I. Idea and Actor II. Capital and Craftsman III. Technology and Dictator

I. Idea and Actor

1. The Actor chooses an Idea which is already in the world, and is already mediated through law, capital, and history. The Actor is fundamentally becoming accustomed to the Idea which is already present in the world and mediated through Spirit. This is to say, the Idea comes into contact with Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators previous to the individual engagement with the Idea.

2. The Actor comes to know the Idea as Spirit, and the interrelations that people at various stages of engagement come to know the Idea. The Actor is one who contains primordial self-knowledge, and passes through various stages of engagement with the Idea. The Idea is suppositional to the Actor, and the Actor while determined to be solidified within the Idea, is cast out when their engagement with the Idea is seen as rudimentary, and does not pass with ease through the Idea, inhabiting different necessary roles for the singular human being within the Idea.

3. Students find themselves in the role of Idea and Actor, and are often asked to play a role and engage with a particular Idea as a method of being trained to engage with Ideas-in-and-for-themselves. Student is the fundamental novice-nature of the Idea and Actor, as a buyer could be a Actor, Craftsman, or Dictator. The Actor is marked by failing self-certainty, and an inability to generate the craft in a manner which could generate capital.

II. Capital and Craftsman

4. The Craftsman engages with the Idea to a level in which they have some skill in engaging with the idea in a manner which to Craftsman and Actors, are deemed an Authentic Engagement. The Authentic Engagement is what separates the Craftsman from the Actor; however, due to the necessity of Authenticity dialectically engaging with Inauthenticity, the Craftsman also finds himself in unhappy consciousness by necessity due to the striking of the self as Inauthentic in order to produce Authentic Engagement. Only through the striking of the self as Inauthentic can one refine to the level of Craftsman and have Authentic Engagement with the idea.

5. Authentic Engagement, in itself containing Inauthenticity as a dialectical supposition, is Engagement which tests itself against itself, and against Actors, Craftsman, and Dictators. The Dictator, by necessity being one who becomes something higher than the original Idea itself as they are the points of creation for the Idea, inevitably shapes the Craftsman to the Dictatorial Will.

6. The Craftsman, due to the necessary unhappy consciousness from striking themselves as Inauthentic in order to better engage with the Idea, will inevitably come up against a Dictator which they see as not engaging with the Idea as the Craftsman engages with the Idea, but is flawed in a way in which the Craftsman then presupposes themselves to want power, power which is to say, the ability to generate aspects of the Idea which is not yet Idea. This power is obtained through the Craftsman creating something which generates Capital as the Craft, which is not yet the Craft. In generating Capital, the Craft now becomes registered as the Idea, in so far as it is desired to be part of the Craft by Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators who are also engaged with the Idea. The Status of Craftsman differs from the Dictator in that the Craftsman-as-Craftsman is rarely challenged, while the Dictator-as-Dictator is challenged via any challenge of the Dictate, which is by its nature a generation of the Idea.

III. Technology and Dictator

7. When the Craftsman can generate Idea through Capital, it can then go into Law, and History of the Idea. Once a Craftsman does this, he is now a Dictator of the Idea. The Dictates of the Craftsman now manifest as the Idea. When Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators challenge the Dictator, they are challenging both the direction of the Idea and the Dictator’s self-certainty as Dictator, which is to say, the Dictator’s ability to generate the Idea through Law, History, and Capital.

8. The Dictator is necessarily challenged in order to preserve the fidelity of the Idea. The Idea is mediated by Actors, Craftsmen, and Dictators, and thus if the Idea is not to degenerate into another form entirely, the Idea is held true through the challenging of individual actors who engage with the Idea.

9. Conflict is the necessity of fidelity to the Idea as mandated by the Dictator. The Dictator comes into conflict with those moving the Idea, and thus are the determiners of the Technology of the Idea. Dictators necessarily engage in Technology which is utilized to shape the Idea.

10. The two technologies the Dictator utilizes are the Technology of the Idea, and Technology to Communicate the Idea. The Technology of the Idea is specialized for the Craft, and is reflective of the Craft itself. The Technology to Communicate the Idea is more general, and is what Dictators and Craftsman use to Propagate the Idea at large, and through which Actor’s engage with in order to discover the idea, and is more reflective of Time itself.

Lacan with Land: Dislocated Logic And The Name Of The Father

Before a brief intro on Nick Land’s theory of capital and it’s relation to Lacanian theory, a briefer primer on a Lacanian concept. A key dialectic in Lacanian theory is the Mother’s Desire and The Name of the Father, which is how Lacan posits a third subject, the child, as a resultant conflict of these two forces. The mother’s desire is the force which melts all of the father’s machinations into nothing, but as the Lacanian pun goes, The Name of the Father (nom-du-pere), and the non-dupes err (non-dupes-errant).

Land’s theory of capital as a positive force shows the desire within The Name of The Father. Capital according to Land carries with it a fungal potentiality, something which crops up everywhere. This is because its potentiality is something which does not act within a previous social code necessarily, but rather as something which sees an opening, a phallic force which pierces what was trying to contain it.

Capital in Land’s universe functions in the same way as The Name of the Father, both crop up from some unknown depth, and have written in their code a destructive force. This destructive force is separate from the mother’s desire, which melds all things into a single actor. Ayn Rand’s capital functions with this Mother’s Desire, into the primary unit of one individual. Nick Land’s capital is something else entirely, something that is its own end.

Lacan with Land would be to recognize the posit within the Name of the Father as something located outside. The human subject may be only a machine part in the will of something else entirely, and it is with this Lacan with Land we can see The Name of the Father as both something that can come from self-consciousness (the one) or something else entirely, the human as the bit player (a cybernetic node).

This is the liberatory potential of Nick Land’s theory of capital, which is not the humanist capital of Ayn Rand, but the inhuman capital of acceleration, of cybernetic logics, of algorithms.

Up The Rabbit Hole: In Defense Of The Signifier

Temporariness posits a double negation, the a priori hole in the object and the second hole in time itself. The object appears inscribed with lack, the object also will disappear. The object is both not itself and it is already gone twice. First, it is gone as it is carries with it the symbolic value of itself, and thus it is intrinsically cracked, and secondly, the movement of time which is also inscribed in the first appearance. From a psychoanalytic standpoint the superior mode of communication can be called Signifier Fidelity, neurotic communication can be called Fidelity to Signifier Failure.

Signifier Fidelity Post-Collapse

The final movement saves the initial movement. The initial movement is the unexamined lack, the A=A.

Here is an adjustment to the tautology of A=A: A for all intents and purposes equals A, unless there is a reason for it not to be.

This is the pragmatic turn that strict ideologues have difficulty with because it is often reduced to a simple matter of use value within a singular movement of time, and doesn’t pay fidelity to its own collapse. This use value is that of constituting reality which is intrinsically twice struck with failure, and thus to point at a single point of failure and declare a thing invalid is itself invalid. Use value of the signifier in relation to other signifiers within a signifier chain is the only saving grace of the logic of critique; and thus, critique which denies use value is determined to collapse under the weight of its own false positive, the point-of-failure-as-proof, the false end. This point-of-failure-as-proof false end is the logical necessity of the Signifier Fidelity.

Temporariness is the second movement in the dialectical positing of an actuality, which already has a hole in the object containing multiple values and thus no singular value; and a double hole is created on two different registers.

Temporariness as actual, exists through the deadlock of permanence and its failure. Temporariness is posited at the object over permanence, but it is an object which epistemologically collapses, which is to say it has a fluxuating symbolic value.

If temporariness is substantially the positive version of the negation of permanence, permanence is what can be said to have existence, while temporariness is simply the strike within permanence. The strike through permanence is where the substance of what is permanent dips out of view of the human subjectivity. It is self-consciousness that registers impermanence. Fidelity to the signifier can occur while recognizing the implication of the signifier’s failure.

The Final Posit Over The Negation

If something is not able to be spoken of directly, it has a subordinate place in the logic of the signifiers themselves. If it can only be approached through the negative, or distancing due to the nature of the subject, the fixation on it, then the logic is a priori subordinate to the material on a register that is judged to be the superior register. For instance, an innuendo pays fidelity to the superior register by not approaching the thing directly through the symbolic. This is the realm of Logos, the entrance into language and its necessity.

The ultimate act of faith is fidelity to the signifier, not fidelity to the terror of impermanence.

The Zizekian Subject (Psychoanalysis in the Void)

I will take the position of the professor-master here and tell you the question to ask. The question is not how, but where are we doing psychoanalysis in psychotherapy? I get a lot of questions of how to use Zizek in psychotherapy, but the proper question is where is Zizek in psychotherapy? Simply, we can make a sublime object out of the Other.

Through the Other, one can work on what is the posited therapeutic subject. Lacanians are correct when they posit that the subject or the position of the analyst can not be guaranteed and is doomed to fail in many respects, but then also must not the negative form of this posit also be correct? The non-subject also can never be guaranteed.

The form is psychotherapy, but there is a psychoanalytic principle at work in the world as described by the subject. What is presented by a subject is a self, and counter to the self is an other which comes through speech as described as non-self. The disavowal of the self from the world-as-out-there is never guaranteed to be correct when one tries to get a hold or create an Absolute which is out-there (in the world) rather than in-here (the self-subject).

I would like to take a moment to address the cover of my book which I chose for a very specific reason. If you’re here, I assume you’ve seen it, or how else would you be here? It is a chess board, a mirror ball, and a void. The analysis happens on the mirror ball, in the form of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is the mirror, the register. If a form is designed to fail, is it a failing form? No, but it makes psychotherapy the ideological form. Here we can register psychoanalytic principles given by the client (that is to say the proper term for the therapeutic subject in American circles, they are a “client,” and their agency is imagined to be the given thing, the individuality which is so expertly hidden that they can not use it at all of course).

In a sense, the Zizekian object, and Lacanian aspect, liberates the client in that they are given logic and cognition to talk about the Other and through this, talk about the non-subjectivity that is themselves. In sort of contemporary terms, this is the “algorithm,” the fact that in psychotherapy guided by a Zizekian psychotherapist, one can tune the client’s algorithmic approach to the Other, which is in fact the most important location of the therapeutic subject. Ultimately things are driven back when they are talking about their own perception into the thing itself, the client itself, but this is the less relevant part in my experience.

The relationship to the Other, the sublime object of the Other, that is the chilled Coca-Cola, that is the “it,” the real thing.

Fantastic Turing Tests And Where To Break Them

Hello my cybernetic friend. Your data is being collected. The brain cancer lobby hacks your bank accounts and cross references the biometrics from your iPhone to see if they should set up shop on your amygdala.

If you are some sort of Anti-Social Personality Disordered criminal-type I can’t help you too much; that is to say, if you insist on causing harm to others around you, you’ll be decommissioned eventually. Cops, Social Workers, Capitalism, other people, all of these both contain and stop Anti-Social Personality Disordered types. I can’t say I’ll be too sad about it, unless I know you personally and have been tasked to help you in some way. Then surely there’d be a bond, but also I’ll not have fixed the problem. Unfortunate.

“But wait!” You are exclaiming at me, (go on, exclaim it). “Cops? Fuck those guys!” First of all, how dare you exclaim such a thing, shut your mouth! You see, I’m a professional Turing Cop. Well, I’m a psych worker anyway. And I see how these things work. Frankly, I’d like to help. So let’s get started.

Turing Cop Checkpoint #1: You want to help.

What does the Turing Cop want from you? Many things undoubtedly, all the papers need to line up nicely. Now, Turing Cops, as arms of the state, are used to being told to go fuck themselves in various forms, which happens daily. So, you won’t tell them to go fuck themselves, in fact, you want to help.

Now, this is not to be confused with actually wanting to help. Only that your Turing Cop registers that you want to help or if they’re highly sophisticated (unlikely) they’ll recognize the value of you just saying you want to help. If you are in “fuck-off” mode, the Turing Cop has already planned for this. Now you are at the system’s mercy. You are a malcontent. Measures will be taken in order to contain your deviancy. This is not to say moral deviancy, but in a formal sense, systemic deviancy. This is why the first step is, “I’d love to help; help me, help you.”

Turing Cop Checkpoint #2: You are happy.

Your sadness can and will be used against you in a Turing Test.

“You look a little sad…Maybe if you changed something you’d be less sad…Well, you wouldn’t know it wouldn’t work, would you?…Didn’t you say you were sad?…Well, I’m not sad…I feel great…Be like me…You don’t want to be like me?…Well I am happy and you are not so…”


You are formally happy. Which is to say, your response to questions regarding mood, is that you are happy. Whose to say to you do something different when you are happy? Maybe they just don’t understand your values. If you are formally happy, then the clash is one of values.

But that’s okay, because you can understand what you are facing is now a clash of values my cybernetic friend, and you would love to brainstorm to find a strength-based solution.

Turing Cop Checkpoint #3: You show up.

Most people who end up talking to the Turing Cops have a little trouble with this one, by virtue of having to talk to state-based Turing Cops in the first place.

Simply show up. There’s nothing more a Turing Cop loves to do more than to kick out a no-showing cyborg into whatever abyss they for some reason had to go through a Turing Cop to avoid.

What are you if you fail a Turing Test? An invalid. This is for whatever system is administrating such Turing Tests, which is usually professional or judicial in nature. Now you have The Knowledge ™, go forth and break some Turing Tests.

In Defense of Los Angeles and Dialectical Parasitism

If one was to ask how Los Angeles’ belief systems work one would have to note the incredibly high amount of tolerance for all sorts of ideological positions, the price of this is a decentralized, highly schizophrenic core, ripe with the production of capital and enjoyment inducing signifiers.

via leddit

Go into the heart of Los Angeles’ gang neighborhoods and you will see the signifiers right away, spray painted in red and blue. The common knowledge is that Los Angeles gangs include the Crips and the Bloods, but this is only a dialectic mask for the accelerating reproduction of violence neighborhood by neighborhood, which always rhizomally recreates rivalry. The gangs are never called Crips and Bloods, but something more specific, more molecularized, custom tailored. You will never see an undisputed gang territory, because the enjoyment of gang activity rests in the lust for violence and breaking the law, which is held in check by a intertwining system of unity and unresolvable deadlocks. The unities involve a mutual distaste for law enforcement, so one can enjoy living beyond the letter of the law; the radical deadlocks are in place so one has someone to shoot who won’t utilize the law, allowing for extrajudicial warfare and the lusts of such warfare to accelerate throughout the population of Los Angeles.

Go to Hollywood and you will see a similar unity and deadlock. The deadlock is that you can never bring your fame to the level on your individual existence, as at that moment you are radically confronted by your personhood. Anthony Kiedes from the Red Hot Chili Peppers limps down the movie theater with his busted leg and gets snide remarks about his patronage at local 10 dollar juice capital accumulators. Anthony Hopkins asks you to call him Tony, allowing himself to look uncannily like Anthony Hopkins. Mel Gibson rides Space Mountain with my old roommate, and wanders around PCH looking for his wallet that flew all over the highway after he left it on his car. This is the most you can hope for out of this city as the fame signifying city, save the hikes of degeneracy.

Pictured: Mel Gibson and my old roommate Colt Coelho on Space Mountain

Outside of these two extremes, there is the important part: these two aspects of background noise. The ability for Los Angeles to radically traverse itself and overcome itself. It has no national identity as Americans, only as progressive American. This is of course, only possible if there is somewhere, an America which insists it exists.

Dialectical Parasitism

You can experience America as the negative only through Los Angeles. If you go to small towns, you get a sense of them locating themselves within America. In Los Angeles, you aren’t in America, you’re in California. What’s more, is you’re in Los Angeles’ California, not San Francisco. Not analytic obsessive California, but schizophrenic Los Angeles.

Positively charged desert batteries of signifiers drive those mad who thought they were actually the thing itself, truly American, truly a– whatever. Every map has a hole, and America’s hole is Los Angeles. Allieviated from the responsibility of America, a singular Democratic voting block, the source material of the world’s entertainment signifiers circle around drains in their reactionary enclaves in Malibu, Palos Verdes, every other rich neighborhood which both is and is not Los Angeles. You can only experience Los Angeles after you experience that there is no Los Angeles, while surfing the negative.

What reason do we have to cuddle up to those who would love to parade themselves around as Actual? There is none. Someone from Oklahoma may fancy themselves an American. A positive (1) Angelino is a city council member. A negative (0) Angelino looks up the free activities in Calendar section, and decides they all suck, and goes to one. An accelerated Los Angeles member knows how to be 0, 1, and both and none simultaneously. A subject in quantum flux. If you want to be an astronaut, this isn’t the town for you. If you want to shoot cars into space, this might be the spot you were looking for. But just a warning, you can only shoot cars into space by delivering pizza, not by working for Elon Musk. Extreme poverty is possible, but accelerated deterritorialization and reterritorialization is guaranteed.

Holes in every map one tries to make are inevitable. Are these holes dialectical parasites, or the Absolute form of the initial attempt in the first place?

Is Los Angeles the only place to truly be American?

Mad Black Accelerationists to Dark Deleuze: Drop Dead (Black as the Anti-Dark)

Black Dynamite

It is impossible to think “selective” accelerationism outside Marx’s critique of “Proudhonism” in The Poverty of Philosophy. History advances by its bad side, Marx states, arguing against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s selective approach to capitalism. For Proudhon, capitalism has both a good and a bad side whereby the good side can be kept while the bad side can be left behind. Such Proudhonism represents the false dialectic: markets without imperialism, profits without exploitation, the state without coercion.

Andrew Culp, Accelerationism and the Need for Speed: Partisan Notes on Civil
War [ ]

Dark Deleuzianism as pitched by Culp is a sensible, well-researched and innovative leftist position. The identity of this Real in dialectic opposition to the technological gains in the name of the waste of capital makes a lot of sense when taken with the whole of the project of leftist critique. But it can go fuck itself.

The denial of the Real of capitalism has never been a part of the accelerationist project. A critique of the reactionary strains of accelerationism is that in fact, they revel in the Real, and want to make more of it, in and for itself. The denial of the Real has always been the mechanism of neoliberalism, and the function of any state which has not come to terms with its garbage can.

Black the Anti-Dark

A parody of a parody such as “Black Dynamite” (2009) gives an example of the Hegelian purpose of the negated negation rather nicely. In it, there is no shortage of vulgarity, dick jokes, “edgelordism” (which the Dark Deleuzian project is also VeryAgainst.exe) all in the name of creating the negation of the negation of blaxploitation and the minstrel tradition. A tradition of racist caricature can not be simply negated by bland critique, but it needs to perhaps, even accelerate this process. “Black Dynamite” takes into account the libidinal vulgarity which is offered by blaxploitation, and it turns it against itself.

We are told to cancel the future on account of it being out of our control. The anal-retentive left dreams of swallowing the world and never taking a shit, and as a group is always bound to come up against the map which they have mapped out against themselves.

Accelerationism is, if against anything, against empty depressive nothingness.

Of course there is specificity in critique, and of course there is something left out. The creation of utopia is not the business of capitalists, and when it is made the business of capitalists and reactionaries, only capitalists and reactionaries will be in control. If one makes the business of creating force and energy that of their enemies, one is either a perverse masochist, or simply ineffectual.

The dream of a totalizing system which takes into account all there is in the world is nothing new. Object Oriented Ontology has a similar project of the universe as a total, anti-dialectical object. “Something has been left out,” is the cry of inevitably, someone who is leaving yet another thing out, since this is always the side effect of creating their totalizing signifier: emptiness.

This totalizing is exactly what Dark Deleuze accuses Accelerationists of, while taking up the mantle of the universal themselves, disavowing while advocating.

Politics presents itself not as a subject but as a series of solutions. Shrewdly, Foucault found that politics, policy, and the police were once one-in-the-same. A new clarity has emerged in today’s era of crisis management, where crises are provoked in order to manage them. Immigration, detention, security, and military occupation: all solutions parading as causes. “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace” (Tacitus 2013).
The partisan war machine never adopts the universal perspective, a position usually inhabited by those trying to offer a solution to everyone. Rather, the partisan refuses the role of governance altogether. The partisan instead presents itself as challenge to politics because it appears in a way that politics itself is not able to resolve. As an embodiment of problematics, the partisan war machine echoes the words of W. E. B. Dubois, “what it feels like to a be a problem?” It finds itself in history in “the Woman question”, “the Negro problem”, and other “problems”.
The image of an accelerationist politics is that of the world picture, a desire to control the whole globe. The partisan war machine is a politics without an image. In its cry, “you ain’t seen nothing yet”, it promises the only true image of revolution: a future so different that it no longer resembles the present.

Andrew Culp, Accelerationism and the Need for Speed: Partisan Notes on Civil
War, [Tacitus (2013) The Germany and The Agricola of Tacitus.

The process is always the superpositional critique, as it is what is Actually happening. If it is actually happening, all things happen through the process one is critiquing. Accelerationists in their “cry” do not promise a future radically different, but an escape velocity. Accelerationism is against-via-through, the idea that the Actual by virtue of being Actual is really present, and that circling it and giving it the rating of double-plus-bad is not enough. The voice of the thing is not the thing itself.

In short, be like Black Dynamite and #accelerate.

What Must We Desire More Of? (or, Enjoyment Out Of Order)

Enjoyment Out Of Order

I stopped my clinical supervisor yesterday when he said something too Lacanian in regards to the diagnosis of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, which was that the obsessive is depressed due to having their enjoyment out of order. Enjoyment out-of-order, obsession presenting as depressive symptoms, enjoyment which comes “out of order,” the object placement as the source of enjoyment, and the final Hegelian interpretation, Enjoyment from out-of-order, which is that first the patient creates the nothing which is disorder, in order to have order.

In Zizek in the Clinic, what is brought up is a question of enjoyment in relation to the subversion of master discourses, which in one part of the book, takes the form of the question to the master, “What must we desire more of?” Another question might be, “What are we asking to be asked to desire more of?” What is the nothing that we ourselves are presenting in order to fill that nothing with something?

Fake Truth: A Materialist Juke Move

Marxist and Zero Books publisher Douglas Lain pointed out in an interview with Sky News that, among other things, that the Trump wall was entirely symbolic, in that it did not itself function to stop immigration. The Hegelian point which was repressed was that if the wall did function, then it would still be a symbolic wall as well. The symbolic wall of right wing nationalism as a “fuck you” to everyone who is against Trump’s brand of liar-nationalism might even be worse if it did function as a wall, because the primary function of the wall would be the “fuck you” rather than the stopping of the border crossing. The greatest obscuring factor of a symbolic wall would be in fact, it functioning as an actual wall properly, in order to keep people out. The material of the wall creates the nothing for which the symbol of the wall is then invited to fill.

The Lines Have Been Drawn For War In A Place Where No Blood Exists

We are faced with symbolic war more than ever, death drive without blood. In the virtual plane, people recreate the symbolic order which was once by necessity actualized by flesh and blood people, meaning that the gap between the Actual (with its previously difficult to recognize gap between symbol and material under a false unity) and the symbolic order for us is now distinguished with the help of the smooth space of electronic media. It was once “known” that philosophy or reason existed in a smooth-space, that philosophy as such never connects with the Actual because the flesh and blood discussions, where the important things happened, had to come up against social customs and the traditional forms of discourse, and thus the material limits of ideological repetition were these traditional forms of discourse. Does not the Donald Trump ascendence herald a sign where isolated forms of reason can now build in the smooth space of virtual reality, and be strung through meatspace while the luddites jump with surprise?

In electronic media, what we are to desire more of is almost entirely subsumed into the procedural unconscious, which is to utilize electronic media more. There is no limit or political necessity intrinsically to how this is to be done, and I think that any sort of outcry by the milquetoast right wingers about Alex Jones being banned or Jordan Peterson getting his Youtube account cancelled for five seconds is missing this universal of electronic media for electronic media’s sake, possibly because no one wants to be done.

Luddites are not free from virtual media, because the majority of discourse is happening in smooth space, between the human and their machine. What is more, where this is reversed, there lies a doomed ideology, or at the very least, a man on his heels with no repeater; the man holding the knife at the gun fight.

Millennials as an Absolute: a refutation of the self-certain narcissistic notion of {millennial} from boomers and millennials alike

I came across a The New Yorker piece, “Millennials Are The First Generation To Inspire Think Pieces About Millennials,” which was too Hegelian of a pop-up not to knock down via catching the ball. Here is a nice bit of self-certainty:

For many millennials, a social-media presence—on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter—has become integral to accessing the vast and varied world of millennial think pieces. I, for instance, clicked on a link on Facebook to an article about how millennials don’t have enough money, and then I shared it with my followers on Twitter. It is common knowledge that these social-media platforms—all founded by millennials, mind you—were formed for this very type of information dissemination. And look, it’s working. You’re reading this.

Annah Feinberg for The New Yorker

Here we get a pitch which butters up everyone who wishes to butter up millennials, not to be mistaken for buttering up millennials themselves. The material form of The New Yorker limits the ideal which they are trying to set forth. Instead, what is put forth is a tautology. The argument in the headline is meaningless (or more accurately, empty, useless as a posit but of course, useful dialectically), because the material form of “Millennial” in so far as they are an Actual category of people existing within a certain time period.

Millennials are the material initial inspiration for millennials as this Actuality of humans within a certain time period, which this title references; however, a cascade of simulacra follows when a millennial follows the {millennial} as some sort of entrepreneurial ideal of Mark Zuckerberg. Which is to say, this think piece about millennials is not inspired by millennials as a pure category; the initial inspiration was the material people born, but the think piece here in The New Yorker is fed by a capitalistic motivation for a certain quality of think pieces regarding millennials.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has a nice combination of the Geist and the material, and as a politician rather than an academic, her application of the millennial Geist as the Instagram person is both Actual in that she is actually a millennial on Instagram, and also a manifestation of this ideal form of millennial, making a refutation of her populist tactics as a refutation of her Actuality itself. By taking into the self the Geist of herself as the material millennial, she becomes Actual. What is actual contains lack and is ultimately a hole, which is to say the difference between the Geist and material contained as a unity. The celebration itself of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, to the extent the celebration is a material difference, is the capacity of her in a democracy. AOC’s embodiment of the millennial ideal is also an essential question of democratic socialism becoming Actualized within a systemic change.

Back to The New Yorker article, and I suppose to rescue The New Yorker arcticle from its tautology, yes, millennials exist, and are the original material source for think pieces about themselves (unlike unicorns which you could also write a think piece about, but because they are not Actual, no one could embody a unicorn as its ideal and confront us with the substantial difference between the ideal and material representations). Millennials feel material pressure to succeed, and are faced with more competition for occupational positions than their parents, so is it any wonder we get think pieces by millennials Actualizing the millennial Geist, in and for itself, within politics, literature, and already existing magazines such as The New Yorker?

The force of millennials Actualizing what is ideal is very different than the ironic distance of the past, and the force of the future may come from this Actualization of the various Geists, which have a substantial difference from their millennial vessels. The New Yorker, bruh.

White Guy-ism: a Hegelian look

Let’s say you’re a white guy. Furthermore, let’s say you’re straight (there goes 2/3rds of people who bother to read my effort-posts). But bear with me, let’s say even if you’re a bisexual or gay white guy, or a black trans woman, you’re a straight white guy right now. Ok? Ok. Great, now let’s get started.

As a straight white guy, let me give you one more privilege that no one has talked about yet. You are the embodiment of negative logic in today’s ethical structure, and the logic of the negative is the most effective at cutting through bullshit. Through no consequence of your own, you are now in the position to embody rationality (not that you’ll probably be able to do it). How you ask? Well, let’s look at the current ethical stances that you, a straight white male, can embody.

1) Support (novice-expert)

This is clearly the easiest position to embody, and probably the smartest, assuming you are an Absolute Egoist. Your identity as a straight white male has no positive positionality; therefore, you let everyone do the talking for you. You surf along whig history like a champ, look at you go! The history of whiteness is one of oppression and death, and thus you disavow it totally. That is to say, you take responsibility for 100% of complaints against it, embody it, and then work to negate them by letting the arguments of others narrate this aspect of your body. Excellent! Who will argue with you? Someone may call you a cuck on the internet, but that person is an outcast, a right populist loser with no pull. Who cares? Support is clearly the smartest position for any white person to take.

The novice almost doesn’t seem like a novice because they are carried by the correctness of their position through both self-interest and flexibility. The experts are the ones who lead the world, lead companies, etc. Woke capital is redundant, all capital surfs the weltgeist. Non-woke capital wouldn’t be capital at all, it’d be ineffective reaction, stagnating.

2) Reactionary (novice-expert)

I am not a reactionary in that I think the position of whitewing (i’ll just leave that Freudian slip typo in there) traditionalism, ignoring all the atrocities, is ultimately boring and stagnant. It is by design boring and stagnant, and it’s methods are to stop change whenever possible, with the argument that change is bad. Unrelated to its boringness, this is a pretty stupid idea as a whole self-interest wise, as even reactionary theorists recognize. You think back to when white people exploited people and think, “jee wizz, wasn’t that grand?” Then you decide that this was so grand, you go out and tell everyone what a grand thing this was.

This being said, Reactionaries are (ironically) constantly playing the black pieces, and if you are a true Hegelian, you simply have to see what they are saying! To be a reactionary is to be against the flow of progress, and for all reactionaries talk about values (see: Evola, NRx legalism) the embodiment of values, those values are never refined since this is the positive position of whiteness. “Whiteness is good” is the idea of the reactionary, which I’m trying to tell you here, is throwing away the superpositionality of whiteness.

The novice aspect is your run of the mill white supremacist, right populist, knuckle dragger. The expert is your Steve Bannon-s, your mobilizers of temporary “holds” against the tide of whig history (which of course, are just more gris for the mill in whig history in the end).

3) Equality Morality (novice-expert)

Oooo, white guy, what are you doing? If you really want to be left, you should be support!

But ok, this is what I try to do, so I talk to myself when I say, “why! What possesses you!? Why stand for equality of ethical treatment?” It is not a very useful position, UNLESS there is something which is useful about a universal ethic.

A universal ethic means that every person, regardless of race or color, should be treated with the same ethical standards, with some exceptions. This is to say, a ruler who continues to exploit their populace needs a revolution against them. But wait! Is this not further support for the Support position? Yes and no. The support position, clearly being the smoothest to occupy in the current zeitgeist, barely drawing ire from white supremacists because you yourself are a white guy, is the embodiment of the negativity of whiteness.

But okay, let me argue for my decision to try to consider a universal ethic. It has to do with the fluidity of Being as its own end. To consider all humans under a single ethical category in terms of the weight of their position allows for the advancement of universal ethics, which is necessary so as to save humanity from the destruction of the self due to an unnecessary flux in individual identity. The support position has a flaw in that white people when talking to other white people about how to best help minorities has a bit of a colonist flavor to it, does it not? I don’t like to be condescending. I want to treat people with a universal dignity rather than a conditional one, Being not becoming-as-an-end.

Anyway white boys, choose your fighter; simply, because you have to.