It’s almost as if we have to get apocalypse hard.—Xenocosmography xeet, 17 March 2026
Every algorithmic media problem is best worked out as an immanent artificial isomorph of apocalypse and Nick Land treats the “Jewish Question” (JQ) as no exception in this light.1 His JQ is an intensifying vector of the social curvature of hard apocalypse, and nothing besides. For that matter, the same can be said for any sign that becomes cultural2—that passes, that is, through the gyre of Xenocosmography’s recent timeline.
Land values high-achieving/“based” Jews as positive contributors to the advance of intelligence, while criticizing Jewish tribalism or left-leaning tendencies only when retarding his priorities (Gnostic Calvinism, Anglo-ethnonationalism, exit, Anglo-Zionism, unrestricted AI acceleration). It could have been awesome—he xeets in March 2026 (deleted3), 5 years late to “The Retard List”—but you decided to be retard faggots.45
RETARDS 2026
And the angels said, “Nick Land is Retarded.”—Xenocosmography xeet, 14 August 2025
Being a “retard faggot”6 in 2026 means regarding the Lemurs and their vision of total life as secondary. Land, playing the hyper-philosemite Anglish7 timeline heckler, thinks that anything holding back Revelation-end-play should be—will be—well, taken out. Such is artificial selection harnessed to 21st-century Montesquieu-posting.
Land’s aphoristic X presence prioritizes, first, posting over literature as driving factor (or, just having fun online with Patmos OS), and second, capital/intelligence escaping human limitations over ancient progressive tiffs. The JQ itself, in his orbit, appears secondary or reframed to eschatology though aporetically: Jewish success is often seen as evidence of superior traits worth allying with (selectively), not a monolithic threat. Blanket disintegrationist rejection of Jews (as per Mitchell Heisman, an early based Jew) is dismissed as counterproductive or low-IQ. This puts Land at odds with the groypers, white nationalists, or strict JQ obsessives who view Jewish influence as the core civilizational problem. Fuck Nick Land, said Fuentes earlier this year (describing him as suffering “total aura loss” and “groyper derangement syndrome” to the superchat8).
Land’s output on the topic is mostly oblique references, responses relayed in scene reports, a kind of free indirect discourse feast on X. In a fairly recent xeet (17 March 2026) Land writes:
The closer we get to Singularity, the more the JQ shatters people. This is obviously not uninteresting. The fact that we’re still unable to talk about it non-psychotically is obviously not uninteresting. It’s almost as if we have to get apocalypse hard.
In classic late Landian style, he is observing a phenomenon rather than pushing a moral stance or “solution” to the JQ—his posting style is a kind of tutelage in the energeia of passivity. As we approach alleged technological Singularity, the “Jewish Question” becomes an increasingly intense psychological and social fracture line, and this itself artificially allegorizes the way world-end is played out for Land through the ironic X-app social curvatures. X makes most sense when we realize it is the inner polylogue of a societal schizophrenic harnessed to the raw fizzing retardation of apocalypse itself.
SYNTHETIC SOCIAL ESCHATOLOGY: ON PATMOS, RECENTLY
Malabou’s reflections on ChatGPT ultimately evoke a “synthesis of metaphysics and deconstruction” via AI, reframing grammatology as human-machine shared auto-eroticism and launching infinite co-response in the technological unconscious. Hence: AI = synthesis of metaphysics + deconstruction. In D’un ton apocalyptique adopté naguère en philosophie—“Of an Apocalyptic Tone Recently Adopted in Philosophy”—just after referring to Hölderlin on Patmos, Derrida ties eschatology inextricably to metaphysics and ontotheology, as the discourse of ultimate ends.9 If AI synthesizes metaphysics and deconstruction, it also synthesizes onto-eschato-theology and onto-theo-eschatology10 with them. Every LLM output and post is an envoi or a “come” from this specific edge, the antinomy of a rhetorical machine-language of schizoapocalypse: a partial unveiling that gestures toward totality (the “final” answer) but remains fragmented, algorithmic, postponing the apocalypse it invokes—without reply.
The “recently” (naguère/neuerdings) of Derrida’s title loops back ironically to haunt the present. Kant’s 1796 pamphlet whose title he is aping was already calling out a “superior tone” that pretended to philosophize from on high (think of Land’s evocation of “lofty powers”), beyond argument, as if from revelation’s very own angel. Derrida’s 1980 reprise makes “recent” feel quasi-eternal: the tone keeps getting “recently adopted,” again and again, because declaring the end is a timeless temptation in philosophy (and beyond). Every generation thinks this cycle of crises is the terminal one, and yet since there is no unified generation as such (the comedy of obsolescence, new iPhones) it may always be that the actual end has now come.11
Nick Land’s X feed over recent memory pulses with an apocalyptic color already glimpsed—short, oracular bursts (xeets) that announce inevitabilities and their rhetorical aporias, ouputting hidden structures of time and doom, and gesturing toward revelations that can’t be grasped from “this side.” It’s as if he’s channeling the very polyphonic tone Derrida dissects from a distance: philosophy (or in Land’s case, a mutant theo-techno-philosophy in the style of axiomatic posts) adopting an eschatological voice, promising disclosure while entangling itself in the rhetoric it pretends to transcend. The irony—the “recent” looping automatically, with X’s timeline as a grisly unrolling of ends—fits well here. Land’s posts scroll like fragmented envois from Patmos, each a mini-apocalypse that defers the big one into another recent future, seducing with esoteric hints. Take his output from 14–21 February 2026 alone: it’s laced with anachronic incursions. He reframes Thiel’s warp-drive speculation as “retrochronic Lemur incursion,” then doubles down: “How do you defend against an enemy with time-travel technology? Too late.” This is eschatological sleight-of-hand, where the end has happened backward, unveiling a doom that’s always-already sealed and too coded for humans.
Zooming out to months prior, the pattern intensifies—consistent with Derrida’s parade12 of “ends” (the end of history, the end of the class struggle, the end of philosophy, the death of God, the end of religions, the end of Christianity and morals, the end of the subject, the end of man, the end of the West, the end of Oedipus, the end of the earth—followed by the Apocalypse Now interruption (cataclysm, fire, blood, earthquake, napalm, nuclear thunder)—and resuming: the end of literature, the end of painting (art as a thing of the past (Hegel, de Man)), the end of psychoanalysis, the end of the university, the end of phallocentrism and phallogocentrism, “and I don’t know what else”) delivered in a superior, revelatory register. Posts like “An adequate model of apocalyptic time is not accessible pre-apocalyptically. That’s what apocalypse means” (22 October 2025) directly inhabit the central tone: apocalypse as unveiling that’s structurally deferred, inseparable from metaphysics (as Derrida notes post-Patmos). Or: “Escalating domino collapse sequence, from ‘incompetent narcissist boomer parenting’ to ‘eschatology in our lifetime’” (13 September 2025), chaining mundane failures to terminal revelation. He ties democracy to the “End Times” (21 November 2025), insists “we run out of time before over-reaction becomes a serious problem” in our “eschatological situation” (19 December 2025), and states: “Very confident the End Times can’t be fixed from this side” (18 February 2026). Land speaks from the post-apocalyptic vantage comforted by his own Solemn Providence, with “much follows” as a longtime dangling envoi. When he addresses “doom” as something that “needs to be understood far more esoterically,” commenting, “We’re ‘doomed’ just means time being real,” he writes fully within the matrix of Derrida’s essay, demystifies while re-mystifying, parodying or rather replicating the apocalyptic desire for clarity Derrida flags. Even Scripture gets pulled in: “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together ... Is this doom scrolling?” (3 October 2025), linking Revelation to X’s feed.
In broad terms, this performance on X is already legible in its entirety inside Derrida’s essay (both riff on the same phrase, “the truth of apocalypse,” and on the impossibility of telling it apocalyptically13)—the tone “recently adopted” keeps recurring because it’s structural to philosophical discourse in ironically eschatoschizoposting crisis mode. Land’s version synthesizes onto-theo-eschatology with deconstruction (extended per Malabou’s implication): he unveils the machinery (end time as real and socially twisted curvature, P(doom) as necessity within language and rhetoric) without escaping the bind, often with a theonomic twist (“let the The Lofty Powers cook”).
Land has a number of variants on hard apocalypse ever at hand, for example incel apocalypse (2018), obesity apocalypse (2022), Hitlerian apocalypse (2020), AI apocalypse (2023), Covid-19 apocalypse (2020), gulag apocalypse (2021), social apocalypse (2020), clown apocalypse (2023), Marshmallow Test social apocalypse (2017), Apocalypse Now (2015), Beaconsfield Millennial Apocalypse (2019), Fiat Apocalypse and Viral Apocalypse (2020), apophatic apocalypse (2020), and so on.
Vincent Lê, “A Conversation with Nick Land (Part 1),” Substack, 13 January 2026: “So, yes, I’m just saying that my attention is really watching what is happening to the culture, which I think is thinking this through. I think it’s being thought through the culture.” In this quote from the Lê interview Land is describing his attention (“my attention is really watching”), which is subtly different from a claim about the signs themselves. Suffice to say that “cultural” is the key to Land’s claim about mediaplex as the medium of thought here, but also that culture is a medium of perception.
Xeeted March 2026, since deleted; no archive extant; quoted while visible, from written-memory.
Land’s remarks on Jews, Jewish influence, and Israel reflect a philosemitic eschatologism trained through general wigging out to the theotrope taken to be a force multiplier of relevant meaning.
The insult (borrowed as if unconsciously from early angelicism as model apocalyptics) is his Anglotheosophical Oblique Escalation in miniature: within hard apocalypse, generalized anthropic retardation is the only sin, and the general xeet style accuses its addressees of nothing else—just deceleration, that’s humanity’s problem, Gnostic Calvinist vro. The slur is the technical term collapsing into abuse, or disclosing that it was abuse-bearing all along. Retardation is the perfect technical term, but also needs to be replaced, as he suggests and owns here. The link to the original tweet is here (“visibility limited”).
The language is by now entirely his—property of “Nick Land”, c/o Xenocosmography, formerly Outsideness.
The time-stamped link is to Geoffrey Bennington’s “The Truth in Translation; or, The Angel and the Beast” from 2016. Bennington puns on Anglishness toward the end of his lecture, at 40:20-40:26. He proposes a new term for the translation process he is describing, blending his discussion of translators as “angels” with his critique of “English Americanish,” ultimately calling it “engish Americanish.”
The Washington Post used AI text-extraction tools to review 1,435 hours of Fuentes superchat footage as revealing that Nick Fuentes generated nearly $900,000 in superchat donations from approximately 11,000 donors over a 15-month period spanning from January 2025 through March 2026.
Jacques Derrida, “Of an Apocalyptic Tone Recently Adopted in Philosophy,” Semeia 23, 1982, pp. 63-97, p. 81, here.
Ibid., p. 93.
For this last point (the end that even so may finally come), see Geoffrey Bennington, Kant on the Frontier, “Preface to the English Edition,” p. x. Part II deals with this argument in extended detail.
Jacques Derrida, “Of an Apocalyptic Tone Recently Adopted in Philosophy,” p. 80.
Ibid., p. 95.