The Retrofuturism of the Virus: the past has not yet occurred.

The temporality of capital production has been halted, but what has emerged in its place? Projections of future infection, knowledge of past plagues. Coronavirus always-has-been of course, through the plagues which emerge as yesterdays rather than dead stories.

Each past and future creates a different temporality and a different sci-fi reality, which is to say a present which is only ever known through retrofuturism. As the projections ramp up and increase in multiple forms, multiple possibilities, so does the past which has supposedly already occurred, but which has not occurred quite yet.

The past has not yet occured.

A portal into the present may seem like an unnecessary sort of thing, and that the present is in fact being lived through, and known definitely through one’s sensory experience. But insofar as the future comes back to define the present, and the present is known as similar and causal of the past, one sees that a portal to the present is the only option for those fighting against non-being itself. The lack of the portal to the present is in fact a submission.

Portals in the multiple offer different realities, insofar as different realities are able to be retrofitted, the retrofuture is a posteriori; but of course through immediate experience it is also a priori existent, synthetic, stretching over the sensory immediacy.

“I want you to say that this is a living example of a portal into the present”

So what idea do we pay fidelity to then? Which retrofuture is the true present? Suddenly a space opens up, a gap in reality. This gap itself is the negation of what was the ordering of the world, and it is this gap itself that we should watch. What retrofutures will be thrust upon us by the powers that be?

What pasts, will we be told have already occurred? What shall be engineered for us, engineered with us?

Will we create the world? Will the world be created for us? When I am in the state of joy I am like a child, I have the power to name the world!

Who creates out of something, something besides joy? Who desires death?

What retrofutures of death will be shown as what has already been?

Instruments of control are becoming stronger.

Libertarianism is dying a fool’s death.

Can we who play ourselves make it past what is engineered for us, by us?

article by Mad Black Freud and Kirsty Woods

Big Knife! Small Wife! and Anti-Sex

The obsessional could be characterized as the anti-sexual, even and especially when it comes to sex. Here Dr. Phil reveals himself as a flora of various dialectical movements, the obsessional successful television doctor brandishing his obviously penile knife, in line with the pornographic fetish, the small wife, the signifier of youth here being smallness, the aging wife of Dr Phil has the ability to be in a linguistic sense, forever young.

Big Knife! Small Wife!

Anti-Sex is a powerful spell, to make public sex and also to simultaneously cast it aside immediately. The understanding of the symbolic order of sex to be so totally beyond sex, that one returns and appears to be grasping the sexual object.

Is this the case? Look closer reader, look closer!

The signifier on Dr. Phil is not money, is not something pornographic, but rather French quisine. The sex joke’s dialectical movement is revealed here.

Big Knife! Small Wife!

The reversion into the realm of class reveals the true sexual dynamic, Dr. Phil’s presence in the spectacle hinting at his royalty. Royalty is beyond sex! Royalty is anti-sex, anti-proletarian sentiment is always anti-sex.

As for the true sex life here, who is to say! How hard does Dr. Phil’s wife cum we he shoves his aging penis inside her? The truth is unable to be mined from this photograph.

We can see however, hints of a comical bond between the two. Is it a cynical comical bond of two spouses who have sexually grown past each other but none the less live with each other?

Big Knife! Small Wife!

We simply can not know the sexual nature of the man’s life from this image. We can however, see anti-sex, a key element in upper class life, in full display as its self-cancelling sexuality and its reversion into the signifiers of royalty.

Darwin Fucks Freud

edited photo of Geoffrey Miller, author of “The Mating Mind”

I believe in my own sort of two-gender theory: incel and woman. This is based off of Mike Crumplar’s idea of “the incel who fucks,” simply extended to its logical conclusion to include all genders not identified as woman.

Sexual selection is something Freud seemed to be acquainted with, but his view was too “under-mined,” not nearly extensive enough.  Desire sublimated into a metaphor or reaction against is only a partial truth. The missing truth of Sex, as Geoffrey Miller writes in his book “The Mating Mind,” is sexual selection. The peacock does not need its feathers to fly, they are simply something which has a sexual selection function. This is basic knowledge, but the implications are vast when humans and there massive towers of reason become involved.

Is it surprising that human incel bird-brains (sometimes known as humans doing psychology or philosophy) creating towers of anti-pragmatic reason, resemble the anti-pragmatism of birds’ various plumages?  The male bird tends towards extensive plumages, where the woman bird is a simple brown. There is something within woman that does not require a certain type of effort, because the woman isn’t an incel, or the party who needs to think about such things.

Sexual selection, natural selection, must be added to a psychological knowledge of the human unconscious, along with repressed desire.

The Unconscious must extend outside of the human’s linguistic tree, and back into rationality. The rationality of sexual selection and natural selection carry with them structures outside of an individual mind and into the world, where the human world becomes an interlocking set of these various desires and survival.

In the first madblackfreud blogpost, I ask the question, why does psychoanalysis bring human’s to their burncore of desire and survival?

Perhaps something was missing then, which is that to even do such a thing, we must consider natural selection and sexual selection. Zizek understand’s structural unconscious as containing within it a human idea, and to the extent which our systems carry within them ideas such as market exchange, this is not the whole object.

There is in fact, a synthetic survival and sexual exchange embedded within our systems. This means if a system could maximize for material gains for someone, there is a good chance they would rather egoically weave their hyperstate through outside forces which are more directly involved with interpersonal dynamics for survival and sex.

Insofar as the #MeToo movement exists, sex and survival become a sort of unity, before breaking apart. Human women are not birds, and thus do not simply leave the sexual dance to the men. The great false dream is that #MeToo becomes part of the sexual act itself, rather than the simple reaction formation against the unwanted male sexual demand. #MeToo reaches its final moment in being totally forgotten within the act of sex.

Sex and survival are not a unity, but two separate categories which form unities through the human mind. If more women are vocal regarding the #MeToo movement, and it is not taken as gospel by men, we can also look at modern Marxism the same way. Why is the western Marxist movement so heavily male?

Most likely for the same reason the modern philosophy movement is, the human mind contains within it towers of not-immediately pragmatic linkages of reason as sexual plumage. In this sense, the incel gender is unified with the failed intellectual, one whose towers of reason did not function as sexual selection.

Let’s Talk Reterritorialization

Now, communication and control have become one, without remainder.

Byung-Chul Han

The question of rhetoric in the Aristotelian form rarely comes up in the 21st century. While we argue forms of truth and the truth of truth, the truth of rhetoric becomes lost under accusations of ad hominem.

Fidelity to the aim of the original purpose of the thing is a second movement and will of the original thing, but such Fidelity occurs primarily in academia, where the quality of service provided dramatically increases with that Fidelity. In the technopolitical landscape, such Fidelity is reserved for the most simplistic of ideas on one hand, and on the other, the vicious reterritorializations of Trumpistas.

The Socialist Left, which prides itself on its academic fidelity to the original aim of economic raising of quality of life, tends to forget the Aristotelian lesson that rhetoric is in fact, its own art.

Nick Land recently called me dishonest for arguing with his horde of monarchy, race theory pushing and capitalism enjoying horde by calling his Jewish citation a minstrel act for Anglos, a disgrace, and pointing to his own (rumored) association with the Jewish community from his lineage, specifically, asking if he’s going to raise his Jewish children to be minstrel spectacles for Anglo taste.

Yes, this is vicious.

But is this dishonest? Land then reduced leftism entirely to this practice of rhetoric, which is seen as alien to “the real thing” of truth, which is for him of course, race theory and the like.

A vigorous reterritorialization is best, but how does one first do this? First you need to be calling to something which has significance in the Real, and then there is a truth in the symbolic (the history of the Uncle Tom archetype).

A vicious piece of rhetoric, but not dishonest.

The rhetoric serves a sense of not being a spectacle for others utilizing one’s race. The moral framework of internalized racism is mainstream thinking, so almost never brought up in the cutting edge of philosophical thought, but it is certainly a fundamental question that race realist right wingers should contend with if they believe they should push that ideology on the world.

Reterritorialization is best done viciously if you really want to break something. What other job of a leftist intellectual could there be but to break forms of institutionalized race theory via rhetoric calling on the Real and symbolic orders which the reactionaries are trying to pull in their direction?

Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization via the word, qua rhetoric. Rhetoric is not a lie, but a mode of communication to argue for the moral standards one desires.

Acid Communism and the Heroic Dose

I’ve spoken previously of the Cosmonaut Blog’s Acid Communism critique, of it being more acid than communism, but perhaps– Acid Communism as outlined by Mark Fisher is not enough acid, and too much Woodstock. Perhaps we should go even further into acid metaphysics. Further into The Fear.

Ego death is considered something which Lacanian analysis shoots for in that it removes the imaginary identification property of speech, where in speech gets trapped in a narcissistic circuit in order to continually self-define.

“All that’s well and good,” you might be thinking, “but where is the acid?”

The narcissistic loop can not sustain desire and is not truly an entrance into the symbolic order, leaving one to deal with structural psychosis in the times where they are the least psychotic. Structural psychosis as in a removal from the symbolic order, one could call it a lack of empathy in that one does not understand the substantial material which is in front of them.

“Where is the acid Eliot why are you talking theory you wrote acid on the top please stop talking about Lacan.”


Ok. Whether one takes a strip (10 hits) of LSD, 10 grams of psilocybin, a mouthful of THC concentrates instead of a drop, or adrenomescaline straight from the morgue (this is a real thing, not just from Fear and Loathing), you are in the realm of something entirely different than a drug experience, you are now on a roller coaster where you sense that psychosis is a real possibility.

Hold onto the symbolic order for dear life, if you must, speak to those around you, but something is missing. Something is different. You’re not there anymore. Comrade isn’t home right now. Words exit your mouth, and it is you who is saying it, but it isn’t your usual register. People are significantly different. The Parallax View is in full effect, there is a change in the object which is truly a change in the subject, someone on a heroic dose.

A heroic dose comes quickly. Too quickly. You know this takes an hour to kick in, so when it kicks in under a few minutes, you can tell something is going to happen. Then slowly, things begin to fall apart. Or rather, your perception of them falls apart. Nothing to fear, you know it can’t kill you.

The key moment is the recognition of a radically different perspective, which is difficult to put into words. The lack here is unfortunate, but what I mean by this is a symbolic other than yours radically becomes at hand, and you are for all intents and purposes, within a different world.

Interrelating may become easier, it may become more difficult, or it may become possible, as your visions and feet tell you that something strange is happening.

You get the sense that you’re still holding on. Suddenly something comes to you, a trite answer isn’t trite.

Highly trite answers: empathy is good. Things can be looked at in many ways, nothing is black and white. But it becomes something else. The old, dull knowledge becomes the new, important knowledge. Empathy is what one calls the experience of love which is what the sexual neurosis supposedly lacks. Authentic empathy is a movement away from the feeling that reality is useless. Black and white thinking without the recognition of Antigone as in Kant’s second critique (aka, you can argue both sides of something) meaning that you can have empathy for everyone, you don’t need to hate anyone, you won’t help yourself by hating them– other such truisms. But suddenly it becomes apparent as necessity dialectically, as the next step.

You don’t find an end answer, but the next step. A heroic dose isn’t a goal, but a means to the unfolding of time. Not who you are as a person, but what is next, and a good Hegelian knows, there will be something after as well.

Acid Communism may not be the end answer to leftism, but it is a powerful Idea for a next step, a horizon of possibility, which is all any moment in time can give us at all, its own self-cancellation, its own knowledge of its temporariness, and its necessity intrinsically combined with its own death in the form of what is next.

Why I Am So Clever (Zizek In The Clinic: It Works)

I am generally known as a “good therapist” in my clinic. (“Oh, he’s good, lucky you” etc.) Why am I such a good therapist? Why am I so clever? (As Nietzsche would ask of himself.)

“Zizek In The Clinic” the book, but more importantly, Zizek in the clinic the process, is about circling the object of mental health, and specifically the role of the psychotherapist. Let me give you an example session that demonstrates psychoeducation in the form of the University Discourse which was extremely successful psychotherapeutically.

The Session

A client, which for ethical reasons I will keep specifics vague, is afflicted by a condition which is characterized by the return of the Real. This is a structure known as psychosis in Lacanian theory, but in this case, the diagnosis was not a psychosis issue, but something in which the Real would return on a constant basis throughout the day, to the point of suicidal ideation on the part of the client. You could say however, it was structurally psychotic, and the structural effects on social relations were similar to someone who may have been afflicted with psychosis. A Zizekian structuralist would notice the psychosis in the structure, but Lacan himself would nearly certainly miss this.

The Tools Utilized

1. Psychoeducation regarding the Return of the Real (and The Real’s return as affecting the symbolic order.)

The terror for the client was that the Real would return in every situation with other people. The therapist highlights this as a core symptom: in every situation, one does not relax, but attempts to repress the Real.

2. Che Vuoi? What Does the Other want from me?

The question of the Other’s desire, due to the visible nature of this return of the Real. The terror of the Other leads the client to unknowingly arrange their lives so they would account for their symptom through which the Real acts. The Real returns and eliminates the time in Actuality [I will expand on the necessity of Set-Time, ie, time in Actuality, in the next book on Egoist ethical theory I’m currently working on, but its use in psychotherapy is apparent here] the client had devoted for any particular situation and the client must enter into the discourse regarding the symptom instead.

3. A question with no answer asked by the therapist: “How can this be overcome?”

Here I side with Badiou over Zizek in terms of the job of the philosopher or therapist, in terms of an optimism. Zizek would stop in terms of the antagonism and not try to tie it all neatly in a lesson at the end, most likely. Here if the client wants to be a Zizekian, I do not interfere, but I repeat the question and through the repetition, rehighlight the objects of distress, and bring them into consciousness.


What would this client have done been given a regular therapist? Exposure therapy possibly, affirmation possibly, cognitive challenges (is the other really thinking that)?

I claim none of these circle the object of the symptom as well as this Zizekian approach, and the results of the client aren’t of someone who has been filled with blank affirmations leaving therapy feeling in a better mood with the feeling of a bubble soon to be popped by the next return of the Real, but someone who is deeply, and utterly forced to know the object which ails them in some respect, and its tendencies.

Zizek in the clinic is an ideal. An ideal of a therapist who knows what the hell they are talking about due to understanding the structure of the psyche and its structural effects and social consequences. It is an ideal worth repeating, and fighting for, because clients have no checks and balances, only one (1) psych cop to help them.

God help them, I hope they get a good one.

Further Beyond Good And Evil

Hegel was too Christian to follow Spinozan pantheism to its logical end. Christ turns all power into good and evil; and thus, Hegel saw the world as good and evil, as essence and reflection. Hegel in the Phenomenology of Spirit comes across various modes of being and ultimately casts them down in favor of the logos, the coming together of registers and the Rightness of Right, with the law of the heart being simply too ungodly.

For the True is for it the law of the heart–something merely intended which, unlike the established order, has not stood the test of time, but rather when thus tested is overthrown. This its law ought to have reality; the law, then, is for it qua reality, that very law qua valid ordinance, is on the contrary immediately for it something which is not valid.

Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Paragraph 377

Hegel ignores the content of the law in describing the whim of the heart. He did not in fact grasp Spinoza’s material reality working itself out, god-in-reality, or god in the power of the will. What is this notional will which exists in Actuality in men that Hegel is so afraid of?

Of course, sexuality itself, death drive. These are too unchristian for Hegel to consider.

Through the Christian lens Spinoza’s god-in-reality, or god-through-Actuality, is no longer able to be grasped, and contradiction falls into disrepair to the Christ-Molar, the vacuum which sucks into it everything and creates demons of all that fall outside of it.

Does not Marx too not fall into this trap? To a lesser degree, as Marx recognizes the engine of capital as having positive qualities of power, but ultimately all that falls outside the system is cast as the devil in practice, if not in Marx’s writing. For Marx, the world was Satanic, and for Hegel as well.

I’ve often thought of Mark Fisher’s self-inflicted death as a long line of this world-as-demon side effect of the Christian Dialectic. When the world becomes satanic, rather than something full of power, there is nothing to gain in the world. Spinoza is failed, the Absolute no longer able to be in motion, working through itself, through its ends, us. God as the absolute working through itself gets subsumed into the Christian ideology, of good and evil, rather than good and wild. Good and power.

If one sees something as Evil rather than as Egoic power, one misses its necessity, its place in the Absolute, its symptomatic necessity. Is Trump truly evil? Perhaps he is better seen as a wild power, one that we would like to do away with, but to see him as evil is to do a disservice to the self by playing out in one’s own head the Christian story, the dissolving of Spinoza’s god, the world as Christ’s playground and no one elses.

Christ takes the ball home and eats your world.

Through the adjustment of Good and Evil we can keep the good, but let us do away with evil, and take away its power to destroy what is good. Evil is power, power of the other against us, which means it could in fact then become for us, if we are Spinozan enough, if we aren’t infected with the brain cancer of ideology which takes away from us our Actual existence.