>>344111
>too many difficult words very hard
Yes, I understand. If one looks at the hard-core thinkers of the movement, one finds terminology that is as technical as it is cryptic (sometimes deliberately cryptic to provoke self-marginalization). There are also those who merge essay writing with fiction, that is, they argue using fictional analogies (like Descartes speaking of the evil genius or Alcubierre theorizing about quasi-luminous journeys).
But there are certain generalizations:
>Capitalism does not succumb to its contradictions (disruption, extreme impoverishment, structural inequality), but rather feeds on them (it generates development and innovation, the welfare state, and social justice by reaction).
>Capitalism must be pushed to its limits by developing the technology of the means of production.
>Technoscience generates new transhumanist or posthumanist potentials through biotechnology and cybernetics.
>Economic changes bring with them cultural changes and vice versa (public policies and private ideological projects - political agendas - lead to technoscience, favoring some lines of research over others).
>>344114
>What are some of the advantages of this ideology and tye way of life it promotes
Neoreaction dialectically transcends the cultural war between progressives and classical conservatives. It is hyper-individualistic, but understands that Tradition cannot survive Modernity without being modified. In this, it surpasses classical conservatives, who, in a sense, are like hobbits fighting an invincible Sauron. It does not advocate anti-globalist nationalism, but rather relative national sovereignty (globalization is an irreversible phenomenon), so what must be produced at home will be produced at home. But what must be brought in from outside will be brought in from outside (it exchanges patriotic defense for realpolitik).
At the same time, it devastates the identity issue; the foundations of transhumanism change the paradigm. It's not about gender or sexual life (this is a thing of the past. Just as the identity struggle eclipsed the class struggle, the transhumanist-posthumanist struggle is on its way to eclipsing the identity struggle), but about vital modifications and physical and mental improvement (for example, cryopreserving your sperm to have children after death; following exercises, diets, and taking supplements and medications that extend life; the possibility of driving the development of CRISPR to modify genes that produce or accelerate aging or various diseases).
The wealthy classes will be the first to reap the benefits, but it's debatable whether there can be no intervention. In the accelerationist world, the socioeconomic dispute will be between the free market (private initiative) or dirigisme (public-private initiative). Neo-Keynes vs. Neo-Hayek.
So its benefit lies in its syntactical capacity. What's the point of clinging to ideologies that are dying because they can't adapt to the global economy or the technological disruption of the means of production?
https://youtu.be/bgaN6YI37sg
Bernd
2025-07-03 16:43:38 ⋅ 1w
No. 344068
Bernd
2025-07-09 17:08:21 ⋅ 1d
No. 344470
