Jump to content

laire

Members
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by laire

  1. laire

    Jungle

    The measures are not equal. "Genius" isn't part of it at all. Nick Land is just a knock-off of J.G. Ballard. Even his life is just a pirate copy, moving to the same exact city Ballard grew up in. No matter how much anxiety of influence Nick Land has about Ballard (to the point that he rarely credits him when lifting from his work) he will never be him. Ballard was an actual genius who invented everything you credit to Land. If you want to say some old white man is responsible the ideas underlying Hyperdub's crew, you can credit Ballard and not Land, who merely watered down Ballard's work, and can't even be credited with disseminating it widely, since Hollywood was already making films based on Ballard in the '80s and '90s CCRU era. Kode9 explicitly cites Ballard as an inspiration, as do other key artists on the label. Ballard had pretty right wing politics and an *aesthetic* interest in fascist technology (like the original futurists) but he wasn't a hyper-racist white nationalist as Land is, not even close. The difference might appear small to the kind of SJWs you mock, for whom anyone on the right is the same, but it should be clear nonetheless. Ballard was a man of the right, indeed a Thatcherite capitalist by the final decades of his life, but not someone who made hateful public speeches toward certain groups or chose to use his platform to promote hate and social divisions, certainly not someone with associations to far right English paramilitaries, let alone US neo-confederates. Not someone who dreamed of returning to the middle ages, restoring slavery and making women the legal property of their brothers, fathers, husbands. Land wants all that. Like Mark Fisher (a fan, obvs) Ballard assessed the divisions in society, without sentimentality, but he did not make it his life's work to try to actively create more divisions. That wasn't something he did because hey, he actually lived through World War II for real, he was a prisoner in the Sino-Japanese War and he knew what happened. It wasn't a game for him. It wasn't trolling. He had a dark vision and perhaps even an anti-humanist one at times, but he took responsibility for that. He didn't create scapegoats. You've contradicted yourself throughout this thread, because you continually return to this idea of Land's provocative statements as "insincere trolling." You can't have it both ways. If this is insincere trolling, fine, then Land is an unserious thinker who regards fascism as a game he can play, not realizing irony always wins in the end and he is genetically identical to the "real" fascist. The fact he would even attempt that game, not realizing he'd pwn himself, also proves that he is really quite dumb. And it's really, really, profoundly stupid for someone of an Internet-native generation to have as many illusions about that as you seem to.
  2. laire

    City Pop

    On vaporwave and techno-orientalism: http://www.aqnb.com/2016/05/31/hypercapitalist-east-asia-how-accelerationists-make-future-fuel/
  3. laire

    City Pop

    If some other Utada song was in Kingdom Hearts do you think it would have the same legendary status? I'm such an embarassing non-otaku I didn't even hear Simple and Clean until last year and I couldn't understand why it's so beloved, but I like some other stuff by her. Passion is a really good song. I guess I'm lucky in not being part of those fan cultures you mention, so I was able to experience Togawa's music/videos before I ever encountered any of her fans. I never heard of Togawa until last year too.
  4. laire

    City Pop

    don't kill yourself unless you have to... you're one of only two good radiohead message boarders left in the world. (other one is chillphin, to be clear.)
  5. laire

    Jungle

    I'm sorry for saying that out loud, this hurts if you are a survivor of suicide or a friend's suicide. I don't think it's "positive", but if someone chooses that I think we shouldn't infantilize them as "sick" and "selfish." They made a choice to put their beliefs in practice in some way. It's the opposite of cowardice. Those who can't understand their choice and say they are "selfish" are often the selfish cowards. It's a tragedy that terrible people continue to live, and make the world a horrible place that pressures more of the best people to want to leave this world. But it's not a tragedy that the good person was able to leave on their own terms, without being forced by a horrible world to betray those things they love.
  6. She invented the 2010s but it seems like she's always existed. I even remember the Atease thread when the Umbrella video dropped. Rihanna will be remembered if no one else is remembered.
  7. laire

    Jungle

    Don't push me cause I'm close to the edge. I'm trying not to lose my head. Everything you say to me. Now I'm one step closer to the edge and I'm about to break. Shut up when I'm talkin to u! Why is Views still so underrated? Views >>>> Life of Pablo
  8. laire

    Jungle

    Why did white critics see it as an unacceptable sellout when Goldie incorporated more warm and spiritual jazz and soul elements in his masterpiece Timeless? Why was Goldie expected to present himself as a gleefully nonsensical forest creature with animalistic, "machinic" beats that allowed repressed white English people to vicariously enjoy the thrill of their own fetishistic imagination of the black savage-- all body and no soul-- and suddenly he wasn't accepted for a genius anymore the moment he went above his station and made human-sounding songs and identified himself by name? Why was jungle, the last black British music whose reception and interpretation white music critics were able to mostly monopolize and control, coincidentally also the last black British music that these critics saw as vitally innovative and worthy of acclaim? Why is the music even called jungle anyway because let's be real, some jungle artists may have used that term but a lot of different genre names are usually floating around when a new sound comes about, this one is no exception, so why were the critics eager to officialize this particular name rather than the other ones? Why would a self styled "philosopher" who would go on to endorse eugenics and even call for the reinstatement of slavery, just so happen to get his start by leading seminars where he incited students to fetishize jungle music and its practitioners as a physical manifestation of the cold inhuman Thing of capital, as some kind of magical alien chattel?
  9. laire

    Jungle

    Why would someone such as Nick Land who regards some groups of humans as subhumans, gravitate toward black and brown people only when they do a music called "jungle"?
  10. laire

    City Pop

    On Akina Nakamori and Fushigi: https://music.avclub.com/a-one-of-a-kind-album-tried-to-turn-80s-pop-on-its-ear-1798243749
  11. laire

    Jungle

    Back on track... sorry for the tangents everyone.
  12. laire

    Jungle

    Writing *about* (the necessity of, the difficulty of) imagining new futures, is not the same as actually *imagining* new futures, even though it could be a first step to doing so. You are misunderstanding what I said, perhaps because you didn't even read what I said, which was "unreadable" for you. The project of imagining futures was absolutely what these books are about, but they are not about it in the sense that they consist of doing that imagining, but rather in trying to get to a point where that imagining can occur once again. This project begins by assessing why and how it is currently so hard for us (including for the author) to imagine that post-capitalist future. If Fisher himself had been able to vividly imagine a post-capitalist future, Capitalist Realism and Ghosts of My Life would make no sense, because in these books he is assessing that inability to imagine a future, a condition in culture and society that extends beyond any of us. No matter whether individually even depressed or not, in Fisher's view we are all collectively depressed, lowering our expectations and no longer dreaming of revolution. If Weird and the Eerie marks a fundamental break with that, and consists of a more... free? revolutionary?... kind of thinking, by all means school me. But from what his other friends and associates with access to that manuscript have written, it seems like this project of actually conceiving a future was going to wait until Acid Communism, the book he was unable to finish. So the future he needed and wanted to conceive was actually, inconceivable within his lifetime, in his published work, and incompletely conceived even in his unpublished work. That, btw, is a failing of other people and institutions, not of Fisher. He was pushing against immense odds to try to explain why this collective failure of imagination is occurring, while others like Land were trying to make it even more impossible to imagine a post-capitalist, just and equal future, or even to conceive of humanity in a collective way at all. Where did you address that? Not in this thread. In the essays you linked? The point isn't that he was a bitter old man in terms of personality, of course not, but-- despite being the opposite of that in his own personality-- he may have slipped into that role more than a few times when he assessed our cultural situation, in his published work and public lectures. Unlike you, I apologize that I can't draw on whatever he said privately or in secret PDFs only shared with masters and doctoral students, if that was totally different from his public statements. For example on the Land thing, if your posts are correct, he was closer to him up until the end than his public persona would let on (even many people who have studied these guys in depth, but perhaps did not know Fisher personally, have written about a break between the two of them). I mean no disrespect by this, but I feel like I shouldn't read those essays of yours, given that they seem very personal in nature, and you've been pretty consistently rude to me going back years on here, which I'm afraid could make me react against whatever you say in a way that would not at all be fair to you, and might negatively color my views of Fisher's work, which would be even more unfair to him. The work in my view is completely separate from what one of his grad students says it means, or even what Fisher himself said it meant. That doesn't mean I'm right about it myself. But I'm within my rights to form my own impression, and out of respect, I've also read a wide variety of things about Fisher written by his friends and colleagues and students, which offer direction in understanding what he was saying. As you said, he isn't actually all that difficult to understand, because he is not aiming his work at academia solely, and he tries to be clear. My "objectively wrong" take can't be too outlandish either, since you say I exhibit "common" misconceptions, which is to say that a whole lot of writers and critics (and casual readers like myself) have already come to similar conclusions as I did. I haven't read Fisher himself shoot down most of those interpretations either, which makes sense given that many of his own friends who are music critics or musicians (including Steve Goodman), did not agree at all with his negative assessments of post-2003 music, which unfortunately is not just a matter of divergent taste, because of the way Fisher built that taste judgment into the political observations in Ghosts. As someone who disputes his music taste judgments in that post-2003 time period, of course I will always take issue with the book unless I, too, decide that almost all post-2003 music sucks and even the best is not innovative compared to the '90s, '70s or whatever golden age. Judging by your own comments, it sounds like he may have actually taken some of this Ghosts criticism (which, unlike certain other criticism he received, seems to have been mostly constructive and respectful) to heart, or in any case for whatever reason, according to you he "moved on" a huge amount from Ghosts in his later work. You're actually writing more about Weird and the Eerie, which I haven't read, nor am I familiar with Lovecraft beyond a couple of stories. I want to read Fisher's own words before reading one Fisher student's commentaries. But I WILL read your stuff if it addresses this issue of the "hardcore continuum," and the alleged loss of innovative momentum in post-2003 music, because to say modern music is objectively lacking in *technical* innovation is such a counter-intuitive idea and I actually don't feel it has been adequately addressed by any of the other stuff I've read about Fisher. You earlier claimed that I'm objectively wrong to dispute Ghosts' view of post-2003 music, which must mean you agree with the "hardcore continuum" theory. Do you give evidence in your writings for how electronic and dance musical innovation allegedly ceased in a technical sense in 2003? Fisher uses jungle's patented technique of time-stretching as an example, claiming that it was the last time a truly unprecedented sound was created. But surely we've all experienced entirely new sounds (whether we love or hate them) created in recent times? What about the use of vocaloid for example, and recent experiments in AI-composed music? Grimes next album has instruments performed by AI. In this area, I suspect even Land would agree with me: for all its flaws (not that they are flaws in Land's view) capitalism continues to accompany massive technological changes that cause continued disruption-- and technical innovation-- in popular music and dance music. As I've said, Reynolds did originate the concept of "hardcore continuum" (aka "music has sucked since I turned 35") but Fisher heartily endorsed it and built his own thesis around it as well, going even further than Reynolds in assessing the death of "popular modernism." I feel that any theory about the struggles we face in moving toward a post-capitalist society needs to eradicate this type of nostalgia, because there will already be almost insuperable obstacles in creating the required revolution, and making it a judgmental cultural revolution that also pisses on the music everyone loves (everyone younger than Fisher and Reynolds) will absolutely ensure its failure. No one wants (or needs) that kind of culturally fundamentalist revolution. Well, he is no longer around and both of us are still here, so yeah in that sense, any relationship we have with depression or mental illness is very different, but otherwise I would really hesitate if I were you in making generalizations about how my life (of which you know nothing) does or doesn't resemble his, nor have I ever claimed that it did resemble his in any way, beyond saying I *could relate* to what he wrote, which I now learn I am apparently not allowed to. You sound like one of those mythological Beyhivers who said white people or men aren't allowed to listen to Beyonce (note, almost no one actually said that). I suppose, to REALLY understand Mark Fisher, one needs to have multiple degrees like he did and not only that, to study with the man himself AND share his exact psychological profile. You know what tho? The Mark Fisher described by every one of his other friends besides your pompous ass, would've hated that idea. The Mark Fisher described by his other friends was interested in *popular* modernism, not elitist modernism (thus his arm's length relationship with the prep school pretense of Radiohead) and he wrote with the intention of reaching more than just some fucking Radiohead-obsessed academics in London. The Mark Fisher described by his other friends was actually, in his friends' words, so anti-elitist that he was even willing to tolerate faulty thinking (as you've ascribed to me) to a certain degree if the alternative was to isolate himself in an ivory tower and not engage with the less educated sectors of the public. Various people mentored by Fisher stated that he was incredibly giving of his time even to students who, frankly, were not particularly bright or were intellectually or politically deluded. You are not Fisher, and I'm not expecting you to show that kind of patience for my alleged ineptitude to understand his ideas, but your posts in this thread-- from your defenses of Land's racist trolling, to your elitism about who has the right to read Fisher's work, relate to it and respond to it-- just are not at all in tune with the way Fisher was described by any of his other friends or students. So I'm a little hesitant to embrace your personal interpretation of who he was. Why don't we both agree to let his work speak for itself from now on.
  13. laire

    Jungle

    This is a brilliant essay. It was, however, written in 2012, not in 2016, as you imply. If you notice the note on the final page, the essay was originally published in another place and then reprinted by that journal close to the time of Fisher's death. The original publication date was two years before Ghosts of My Life was even published, and a year before Nick Land even got a twitter account and started spewing Nrx shit. Whether the text has been altered in any way after the passage of half a decade I can't say, but it doesn't appear to have been. The note mentions nothing about the author making any changes, and there are no references to any post-2012 (or indeed post-2011) events. If Fisher continued to present lectures based on ideas in that essay without altering the text, that makes sense. Most writers don't make large changes in their already published work. After all, the 2011-12 vintage is so obvious from several factors in the text itself, that a 2016 rewrite would make it unrecognizable. For example, note the centrality of 2011 Occupy events to the discussion; the lack of engagement with the post-2012 rise of identity politics (addressed critically in his 2013 essay Exiting the Vampire's Castle) and how that plays into the capitalist celebrity culture that a "post capitalist desire" (and post-identitarian, in Fisher's view) will need to supercede in favor of a new collective identity; and finally note the lack of reference to the radical new political and technological realignments of 2015-6 and the rise of a pro-technological far right grassroots. The latter, of course, is connected to Nick Land, which would complicate this essay's use of Land as an avatar of capitalist flows (when, by 2016, he was much better known as an avatar of neoreactionary reterritorialization). As I said, it's incredibly doubtful that Fisher would have built a major argument around excerpts of Land at any point in recent years. At the start of 2012, nobody saw Nick Land as any kind of Nazi, he was just a cult weirdo writer whose old friends had just teamed up the previous year to have his book published, and ensure it (and even Land's blog, where he talked at the time about "urban futures" in China) received favorable notices from The Wire, Quietus, Dazed and such. But, building on his new momentum, by the end of 2012, Land had begun his flirtation with "Dark Enlightenment" aka neo-fascism, and his social media presence shifted in tune with his newly-revealed ideology (even that Wire-recommended blog about the Shanghai cityscape shifted its theme to promulgate "human biodiversity" and eugenics theories). And this was my point in the initial post about Fisher's mixtape for the accelerationist conference, a point you've accidentally helped prove: Fisher lent his imprimatur to Land at a time in 2010-12 when no one else was paying much attention to him, and the moment Land got some wind in his sails, he used it to chart a course in 2012-present that would (perhaps intentionally) discredit any leftist form of accelerationism based on his work. That might account for why Fisher ended up putting off "Acid Communism" (you speculated that this essay might have been intended as a chapter) and finished the other book he'd been working on first, Ghosts of My Life, the darker more retrospective one with origins in the pre-2011, pre-revolutionary world of capitalist realism, not post-capitalism. Even if Land and his racist, classist tweets and blog entries may not have had any effect on Fisher's personal depression (as you claim to know, when it's not something anyone besides Fisher could really know, as he likely wouldn't have talked about it with his students) it certainly had an effect on his work and his legacy as a writer. The fact it became suddenly problematic to treat Land as a serious theorist seems to have pushed Fisher away from the optimistic accelerationist, post-capitalist vision he had been moving toward (in dialogue with Land's writings) in 2010-12, pushing him back (at least in published work) toward his much earlier, pre-Occupy, themes of "the slow cancellation of the future" and hauntological melancholia. Land is not solely to blame, obviously the world events of 2012-present also made 2010-12 style left-accelerationism more untenable. The problem with that "Year of Dreaming Dangerously" which inspired such optimism initially from Fisher, is that like 1968, 2011 ended up very dangerous to the left indeed. The new social alignments resulting from the incomplete or failed revolutions of 2011 were not empowering to the left as Fisher conceived it, since class ended up being de-emphasized in favor of other forms of identity, and the right came along to appropriate class conflict under an aegis of fascist nationalism. But as of 2012, this was not yet clear, and optimistic essays of that nature, even ones that cite Land as an inspiration, could be written. Unfortunately, Nick Land was not incidental to the failure of realizing those 2010-12 post-capitalist futures, he actively worked to prevent these futures and replace them with a neoreactionary one. On one level this is understandable. No one wants their ideas appropriated by their ideological opponents and used in a revolution that goes against their own beliefs. Even as a person with a repellent personal ideology, Nick Land may have deserved a certain respect that his former students didn't offer in this regard. What Fisher and company were attempting to do with Land up to 2012 was similar to what Derrida and his disciples had done with Heidegger, appropriating his revolutionary but reactionary thought for the left. But this was a strategic mistake, even if it seemed sound as theory. Unlike the Nazi Heidegger, who died in 1976 and did not live to see the leftist implications of the deconstruction project in the late '70s/80s/90s, the Nazi Land was very much alive in the 2010s, had plenty of platforms to share his reactionary ideas (thanks partly to the thoughtlessness of his former students in spreading his name around and normalizing it) and he was more and more eager to do so, the more his work (which had really always been reactionary) was publicly twisted into a justification for the leftist revolution Land absolutely did not want. If one believes in Land's concept of hyperstition, and Land surely does, then writing is an act that creates its own reality, or (as Land puts it, reversing the usual chronology of will-to-power) brings the future into the present to act on the present. By writing about leftist revolution, Mark Fisher was potentially actualizing a revolutionary act from the future. By being attached to that revolution, Land would be indirectly responsible as well. A hyperintelligent AI would recognize his involvement in leftist revolution. Land believed in actualizing a different future-- the only possible one in his view-- consisting of hypercapitalism and the "meltdown" of humans and our society and our planet as fuel for AI, in order to establish a hellish neoreactionary order. Land's own writing against the enlightenment, implicitly also against Fisher and left-accelerationism, has been a way to try to ensure that any AI that actualizes Land's "hyperstitions" will do so in a manner more consistent with Land's racist and classist beliefs. Land actually believes that any words shared on social media are part of this network of self-fulfilling prophecy known as hyperstition, so every word by Land in favor of ethnic cleansing or environmental destruction can be considered an act. He needs to be held accountable more-- not less-- than the normal Nazi would need to be. Fisher's conscience and perspective as a writer has meant a lot to me for a long time. Ghosts... is *almost* one of the best books I've read, and I still think it should be required reading for anyone on this forum who cares about music and politics. I feel like he was in an impossible position, trying to reconcile not only the wider societal inability to imagine a post capitalist future (collective depression) but also his *own* inability to imagine a future (his own depression), trying to reconcile that incapacity with the political necessity of imagining one. One of the phenomena he discusses-- his increasing jadedness with modern music-- may simply have been a natural consequence of aging and having "seen it all," and it became unwieldy when he politicized that particular phenomenon (which was certainly not felt by most of the youth of the 2010s, loving the new music of the era) as an objective problem with culture, but even there he was really drawing on Reynolds (also a very good writer, not saying otherwise), so... I do feel bad criticizing him, it's just that I was really, really, really feeling that book until it got into the bitter-old-man sections. My only other beef with him is that he thinks Janet Jackson sucks after Control and the Cure after Pornography. Ghosts is autobiographical, and to his credit, he never presented it as some objective treatise, it's a set of (sometimes only loosely linked) essays and one would never get the impression this is the voice of god speaking, it's someone who was raised in the world of the '70s and makes that very clear, while also offering needed criticisms of the ways the '70s were not an ideal age in all respects that we should want to turn back the clock to, but rather, recover the lost forward momentum. My issue is that-- as jungle music itself makes clear-- there has been a lot of *cultural* forward momentum since the '70s and even since the 2000s. At least, in pop music there has been (I think big screen cinema would be a better area to argue that "popular modernism" is largely dead). So any understanding of late capitalism's flaws that insists on saying late capitalist music is also flawed, is heading in the same direction as those sclerotic leftist academics at Warwick in the '90s, who were not only blind to contemporary culture's vibrancy, but consequently also turned off the more cultured youth from the left altogether, the way Fisher was turned off when he saw leftist academics dismissing his beloved jungle and post punk and avant pop, because after all, it was just some capitalist product right. Capitalist Realism spoke to me too (again, this should be required reading for anyone on this forum-- the sections about Cobain are highly relevant to the conundrum of '90s Radiohead) and I also read many many k-punk blog essays back in the day, one of which, Phonograph Blues-- one of the first times he started talking about hauntology, alongside Tricky, Robert Johnson, Caretaker and The Shining-- may have gone unnoticed by most people, but was the single most influential piece of music writing I've read, changing the way I conceived of so many things (not that Fisher should be blamed for any of my own flaws in thinking obvs). Seven years before he died, I shared that essay on another Radiohead message board. If you think it's worse than "haha mark killed himself" for someone to actually relate, hard, to some of his writing (and his deep depression in January 2017, also that) to the extent of trying to understand why he chose suicide, in a time of fascist ascendancy when surrounded by "friends" like Nick Land who actively and intentionally endorsed hate groups contributing to the impossibility of the socialist future he was working towards, a future whose absence he linked in his own writings with depression? I don't know what to tell you. It was insensitive to say anything about his death at all, I've apologized many times for that, I'm not sure how much more self criticism you want, or what good that would serve. However, when I raised other more thread-relevant subjects (e.g. the "hardcore continuum", which is directly related to jungle music) you didn't address that and instead you seemed to prefer talking about how much you love the self-described hyper-racist Nick Land and how he's supposedly just kidding when he bullies people of color all day. Idk man (and you are one, so fuck off with the "mansplain" shit), I write these sincere posts and you just shoot it down with insults and trolling and tell me to stay in my lane, when meanwhile you have stepped over into my lane and called me a "moron" because I "idealize suicide" (also known as being mentally ill myself, and not something that's YOUR lane bitch). You had nothing to say on Haider's essay, predictably, but it wasn't for you anyway, I posted this in case anyone stumbles on this page of the thread and wants to know what we are talking about. You will either already know or disagree with anything in this text, because it is not complacent about Land the way you are, but it isn't a personal attack on him, it engages with his ideas and also goes way beyond him to deal with the NRx scene he nurtured, so it's a very good introduction for people who haven't already encountered these debates. Fisher is not mentioned once in the text, nor is Hyperdub or Steve Goodman or even Kodwo Eshun, despite Haider being apparently a student of Eshun. People who respect these guys know better than to mention them alongside Land. I, too, made the mistake of doing so in this thread, which flows from my own depression and relating to Fisher's despair and stupidly trying to understand. I was never saying Land directly caused it though, just that it can't be easy when you are interested in equality and justice and you base an intellectual project on someone, and put your rep on the line for someone, who later reveals themselves to be working toward the exact opposite kind of world as you... especially it can't be easy if that world is in ascendancy, while yours seems to be crumbling. I am definitely looking forward to the reissue of Eshun's book as well. I have an illegal copy on my phone because it was out of print, but now I'll wait to buy the real one instead, like I paid for a new copy of Ghosts of My Life recently because I wanted to support Fisher's family. If you consider that kind of attitude the same as Nazi trolls celebrating his suicide... fuck you.
  14. laire

    Jungle

    Shuja Haider's (must-read) essay on Land, accelerationism, neoreaction and Singularity https://www.viewpointmag.com/2017/03/28/the-darkness-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-artificial-intelligence-and-neoreaction/
  15. laire

    Jungle

    You're presenting it as if everyone who cared about Fisher, personally or intellectually, needs to also love Land. This is wrong. You just happen to be friends with Land too, and now you're using Fisher, who can no longer speak for himself, to try to justify Land's shit. That's more disgusting than whatever you accuse me of doing in "romanticizing" Fisher. You are also trying to connect a label whose music I care about, a label that is very visionary and progressive in its ideology. with this fascist project. Furthermore, the label has a number of female artists and artists from black and brown demographic groups demonized by Land, and artists expressing ideological perspectives radically opposed to Land, who has called for the revocation of women's rights and a return to overt medieval style patriarchy, in addition to advocating for the removal of black and brown people from majority white societies. Hyperdub even came out officially as a company against Brexit before the vote, whereas Nick Land was pro-Brexit, and his ideology is explicitly based on the project of breaking up political entities like the EU and Britain itself, to hasten the creation of fascist dictatorships and "hyper-racist" city-states where each "lower" race and class group would be legally isolated with its own kind. If Fisher and Hyperdub artists' legacy was actually the fascist one you are trying to make it into, linked inseparably with racist and classist writings, then you are essentially demanding antifascist activists to target Hyperdub and even to target mourners of Mark Fisher, since apparently he = Land. In reality, the people who attacked mourners of Fisher were wrong. Fisher was nothing like Land. They may have talked, but as you said, they disputed bitterly. Now, their followers continue these arguments. Actual friends of Fisher are not using his name to praise Nick Land. Even Fisher himself, who can be excused for having difficulties in distancing himself from the mentor who taught him for years, did not praise Land the way you are doing. Fisher said Land's writing was way off base, relying on a misreading of Deleuze and Guattari, even before Land's post-2012 neoreactionary turn, which Fisher doesn't even engage with because it's genocidal hogwash. Fisher found Land's influence to be powerful insofar as he felt that the left needed to oppose virtually everything Land believed, and he wanted Land to continue being allowed to speak in order that his ideas could inspire what Fisher hoped would be vibrant, fervent opposition. Your complacent attitude of reverence for Land is completely the opposite of Fisher. Just because Fisher was taught by Land, just because Kodwo Eshun and Steve Goodman were taught by Land, just because they may not have believed he should be silenced completely (not out of agreement, but out of the desire to spur the left to get out of its own complacency by responding to Land's shit), does not mean they are part of whatever neoreactionary cult Land is building now, it doesn't even mean they are his friends. Fisher is loved exactly for moving so far beyond his youthful admiration of this far right troll, intellectually and politically. I read obits by people who were much closer friends of his than you could possibly have been, who don't give Land the time of day. If Fisher's actual closest friends had wanted his legacy linked with Nick Land, they would have said so. If Fisher had wanted his work linked with Land, he would have kept talking about him, which he largely stopped doing in recent years (in published work) when Land started immigrant bashing on twitter. Meanwhile, you befriended Land at that same time.
  16. laire

    Jungle

    So you're saying a fascist with no actual knowledge of either technology, science or Chinese culture invented "sinofuturism"? ok... Like seriously Wong Kar-wai invented all that before Land even set foot in Asia.
  17. laire

    Jungle

    I'm just going to stop wasting time debating fascist trolls. The point is for you to make everyone feel more suicidal, then you "win."
  18. laire

    Jungle

    Now you're equating Anna Greenspan and Nick Land?? Didn't you make the point that I shouldn't lump them together and tar her with the same brush? They wrote some things together, but mostly published separately. I'm more interested in reading Greenspan's work, especially as she isn't talking out of her ass on the subject of China, unlike Land, who doesn't hold any particular authority or degrees on the subject. He wrote a tourist guide to Shanghai, while Greenspan wrote a rigorous academic text about modern Chinese architecture. However important her work is in the area, I still doubt either of their work, especially Land's, was necessary to Fatima Al Qadiri, who came up with the concept of her own album Asiatisch in 2014. She doesn't even follow Land or Greenspan, and you're really on a slippery slope in giving them indirect credit for Al Qadiri's ideas just because Steve Goodman knows both them and her. Fatima Al Qadiri: I didn’t even know the term 'sinogrime' until after the record was finished. 'Sinogrime' as a word didn’t exist to me while I was making the record. But one of my favourite grime tracks is Preditah’s 'The Big Wok' - it came out on the Solitaire EP in 2011. I think that was the most influential track leading up to this record. After the record was finished, my best friend, who’s in Future Brown, J-Cush, sent me this Kode9 mix called 'Sino Grime Mix'. And I was like, 'oh, that’s what it’s called.' I had never heard that word before. Kode9/Steve Goodman is the label head, he is not the auteur of the albums made by Fatima Al Qadiri. According to Al Qadiri's interviews, the album initially developed from an experience of watching racist Disney cartoons and noting the way cultural fetishism is linked with dehumanizing the "other." Of course, she also had personal experience... http://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/19759/1/fatima-al-qadiris-chinese-fantasy Nick Land's only defense against being called racist is that he fetishizes Chinese people, so he isn't opposed to ALL people of color. Not exactly compatible with Al Qadiri's perspective. As for Ikonika, her real name is Sara Chen. And yes, I know that's her married name, but she's been with him (another beatmaker) for many years. She herself is Egyptian/Filipina. She doesn't need to rely on a fucking white supremacist travel writer if she wants to conceive of a Chinese future.
  19. laire

    Jungle

    You and I can have differing ideas about Fisher's writing, and your personal closeness to him doesn't mean your ideas are inherently correct (this was my point in bringing up Radiohead-- an area where my own views and Fisher's actually seem to align more than his and yours). You absolutely know what you're talking about with regard to your personal acquaintance with Fisher, which I've already acknowledged. I had not realized how close you were, beyond just being one of his many, many students, and I apologize for any hurt caused by "gossip" about potential reasons for his suicide, which I can only note is coming from my own suicidal thoughts and relating to and trying to understand others who go through such struggles. I do consider suicide one of the bravest possible courses of action to put one's beliefs in practice when faced with impossible circumstances. I think it does define a person, positively, that they chose this. You may disagree with that as well, but my point is that I respect him if he needed to make that choice. If I knew him I'm sure I would be angry and regard the loss differently. I might blame people like Land, who treat ideas as a game and don't take the implications seriously, for making such choices necessary. Land bullied Fisher intellectually through the years, and he didn't even acknowledge his passing. In fact his only response was to say more racist stuff on twitter tha next day. Regardless of Land's politics or whether he is a genius or not (not.), he's a cruel human being. He treats anyone who doesn't worship him, even former friends, with contempt. Fisher's family was open in saying it was a suicide, and Fisher also wrote a lot on the subject of suicide and depression and how it's linked with political hopelessness, which is exemplified by the rise of far right twitter accounts like Land's, is it not? So I don't feel it is really disrespectful to talk about the way Land's shit could be linked to Fisher's passing, but if you think it is inappropriate, I offered to delete that post, except that you didn't want me to. (If you left your response to the "gossip," there'd be no point deleting the original post. It would just draw more interest.) With regard to the accusation of "mansplaining," aren't you a man? And this not only implies that I am being condescending on the basis of your gender, it also implies that you see microagressions with regard to gender as a big issue. I'm not even sure the latter is true, given your dismissals of the twitter left. If you don't think women are entitled to fight back when they are mansplained to, why should your own gender sensitivities be humored? https://shutdownld50.tumblr.com/post/158928600961/no-platform-for-land-on-nick-lands-racist The people who wrote it are personally acquainted with Land and his ideas, having studied and worked in the same circles with him, as you do. They have read him and "met" him (online at least, as you have) and they drew very different conclusions from you. Land wasn't barred from that university he used to teach at because of some anonymous tumblr or twitter mob, either. It was because a lot of Fisher and Eshun's students and associates and readers (who are still the people on the left most likely to even be aware of Land) had just about enough of Land's shit, which was especially intolerable with Fisher's passing. This "Shut Down" petition was probably started by people you know, people who don't have the same tolerance as you for fascist "trolling" when it's increasingly indistinguishable (and has really ALWAYS been) from fascist political/paramilitary (aka terrorist) incitement. So were you just "trolling" back then, like you say Land is doing? Otherwise I don't get how you abdicate responsibility for your past. You regret it became a hellthread, but do you regret your own contributions to making it one? That's a non-apology apology. I have apologized for many things I've said on this board and I will do so again if necessary. I take responsibility for my actions. You are still displacing responsibility on others. The point was not about "Beyonce hate." You never indulged in that, nor would it matter if you hate Beyonce or don't hate Beyonce. Who cares. What you did was endorse a mob mentality that was saying issues of white supremacy are always non-issues in the way music is critically received. You knew better, you said later, but you still sided with the mob. That had an effect of increasing the distrust and paranoia throughout the board, alongside what was going on in CE (I almost called it /pol/...) which iirc neither of us were much involved in. But it wasn't just hashes' Nick Land-lite antics in CE that destroyed the social fabric of the board. He did a lot of damage, but we both had a role in doing that, too, stridently arguing about race and aesthetics in a way that incited a racist backlash and made the board (more) uncomfortable for POCs. Your side met with less resistance on a largely white forum, but I wouldn't be so sure that your side, the one who started that whole trend of MT racial arguments by arguing institutional racism wasn't a thing that existed, did less damage. If I was not on a board where a mob, led by you, had already bullied and silenced me for merely noting that institutional racism in the reception of popular art is in fact, sometimes a thing, I would not have been so careless in making the posts I made later on re: La La/Moonlight, where I was accidentally hurtful toward some white board members (and their friends who were not white) because I falsely assumed their own perspective was similarly sheltered as your own, i.e. essentially that they saw white supremacy as a non issue. In reality, unlike you, those people were conscientious, thoughtful and very serious about challenging the hyper-racist worldview rising in the world today, so serious that these online arguments really hurt them. You, on the other hand, engaged in arguments for the fun of it, with no commitment. I feel really bad that I hurt those people, but knowing that a Nick Land stan troll was the one pooh-poohing my arguments a few months before that at least gives me some understanding in retrospect of why I, too, started acting trollish. When you're a bully, and you follow bullies, you spread bullying tactics to your opponents as well, because there's no other way to respond to a bully, if you lie down they'll just kill you and laugh. I don't take kindly to bullies and I've been bullied since I was a kid, so I apologize to this board that I became one accidentally, but I do not apologize to you, who knew better but still decided to go with the bullying flow of GRT (ironically you now claim to not care about Radiohead either way-- which was my own perspective at the time). No, it isn't. But some people, black people for example (or depressed people even), may not always have that luxury of choosing what hill they die on. We (speaking for depressed ppl now) can't choose not to care or take things to heart, the way you can. We can't just be cool with some dude on twitter dehumanizing immigrants because like, he has a lot of degrees and uses fancy words. Saying you won't die on a certain hill is admitting you don't actually care. But maybe it's life or death to someone else. They didn't ask for it to be, but it is. If musical work by black people (not just or even mostly Beyonce) is being *automatically* seen as inferior to that by white people, that's not just a nice little argument about taste, if one is black. The idea that there was no privilege wrapped up in the way Radiohead's music-- prior to the critical realignments of the 2010s-- was received, as compared with their nonwhite contemporaries, is an idea that has been rejected even by the members of Radiohead themselves (see Ed's comments on the RNRHOF). It was odd that you were so invested in defending that idea, but it makes sense now that you turn out to be a friend of Nick Land. The left does need to be aware of how the right operates. In philosophy, the left should certainly not avoid studying thinkers with right wing associations. But to say you admire a self styled "hyper-racist" political leader on a personal level... just why? Isn't Bataille the one who was into eye-rape? You absolutely can. Ikonika and Fatima Al Qadiri and Cooly G isn't sitting around reading Land's racist tweets for musical inspiration. Hyperdub and Kode9 don't follow Land. It amazes me that someone can be as educated as you are and say something this dumb. Even if it were true, would it matter? Actions and words speak louder than thoughts, which no one can ever really know.
  20. laire

    Jungle

    Your post is almost enough to make me delete my account, but your close online friendship with Land, to which you have every right, is, I think, limiting your own ability to think straight, much as you believe my mind has been addled by lack of masters degrees, stupidity or whatever. It turns out Land isn't someone you "know" apart from the twitter account that you admit is mostly used to bully immigrants. You're not black, correct? I don't tell black people they should or shouldn't support whatever because of their race, not sure where you get that impression. I'm a fan of Azealia Banks and while I unfollowed Ye's twitter because I don't care to read maga propaganda, I still like his music. I've never thought you were black. You might have had a lot more nuanced perspective in those AMSP threads if you were, rather than siding with jerks who said, a priori of even hearing AMSP, that it was sure to be more of a masterpiece than anything created by black pop musicians. If you want to bring race info it, I think as a white person, your friendship with a white nationalist twitter activist says something disreputable about your character. Nick Land is not your dad. You chose him. He's not even the only intellectual "dad" you could've chosen. You were surrounded by great people like Fisher and Eshun, but Land was still a "dad" you sought out. Why? He's a sweet, sweet man I'm sure. But he's not your dad. He's got many followers all over the world. His words are taken seriously. What the fuck is he trying to bring into being, and why do you want to be part of that journey? Land and those like him are also responsible for the twitter left that you hate so much. Go back to 2012 and the twitter left wasn't doing anything out of line, but Land was endorsing the view slavery was good. As the right kept getting more and more extreme (which you claim is just insincere trolling, but has an actual effect on people, because most aren't as clever as you and can't tell the difference), of course the left would respond in kind. You may be a better prose stylist and even a better thinker than me, but you are not Mark Fisher any more than I am. Looking through Mark Fisher's published work since the early 2000s (I harp on Ghosts... because he got three books published, of which that was one), I don't see anything that defends Nick Land in the way you have done. I see nuanced engagements with Land's thought. I would not agree with anyone who was trying to tar Fisher as a Nazi because of the fact he has *read* Nick Land but if Fisher had gone as far as you do in publicly praising Land almost without reservation, he would have deserved some harsh responses. The fact that you admire Radiohead and love A Moon Shaped Pool while you speculate Fisher would hate that album, shows that your own ideas about culture, aesthetics their relation to political liberation are quite different from his own. I don't like AMSP much, and if you recall, we had some arguments in 2016 about that. While I have issues with Reynolds and Fisher's assessment that 2010s pop culture in general is defined by a suffocating retromania, rock music culture is certainly defined by that, and AMSP is an illustration of their thesis about the inability to imagine a future. It sounds like 45 years ago, which is the antithesis of what "popular modernism" would be. Whether TKOL came closer to embodying popular modernism than any other Radiohead album, or whether it just had sweeter melodies and rhythms and lyrical bits and pieces that spoke to Fisher, I don't know. He made no great claims for it, nor did he choose to review it in relation to "hauntology" (although whoever assigned him the review may have hoped for that, given the aesthetics of TKOL) but he liked it. Given the thoughtless dismissal of TKOL by you and the majority of Radiohead fans, I'm grateful that their work was appreciated by critics like Fisher and Christgau, who both had a negative view (justified in my opinion) of the band's past work. It's a shame that Radiohead's most vocal online fans were so backward looking and pressured them into the retromanic retrenchment of AMSP. I think Fisher is (present tense cause I'm talking about his work) a great writer because of his humility. He writes with authority and doesn't apologize for his controversial takes, but he's very honest as well, and willing to admit when he was wrong. I'm definitely going to read whatever they publish of his remaining works, and I still have to read The Weird and the Eerie as well. I am not a good writer but I would like to think I can also admit when I am wrong. I would like to see the same from you.
  21. What are your top videos of the 2010s? I still can't think of a better one than The Internet's Girl.
  22. laire

    City Pop

    I can't believe you returned and now someone besides some hatsune miku roko basilisks will be reading my ignorant posts. If you watch just one video, I'm curious as to your and everyone's thoughts on Mushroom Dance. Faye Wong explored Cocteau Twins influences in the mid '90s at a time when she was one of Hong Kong's biggest pop stars but Akina Nakamori, ten years earlier than that, was the second biggest pop star in the second biggest music market on earth and she created an album that sounds like stuff that hadn't even been made yet by the Cocteau Twins, who were still very underground at the time.
×
×
  • Create New...