The tweets you've posted are very obviously irony; he's basically mocking one of the tropes related to accelerationism, which is the misconception that all acce

The tweets you've posted are very obviously irony; he's basically mocking one of the tropes related to accelerationism, which is the misconception that all accelerationists are NRx/alt-right white suprematists. The reality is a bit more complicated than that, there is both a left-wing and a right-wing version of it (if you want a wikipedia article on it here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism). From glancing some of the articles from the author, he's more into the former camp than the latter, and really has no interest in NRx politics. You can criticize all you want about accelerationism itself though - but now that's where you're going knee-deep into the territory of philosophy, and where you really need to fight against Land's vicious assaults on Western modernism. Nick Land is quite a controversial figure, but you have to understand that he was the leader of one of the strangest leftist post-modern philosopher groups called the CCRU, which was strongly influenced by Deleuze & Guattari's works along with futurism, sci-fi, cyberpunk, etc. . But he also did too many drugs along the away and broke himself - and after that breakdown is when he kinda changed 180 degrees and went full on with the neo-reactionary movement. He even said that he doesn't want to associate himself with his past CCRU works anymore. (You can read more about him in http://divus.cc/london/en/article/nick-land-ein-experiment-im-inhumanismus. http://divus.cc/london/en/article/nick-land-ein-experiment-i...) Clearly the author is interested in the former half of Land's works, seeing that he is running online lectures about the philosophy from the CCRU and not the NRx.