Could anyone point me to some edgelord thinkers/philosophers/systems

I'm interested in seeing something like this too, the implied contradictions seem like a good laugh.

>>9808037
OP here, I'll add to the question that I'm also interested in thinkers that might be proponents of violence, sexual degeneracy, and general immorality/amorality to achieve this 'collapse of humanity'.
Now, I'm not talking about thought traditions that might be permissive of such acts, but specifically see them as an means to an end.

>>9808037
Varg Vikernes
Ted Kaczynski
Pentti Linkola

does anyone have the image where someone asks what mccornbread meant by 'autistic dark' and anon explains that he was reffering to shadow the hedgehog who is indeed a dark and disturbing character?

File: 027.jpg (39KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x512px

>>9808122

>>9808037
Ted Kaczynski is a good recommendation.

I'd add Nick Land, George Bataille, Thomas Ligotti, Jean Baudrillard.

This isn't to imply these are compatible thinkers, they disagree on lots of things.

>>9808122
bump

>>9808215
>Ted Kaczynski
Only if you read the essay "Why the technological system will destroy itself".
Try philosopher John Gray for bleak perspectives on human nature.

I personally would like a more scientific approach to them. I think that greed is not human nature but possibly a self-organising property of complex societies.

Truthbomb: Malthus was the real Social Darwinist who's policies influenced British policies against the Irish and Indians resulting in starvation, whereas Herbert Spencer, who coined the term survival of the fittest, was a liberal and against colonialism - though I have yet to finish him this is what secondary sources told me.

On /his/ there was a picture with text about a group of Russian nihilists who sought to bring an apocalypse, I had it saved but it is on another device
Tribalist Jack Donovan is also sympathetic of societal collapse, so we can live in gangs again and start over

>>9809456
Post it here when you can.
plz
Maybe they're Dugin-influenced?

Evola

>>9809514
>Maybe they're Dugin-influenced?
Not at all, since the Russian nihlists are from the past. I might be mistaken but I think it is from before the Russian civil-war or around that time.

I suggest looking up history books about religious movements, I think John Gray discussed one apocalyptic cult, and there are probably more such cases

That man's name?
Nick Land

I came up with new ideology overnight, I call "bacchanalianism" because it sounds retarded, basically the idea is we just value interesting narratives, subjectivity and maximum freedom, while opposing the "postmodern condition" of alienation, boredom and simulated experiences.

Therefore embrace any social or political project that will cause uncontrolled social change to promote a trend towards a breakdown of order and norms (including "transgressive" ones like sjw-ism), rioting, undermining property etc. Pretty much caricature anarchism. Break everything, have fun rebuilding in the ruins, rinse and repeat. No vision of progress, just constant change.

Stability and security are vices, unconstrained experimentation and contrarian creativity are virtues. Harmony is more beautiful when it is spontaneous. Purge your fear and make yourself a locus of wild, blossoming vitality!

>>9809562
Land doesn't want civilization to collapse, but he doesn't consider human extinction too bad so long as we leave capital behind, chugging on without us.

>>9809581
for what purpose

I approve all of the above except Evola, & add Marquis de Sade

>>9808037
Ayn Rand is pretty edge tier and wrote a book where the protagonists deliberately hasten society's collapse (but only so it could be rebuilt better, not sure if that's what you're looking for).

Post your face when "edginess" is a meaningless criticism used by people that can't justify their cowardice

NOTHING PERSONNEL KID

There is also a group of people who think that all biological life is suffering, they have a name but can't remember it, maybe they have some public thinkers behind them I don't know
The one I saw talked about this wanted all biological life to be exterminated

>>9808037
Look up the concept of "antinatalism" and you'll probably find some of what you're looking for.

There is also a camp called the "voluntary human extinction movement" which is more extreme. He ultimately rejects it but it's brought up in the essay "Should this be the last generation?" by Peter Singer.

>>9809674
What you're talking about sounds like antinatalism. Basically the argument in that system is that all life suffers and therefore it is unethical to create life, since you are imposing suffering on the being you created. It's usually limited to humans but in theory there is no reasoning that such people couldn't extend the idea to animals as well.

The problem with this is usually that this logic does not take the converse into account. That is, if life will experience joy, are you obligated to create it so it can experience that joy? On a different tack, would you refuse to punish a misbehaving child because that punishment would cause pain? Typically, it's worthwhile to cause some pain in the short term in order to guide the child to the true joy in the long term. Similarly it is regrettable but necessary for created life to experience pain in the interests of creating a future where there is more joy.

>>9809611
>Better
>Objectivist world

>>9808037
Might is RIght.

>>9810481
>antinatalism
Yes but there was another word containing the letter f or v, the word indicating that all biological life is suffering.
And note I'm not advocating any of it, though I do think that due to competition nature is inheritely oppressive, and that this limits our wellbeing. We should not become Darwinist fatalists however and continue to pursue wellbeing - but - it will always be constrained.

Also besides competition cooperation plays a huge role in nature as well, though that doesn't necessarily rule out oppression - mitochondria are basically biological slaves to their human overlord.

>>9810481
Pleasures are only good/necessary insofar as they make already-existent persons' lives tolerable, justifying procreation by a possible utopia or whatever is putting the cart in front of the horse. You cannot have a child for the sake of the child itself and having a joyful future is only important if there are sentient beings, which there wouldn't be if people weren't selfish assholes.

archeofuturism

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-27 at 1.51.57 PM.png (276KB, 448x692px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 448x692px

This is better than all the usual recommendations

File: ac3c0614ab010249ea49656bae6ff2f649d2c8145eb5db2c463ca476b3110a64.png (420KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 607x608px

>>9808083

>Varg Vikernes
>Philosopher

lmao

Who's the edgiest philosopher of all time?

>>9813491
Thanks for being original
>>9813471
I don't see how rightwing thinkers like this one or this >>9809520 one advocate collapse
Jack Donovan actually did in some comment section
Is this unnecessarily shilling of rightwingers?

>>9808122
anyone?

File: NickLandBird.png (475KB, 680x474px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 680x474px

Did someone call me because they are trying to end civilisation as we know it?