The Silicon Ideology - a critique of the Far Right emerging within the Silicon Valley

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Has anyone else read this? It is an interesting critique, I'd like to see the thoughts of other posters.

https://archive.org/details/the-silicon-ideology

[Rafiq]

I posted it on my blog, to spread awareness about it. I gather you found it from that one article on fusion? This is how I found it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I posted it on my blog, to spread awareness about it. I gather you found it from that one article on fusion? This is how I found it.

Yep ... I searched the internet to do some research on the alt-right and the Fusion article popped up.

[Exterminatus]

I've read it thanks to Rafiq's blog and i also read some rebuttals from alt-righters (it was terrible, it's like we don't speak common language).

[Rafiq]

I've read it thanks to Rafiq's blog and i also read some rebuttals from alt-righters (it was terrible, it's like we don't speak common language).

What are they rebuking? That the subtitles of their views are unfairly being represented?

The enemies of our tradition, are pathetic. They tell themselves tehy are 'rebuking' us because we represent them in ways that differ from how they see themselves. We ascribe to them that which they do not ascribe to themselves. But that is the whole point: We are not going to stop at how they choose to see themselves, but the wider implications of this.

I should like to make something very clear for all users in general with regard to the 'alt-right' and the 'dark enlightenment'. We should not be intimidated by them per se. The threat is not them and all the means by which they identify themselves. While we should consider them our enemies, we should despise them, as tangible individuals responsible for their filth, this filth is irreducible to them. It is not even the ideas in and of themselves which are the threat. It is their context, it is that these ideas correctly approximate a general orientation immanent even to conventional, ordinary thinking. That is why it is a threat. Their ideas by the standard of conventional thinking are perfectly reasonable ones. They are not the intruders, WE must be the intruders who shake the foundations of 'natural', 'common sense'. We must introduce madness where before there was sanity. The present mode of sanity's logical conclusion is this fascism. We must be the insane ones.

It was said before that if one doesn't talk critically of capitalism, they should keep quiet of fascism. Today, if one isn't willing to mow over, ruthlessly, every and all sacreds, if one isn't able to engage in ruthless criticism to the point where it is indeed scary, where the margins of 'sanity' and 'madness' close so far that one begins to fear they are going insane, one should be quiet about the neo-Fascism. We can no longer be at peace. This threat is real, and it is growing. It gains prominence in Silicon valley and among powerful individuals not because of a preordained particular interest which makes this an elaborate conspiracy, these ideas come off to those in power as very reasonable, common sense ideas that appeal to their otherwise assumed 'politically correct' sensibilities. Here is where we should start thinking like a 'conspiracy theroist': Just imagine individuals like the Eric Schmidt, even Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, imagine the kind of ideas and views they harbor, but do not disclose because they do not want to create scandal. We already know that the open adherents of this filth include Peter Thiel, who sits on the board of facebook, and help founded paypal with musk, who is active in the valley and so on. Think about the kind of world view these individuals have, which they aren't yet willing to admit for fear of politically correct backlash.

Something fishy has indeed been going on. I simply cannot see it any other way and the signs are everywhere, from Google's idea of a 'private country', the implications of the privatization of space, and so on. How could these individuals not have a fundamentally refined anti-democratic world view? If you were in a private room with the CEO of google, and you asked him "What are your views on democracy", if he trusted you what do you think he'd say, just out of a spontaneous impulse?

We should all be keen on remembering that it is not like we live in a normal, liberal society, and that these Fascists from the outside are a threat. The truth which many are reluctant to accept is that 'common sense' philistinism, or more generally conventional thinking, makes these ideas 'reasonable', not even ridiculous but ultimately a logical conclusion of a way of thinking that is inherent to the existing order. Your average 'progressive liberal', and I should add your average Leftist in general is not aware of the fact that the ideas of the neo-Fascism are merely logical conclusions of premises that are a given for the existing order of things. The key to this neo-Fascism is in conventional thinking. And it permeates to all layers of society, most especially the working class. The very conventional idea of "People are too stupid to rule themselves", and whatever, is literally just a 'common sense' sentiment most people have.

One cannot simply oppose the 'alt-right' as a 'normal guy'. I've seen Leftists try and do this, make pretense to 'common sense' as their weapon. But they fail, and it is clear they fail. This neo-Fascism really is push come shove. We cannot cling on to the old way of thinking which gave rise to it. We must fundamentally accept that something in the trajectory course of modernity, owing to a host of factors, has lead t other current betrayal of the enlightenment and the decline of modernism in capitalism. You do not only see this with the neo-Fascists but even with Leftists: Tell me, what characterizes leftism in the 21st century if not a profound distrust and resentment toward modernity and enlightenment? Ecologism, anti-modern identity-politics, seeking a return to an organic order, and so on. It is not they from the outside which is the primary threat, it is something immanent.

We Marxists demand of the individual harsh self-discipline in order to understand Marxism. But the real danger of the neo-Fascism is that individuals simply 'ride the wave', its ideas appeal to their already-made sentiments. There is no conspiracy here. The founder of the 'intellectual' arm of this neo-Fascism, Curtis Yarvin, did not adopt the ideas he did owing to any past particular loyalties and so on. Yarvin is even half-Jewish, which makes that notion all the more ridiculous. The other prominent thinker, Nick Land, is a former-Marxist. What led them to the ideas they had was that they simply took to its logical conclusion the pre-existing ideas that lurk behind every 'progressive liberal', unfilitered by the pressure of the 'political correctness'.

This is why we have to be very distrustful towards conventional anti-racism, anti-sexism, and even university discourse. We should adopt what the neo_Fascists wrongfully accuse this discourse of being, as a kind of extension of French revoutionary terror. We should embrace that, but the sad truth is that what is immanent to university discourse is also an anit-enlightenment and anti-modern discourse. Conventional anti-sexism and anti-racism is ingenuine because it fails to properly address why one ought to be opposed to racism, what that means, and so on. Eventually we will have a politically correct racism and sexism, which is not vugar, which is perfectly 'polite' and 'nice', which simply 'innocently' purports to point out that there is 'differences of 'intelligence' between the races', more essentialism with regard to different sexes, and so on.

We need a materialist revolution that completely turns on its head our present reservations, implicit ones, about man himself. I have tried to contribute to this with my post 'Our Materialism'.

[wehbolno]

We should all be keen on remembering that it is not like we live in a normal, liberal society, and that these Fascists from the outside are a threat. The truth which many are reluctant to accept is that 'common sense' philistinism, or more generally conventional thinking, makes these ideas 'reasonable', not even ridiculous but ultimately a logical conclusion of a way of thinking that is inherent to the existing order. Your average 'progressive liberal', and I should add your average Leftist in general is not aware of the fact that the ideas of the neo-Fascism are merely logical conclusions of premises that are a given for the existing order of things. The key to this neo-Fascism is in conventional thinking. And it permeates to all layers of society, most especially the working class. The very conventional idea of "People are too stupid to rule themselves", and whatever, is literally just a 'common sense' sentiment most people have.

I find this striking. I seem to meet more and more conspiracy theorists of various colours these days. What marks them all is their insistence that there is some element, some parasite or aberration in society, manipulating events etc., without which society would assume (or has it always been marked?) it's 'organic', 'natural' state, (whether it's Alex Jones' '1776 frontier capitalism' or even some kind of leftist ecological version of 'humanity in balance with nature'). Where are the calls for Kim Stanley Robinson-style terraforming today?! You're right, these persuasions are the common-sensical thinking today, and these people seem like the unwitting harbingers of the 'capitalism with Asian values' as Zizek says, which threatens us today, with their weird perceived psuedo-revolt against the cultural marxist cathedral they see as democracy today.