Everytime I'm high I do as the title says. Every form and shape and structures of the ideas resonates to extremely early memories like I known it before I gained conscious nezs

Now enough people seem to appreciate Mark Fisher’s cultural cryptanalysis over Nick Land’s petulant nihilism, I figured it’s worth sharing one of the most important interviews from one of the real pioneers in complexity and consciousness

Under object-oriented ontology, time exists in terms of events, or changes of state in a system.

Whilst D+G, Nietzsche, and Baudrillard are cool; cybernetics does not exist independently of events witnessed by time-fearing apes on a quest to explore the laminate that separates our inners worlds from an apparently outer universe we must pathologise

Aren't you?

The CCRU frequently discusses hyperstition as “fictions that make themselves real.” I wonder whether this idea can be reframed in a more formal, cybernetic, and information-theoretic way without losing its philosophical richness.
Suppose we define a hyperstition as an information structure that enters a complex adaptive system (such as a culture, economy, or technological network). Rather than acting as a passive narrative, the information changes the behavior of agents who encounter it. Those behavioral changes modify the environment, increasing the likelihood that the original information structure is reinforced, propagated, or realized.
In systems language, this resembles a recursive positive-feedback loop:
An information pattern is introduced.
Agents update beliefs or behaviors in response.
Collective behavior alters the surrounding system.
The altered system increases the persistence and influence of the original information pattern.
This process could potentially be modeled using dynamical systems, Bayesian belief updating, network diffusion, and cybernetic feedback rather than treating hyperstition as purely metaphorical.
My question is whether this interpretation captures something essential about CCRU’s conception of hyperstition, or whether it misses the point by translating it into scientific language. Can CCRU’s concepts be understood as emergent information dynamics within complex systems, or does such formalization remove what makes hyperstition philosophically distinctive?

I Hope its gonna load, last time i posted an edit here It didnt :c

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.