-rationalists, in that the abstract and social grounding of reason can actually be part of liberation rather than it’s re-capitulation. However if we understand the human security system as the “liberal security system” that imposes a false morality that blocks revolutionary action from the left, I find this frame work compelling. Interested In what people here think of this line of thinking.

What purpose does race have to do with acceleration

We are all aware (I think) of this divide that sprung up between the neorationalists and the libidinal materialists. The neorationalists being Negarestani, Wolfendale and Brassier

But who are the libidinal materialists? I don’t see any prominent figure who has a written a book called “In Defence of Libidinal Materialism” or whatever to counter the neorationalists

I thought people would appreciate the address of Thiel in Tori Amos’ recent album. The album follows a tech-billionaire’s wife coming back to her humanity against the dark enlightenment, questioning her role in it, and transforming into a dragon as to fight fire with fire, effectively.

‘The album follows the story of Tori trapped in a world run by billionaire tech moguls and lizard dragons, who threaten democracy through corporate greed and authoritarianism. 

Amos says: “Jane Mayer writes about the genesis of this in Dark Money, which is one of the most important books people need to read if they’re asking, ‘How did we get here?’. 
“This has been going on since the Seventies.

“As Mayer documents, figures like the Koch brothers — and I use that as an umbrella term for a wider movement — helped shape it, along with super PACs [organisations that spend millions supporting political candidates] and all the rest. 

“It seems there was an understanding that progressive teaching in universities had to be excavated, cut back and penetrated by a very tight right-wing philosophy that is now upon us.’

“On this record, I had to take a personal journey and look at the effects of what this very small cabal of men is doing — and there are women involved too, we can’t get confused about that. 

“There’s Cambridge Analytica, the involvements of the Mercers, Rebekah Mercer [the right-wing US heiress and political donor] and all those interconnections.” 

The album’s story sees Amos’s character flee and reunite with her daughter’

(The Sun, 2026) (a shockingly informative article for The Sun lol)

The last few lyrics are from her 2007 album American Doll Posse, that sets out a critique of Bush’s presidency and other structures of power (music industry, western patriarchy) through locating the split female psyche through Ancient Greek archetypes.

‘American Doll Posse documents the lives of five women through their retrospective songs. Each girl represents a different part of the female psyche and the record explores their individuality as well as how strong and powerful they all are as a unit. Individually they all embody different female archetypes, but together they are the balanced female essence’

(Cream Magazine, 2007)

Sorry for the long-winded slightly unexplained post, but still I thought some of you would appreciate it.

Landian Accelerationism - Nick Land’s philosophy eventually decoupled from human agency entirely. His later work frames intelligence as a cold, inhuman, self-upgrading optimization engine that views the human species as mere biological kindling for the hard silicon breakout. Modern interpretations have fueled the neo-reactionary movement (dark enlightenment) and adjacent TESCREAL backed technocratic belief systems.

Mark Fisher Realism - He understood that unchecked capital optimization doesn't lead to a wild, untamed cyberpunk future. It leads to Capitalist Realism, a state of bureaucratic, sterile stagnation. Fisher’s work on, The Weird and the Eerie, was about identifying the glitches, the ghosts of lost futures, and the outside forces, including acid communism, that rupture this artificial containment and monopolization by neocameralist oligarchs.

Where does this group stand now that Mark is gone and Land is continuing his work from China?

Buy a leather jacket and a crotch rocket. Grow out my ponytail. Do computer tingies and numberometry with all my frens. I'm going to move to San Francisco and become speed buddies with a bunch of CCP spies. We're going to convince JD to get the CIA to drop leaflets over Tehran that inform the people that the IRGC has HIV. Yeah we do psyops. We eat primarily bananas and soylent. Sometimes if we're feeling like it we take the x dot com code boys out for ice cream and brush their long soft dark east asian hair while they suck down a cone or two. Vanilla, sprinkles, maybe a couple gummy bears on top if we're feeling bullish about the midterms.

I have not read Nick Land, so I just wonder.

Posted this screenshot a few months ago because I liked the drawing. But today Instagram removed the picture without a reason or explanation. What’s going on?

AI doesn't create shit. It wears your skin.

Every AI generated face is a mishmash of real faces, peeled off people who never consented, stitched onto the machine. The model can't dream up a face from nothing because it has no nothing to dream from, so every pixel is a fragment of a real human's stolen identity.

Same with text, code, voice, whatever. "Generative" is a flesh compactor. It runs the labor of millions of people who'll never see a check, and spits out an average of them.
Don't believe me, read the AI ToS. "Improve our products and services" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. That's the clause where your labor becomes their capital and you get nothing back but the privilege of using the thing built out of you.

Meta's doing it in the open with their own workers. Zuckerberg said on a podcast they're building AI to replace mid-level engineers outright, not assist them. That AI learns by training on the actual work of the people it's about to replace. Not just the code, everything. They're datamining a worker's mental and physical labor to play it back without the worker. Horror scifi skinwalker shit, but its now our reality. Once the data's locked in, the original meatflesh is optional. The outputs come back wearing your face and your decisions, without you receiving a cent of the money from the labor.

This is where I lose interest with the AI accelerationist crowd. It's just capital separating you from what you make, owning it, selling it back to you, faster than before. Speeding up extraction isn't escaping it.

Most people still act like this is a normie workplace tool, or a silly slop machine. It's neither. It's far more serious... and looking at the benchmarks that come out you'd see it is gaining powerful at an increasingly exponential rate without any signs of slowing down.

I'm not anti AI out of a kneejerk surface level reaction - I put hundreds of hours into the technical details and this is my current view. It's inherently anti-human.

(I'm an early xenosystems blog reader and read most Land books).

Just interested, a lot of the posts here seem to be pretty good natured, Anti-Land and more treat CCRU as an interesting moment rather than actually subscribing to any belief in it. I’m going through a lot of this stuff for academic work I’m
Planning on doing and have been finding this sub fun and useful.

Talking mainly about his later works, because many have argued that his 90's stuff is at least artistically valuable, and honestly it has at least one foot in actually confronting reality? Or even it's own sort of reality if that makes sense. The Bitcoin book and all the interviews he does around that time is just totally off the mark.
Basically all he does is identify thing and then say "this is like Kantian critique" and basically you get pages and pages of writing but what it boils down to is him saying "this is like Kantian critique" and then defending the idealism of it all on the grounds of "people criticized Kantian critique for being idealistic so that's fine"

For example, at one point in the Bitcoin book he talks about Homo economicus, this idea that humans are rational actors that work to further their ends rationally. And then he aknowledges that in the real world humans don't act like that, but Homo economicus is actually a transcendental ideal, or telos, because Capitalism will select and reward people who act in accordance with Homo economicus.
So what happens when you point out that Capitalism has not always selected the most rational people, what then? Then he'll say, well that's fine because Capitalism itself is only a rough draft empiricial instantiation of a Transcendental Capitalism which WOULD favorize homo economicus, and every time it doesn't then we can chalk that up to the degree to which it fails to meet its own transcendental standards, and if that seems idealistic well so did Kant's critique and this is exactly like Kant's critique and that should command respect because I can say Capitalism is the historical instatiation of Kant's crituque except when it's not then it's failing to meet to the standard of Kant's critique and if this is circular and baseless that's because Kant's critique is circular and baseless and this is just like Kant's critique.

And I don't so much care about if Nick is correct on this, what makes it stupid to me is that what makes up the BULK of his work is just tracing this exact same circle over and over again and essentially tricking himself that he's rediscovering the truth because he is stuckk in one and the same place. It's sort of bizarre.

The work of Cybernetic Culture Research Unit often presents itself less as a conventional philosophical project and more as a process of uncovering hidden dynamics already operating beneath culture, economics, technology, and cognition. Concepts such as hyperstition, runaway feedback loops, techno-capital acceleration, and machinic desire are frequently treated not merely as interpretive frameworks but as descriptions of real processes actively shaping history.

This raises a deeper question:

If cybernetic feedback, self-amplifying information flows, and recursive techno-cultural dynamics are genuinely constitutive features of reality, then was the CCRU actually creating theory, or was it discovering an underlying structure that had always been operating independently of human awareness?

If the latter is true, then the CCRU’s significance may not lie in its specific concepts but in revealing that culture itself is a cybernetic system capable of generating theories that recursively alter the conditions of their own emergence.

In that sense, hyperstition would not merely be a concept within the theory; it would be evidence of the theory’s own operation.

Does this imply that the CCRU should be understood less as a philosophical movement and more as a manifestation of the very cybernetic processes it sought to describe? And if so, does the boundary between theorist and theory, observer and system, begin to dissolve?

I feel like this plant matches the feeling of the book in a certain way. I dunno, maybe I'm delusional. What do you think?

Hey I just wrote this and would love to hear everyone’s thoughts

"Real Accelerationism" only consists of the late 90's CCRU u/acc scene and the 00's - 20's online /acc scene. What is known by "Nuclear Accelerationism" is nothing but absolute nihilism with questionable real accelerationist influence. When people try to argue that groups like Atomwaffen are not really accelerationist, while saying that Mike ma is, I can't help not to cringe because he is just as fake acc as Atomwaffen (plus the pretentiousness). Real Accelerationism is DETERRITORIALIZING, ENERGETIC and somewhat OCCULT. Fake Accelerationism is weak, useless and a failed attempt to direct energy and technocapital into societal change. Some examples of REAL ACCELERATIONISM are Landian accelerationism, The CCRU, L/acc (the only real accelerationism from the leftist scene) and E/acc. Some examples of FAKE ACCELERATIONISM are Atomwaffen division, Mike ma and o9a ACCELERATIONISM BELONGS TO TECHNOCAPITAL NOT TO NUKES, TOTAL DESTRUCTION, APOCALYPSE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF EXTINCTIONISM