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.”

you

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.

Conclusion

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.

Hacking With Hegel

Expert Level Fallacies

Isn’t it so much better to prove to someone that Hegel’s logic is worthwhile by making use of it as something which exploits a weakness in the human security system by being accepted through conventional logic, than to try to make arguments defending Hegel? It’s more useful and more convincing, but mostly it’s funny and fun (could we even say, based and Hegelpilled?).

Insofar as A doesn’t equal A, one can make arguments in a variety of scenarios where this weakness of conventional logic allows for one to make a highly convincing case which is difficult to refute except through knowledge of Hegelian logic. In the Matrix they say Deja Vu let’s them know that there’s been a glitch, in spoofing the Symbolic Order, it’s more of a, “I guess you’re right, but something is wrong.”

What is it that is wrong? Take a look at the image attached to this article. Let’s think of each of these colors as various points in time, that a variable, “A”, has gone through. In each of these points, A had an entirely different set of qualities and properties attached to it. Hegel’s discovery is the truth of history, which is to say that one can not point at any second of a flower in its life cycle and definitively claim that it is the essential moment.

This pointing to specific moments in time however, is exactly how people are trained to think so that they can communicate at all in the first place. Who would point at a tulip, call it a tulip, and hear back an argument “well, it isn’t the WHOLE tulip.” No, it is simply a tulip. A equals A.

Say if you are required to make “B” but you would rather make “A”, this very same logic can be applied. You can take a certain amount of qualities of “B”, but create the historical function as “A”. Let us examine how this can work.

An architect is required to make something of the modern period, but he would much rather create something in the classical vein because his personal feeling about the project is that the classical structure would better suit the building project. In designing his classical structure, he can add elements of modernism such as negative space, and simple shapes within the structure, and maybe even remark that the piece still has “classical sensibilities.” However, the bulk of what is Actual within the building, along with intent, is the classical architecture structure.

A=A, no?

One is tasked by capitalism to produce, and insofar as we must produce for a system which does not serve us or the people we are supposed to be serving, it is good to have some knowledge of how to hack with Hegel. The technoindustrial machine’s stripped down and open ended pseudo-openness can be the death of it.

Through the pragmatism of the Other, we create their devil.

I Think The Whole System Fucking Sucks: a critical analysis of hardstyle

The aesthetic of hardstyle is aligned with critical thought and is structurally unable to be recaptured by boring dystopia. It is something the left should consider as an aesthetic element.

This is what I love, and can’t stop loving
Get wasted at parties, from 9 ’till 7 in the morning
I live for the music, rolling blunts, feeling high, getting loaded or take some pills and go to La La Land
Spending all my money on dope and extreme high priced tickets
But in the end it’s all worth it
I like to live in my own world
Fuck regular life, fuck a 9 to 5 job
I’m told to enjoy every moment, every hour, every minute
That’s what I do on Fridays and Saturday
Why should I take life so seriously?
I just wanna do what I like to do
Being far from reality, cause I can’t stand society
This is my own world, I just wanna hear the music
I think the whole system fucking sucks
Everybody’s working their fucking ass off during the week
Getting totally fucking stressed out
So what’s wrong, and what’s right?
I live for the weekend, I live for hard styles, I live for hardstyle baby!

Showtek, “FTS”

It is really too bad Nietzsche didn’t get to go to a doof doofer, one can easily see Nietzsche stumbling through a crowd, mustache ajar, pushing through with a couple of his libidinally questionably positioned friends. Hardstyle is the realization of what Nietzsche hoped to find in Wagner, but was disappointed to find it Wagner’s pseudo-tragedy too willingly recaptured by bourgeois society by both Wagner and bourgeois society alike.

There are a few critical theory points which are imminent to the lyrics to anyone schooled in critical theory I would challenge you to avoid. One, is the obvious willingness to engage in work and the hedonism which provides a replacement for critical thought; i.e., the “More Acid than Communism” critique of Acid Communism from the Cosmonaut blog. The second point is the lack of a positive program, and nothing approaching a replacement for capitalism et al. The reason which these are being overlooked is because hardstyle seems to have proven itself as something that can break through the culture of compulsory positivity.

Hardstyle is the death drive cry and the simultaneous demand for something else, a demand for an outside.

If you wander around Los Angeles to electronic music events aimlessly, you’ll notice a distinct strange trend (or you would if you were me and had a similar set of experiences). Famous DJs such as Benny Benassi with famous hits and worldwide stardom are drawing smaller crowds than loud, dissonant, highly accelerated bass drum electronic music. Hardstyle has emerged from rave culture as a replacement of the highly commodified and mainstreamed Dubstep of the late twenty-aughts and early tens. Dubstep artists doing collaborations with Britney Spears and Justin Bieber lead to lukewarm “Yes, of course, I guess this is OK.”

Hardstyle is different, it isn’t something that can be recaptured by any regular neoliberal spectacle. It is distinctly outside, distinctly loud, distinctly unrecapturable except through of course, its means of being produced.

Hardstyle music isn’t for relaxing either, its not something which can be played in the background of a restaurant. It is simply too fast, too pulsing, too demanding, too full of death drive.

The aesthetic revolutionary potential is there, if like all potentialities, it isn’t there in full.


I was put on this earth to make a difference, homie
The world is my playground
The bird’s left the cage, I’m doing things my way now
Yeah
Man, I’m willing to die for the cause
That’s the difference between me and y’all
To be the best, you have to beat the best
I’m undefeated, my style is everlasting
And I’mma never back down, you fucking clown!
Hahaha, yeah


We win, you lose
We live, you die
The world is mine!

Showtek, “The World is Mine”

It is worthy to note that hardstyle’s resurgence is a historical Actuality present in today’s electronic music, and draws crowds larger than those promoted by television, movie, sports, and relaxation/mindfulness/spirituality culture.

Hardstyle is hypermodernism’s death drive showing itself in culture and as a socially present reaction against pseudo-enlightenment idealism of boring tech dystopia.