a) Holocaust aka the burned offering of many by few who suggest -isms to tempt others to follow towards outcome aka towards death of life.
Works like a charm...
b) Steady (inception towards death) generates imbalance (life), hence life wielding the free will of choice to balance...or ignore steady pace (growth) for deliberate acceleration (loss).
c) Life moves towards death. A jew dangles -isms in-front of gentile eyes to tempt them forwards. It's the carrot (suggested outcome) and the stick (perceivable outcome)...
You need to define it first, it is not academically very accurately defined term and even the Wikipedia definition is a dumping category of everthing.
If you mean accelerating ANY current insanity (not just technology or capitalism) towards a revolutionary breaking point, then I'll give you an example from history:
Good example. The excesses of the French Revolution resulted in Napoleon. But things didn't go back as they were before, he was in many ways, a product of the Revolution himself.
a) How does one define (affix) acceleration without contradicting it?
b) De-fine aka division (de) end (finis) implies the division of beginning (inception) and end (death) for those in-between (life), hence those in-between need (origin) and want (outcome).
category of everything
Why gather together that which nature sets apart?
accelerating ANY current
Can form (life) accelerate flow (inception towards death) or only diminish self, hence feeling accelerated in demise?
towards breaking point
What if the break implies beginning (inception) of sentence (life), while being moved towards point (death)?
What if a point doesn't break apart but dissolves each partial sentence back into origin?
Hence not a follower marching towards extremes, but the Achilles' heel most ignore to take advantage of aka the one suggesting the -ism, which others follow towards their demise.
It's few who suggest, which use consenting many as tools, within the box of reason, where many fight each other.
Real accelerationism has never been tried
Good one.
“If you want your house to be red, you have to buy a lot of blue paint!” ~ the clinically insane
Exactly.
a) Holocaust aka the burned offering of many by few who suggest -isms to tempt others to follow towards outcome aka towards death of life.
Works like a charm...
b) Steady (inception towards death) generates imbalance (life), hence life wielding the free will of choice to balance...or ignore steady pace (growth) for deliberate acceleration (loss).
c) Life moves towards death. A jew dangles -isms in-front of gentile eyes to tempt them forwards. It's the carrot (suggested outcome) and the stick (perceivable outcome)...
You need to define it first, it is not academically very accurately defined term and even the Wikipedia definition is a dumping category of everthing.
If you mean accelerating ANY current insanity (not just technology or capitalism) towards a revolutionary breaking point, then I'll give you an example from history:
Jacobnism
https://www.britannica.com/summary/Jacobin-Club#:~:text=Jacobin%20Club%2C%20or%20Jacobins%2C%20Political,known%20in%20Paris%20as%20Jacobins).
It worked for those who used it as a tool. It was pretty fucked up for everybody else.
Good example. The excesses of the French Revolution resulted in Napoleon. But things didn't go back as they were before, he was in many ways, a product of the Revolution himself.
a) How does one define (affix) acceleration without contradicting it?
b) De-fine aka division (de) end (finis) implies the division of beginning (inception) and end (death) for those in-between (life), hence those in-between need (origin) and want (outcome).
Why gather together that which nature sets apart?
Can form (life) accelerate flow (inception towards death) or only diminish self, hence feeling accelerated in demise?
What if the break implies beginning (inception) of sentence (life), while being moved towards point (death)?
What if a point doesn't break apart but dissolves each partial sentence back into origin?
Jacob/Ya'aqobh - "one that takes by the heel; a supplanter"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/Jacob
Hence not a follower marching towards extremes, but the Achilles' heel most ignore to take advantage of aka the one suggesting the -ism, which others follow towards their demise.
It's few who suggest, which use consenting many as tools, within the box of reason, where many fight each other.