For your utter delight and mine.
- This is readily available: https://beff.substack.com/p/notes-on-eacc-principles-and-tenets
- This appears to be the first document: https://web.archive.org/web/20220602164803/https://swarthy.substack.com/p/effective-accelerationism-eacc?s=r
The original genesis appears to have been these guys rambling on Twitter shortly before one of them posted the first essay.
cheers to @earthquake@lemm.ee and @blakestacey for finding these
this is a worse understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics than creationists.
they don't name Nick Land as their origin, but do generally credit him as the creator of accelerationism, and also their ideas on the inevitability of techno-capitalism are straight out of "The Dark Enlightenment" by Land.
so firstly, I blame El Sandifer for speaking this fucking neutron star of stupidity into existence, and secondly myself for understanding most of this orchestra of neoreactionary dog whistles.
thirdly, these fuckers all talk like Sephiroth.
I feel like I should write it up to explain the AI grifter e/acc thing, but also it's hard to explain this nonsense without a #include of Neoreaction A Basilisk and I'm not sure the centrist finance types of my readership have that much patience, nor that I do.
EDIT: urgh. Vitalik Buterin is philosophising again. d/acc. https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/11/27/techno_optimism.html "Special thanks to" several rationalists
are the left/right flavours distinct because one wants to accelerate capitalism to its end and the other wants to accelerate it to its growth?
if leftists say "accelerationism" as a positive that's what they mean, yes
in theory yes, but my understanding derived from experience is that if leftists say "accelerationism" it's safe to assume they're one flavour or another of cryptofascist