The Post Narcissist Hangover

Every zeitgeist has its drug.

That’s the secret code, the tracer bullet through history. You don’t chart the eras by wars or presidents or hairstyles — you chart them by the highs. By the chemicals, rituals, and psychic contraband that lit the fuse and kept the engine howling.

You want to know what decade you’re in? Don’t check the headlines — ask what gets people out of bed in the morning and keeps them up at 3AM. That’s your drug. That’s your god.

And here’s the trick: the real freaks, the smellers of the zeitgeist, the antennaed mutants who twitch when the wind changes — they can tell when the high is dying. They sniff it in the air like dogs before a storm. They know when the supply’s running dry, when the thrill’s going limp, when the culture’s just going through the motions like a junkie reciting affirmations in a bathroom mirror.

The drug and the zeitgeist — they rise and fall together.

Acid in the ’60s, coke in the ’80s, Prozac in the ’90s, Adderall in the startup aughts.

Each one a perfect match for the collective nervous breakdown of its era.

Not chosen by taste — chosen by need.

And now?

Now we’re running on dopamine. Pure, digital dopamine — drip-fed by devices, delivered by screens, optimized for endless scrolls and performative personas. And the high?

It’s narcissism.

Self as product. Self as brand. Self as a constantly reissued press release.

Main character syndrome with a six-ring circus of side plots and skincare routines.

But something’s wrong.

The flavor’s off. The high’s gone cold.

The clowns are crying and the likes don’t hit like they used to.

You can feel the culture twitching, stuttering, staring into the mirror and wondering why it suddenly feels like work to be seen.

Narcissism is on its way out.

Bigly.

And with it, the dopamine machine is starting to sputter.

Not gone — not yet — but the cracks are showing.

The sell-by date’s been printed.

The freaks are already moving on.

What comes next?

God knows.

But we’re here to light the autopsy table, pour a stiff drink, and document the final spasms of the world’s last great ego trip.

THE PERFECT DRUG

I always said: buy the ticket, take the ride. But in that flaming wreck of a free market, the ticket booth had been manned by sociopaths in startup hoodies, and the ride turned out to be a haunted carousel fueled by Adderall and venture capital.

Here was the grinning secret every third-rate wizard of Silicon Valley knew but wouldn’t say out loud: you didn’t need a good idea — you just needed a target. Preferably one with a mild-to-moderate psychological disorder. Nothing too crippling — just a manageable cocktail of insecurity, addiction, and digital trauma. The kind of folks who used to buy X-ray specs from the back of comic books and were now forking over $39.99 a month to “optimize their dopamine.”

You found those people. You spoke their language. You promised transcendence in twelve easy payments.

Then you lied.

You lied like the Pope in a brothel. Lied like your Tesla depended on it. You told them you had the cure, the hack, the cheat code, the goddamn answer to their late-night doomscrolling despair. You said their anxiety wasn’t a problem, it was potential — a feature, not a bug — the golden key to creativity, enlightenment, or at the very least, better abs. You wrapped it all in soothing gradients and semi-scientific fonts. You called it “self-care.”

That had been the racket. That was the hustle. Not innovation — manipulation. Not progress — persuasion.

And they thanked you for it.

Hell, they subscribed.

A FEAST OF THE DAMNED

Appetizers are for dilettantes and TikTok therapists. You want the main course, friend? Pull up a chair. Light something unfiltered. Let’s carve the beast.

The true pros—the top-shelf operators in this meat grinder of a republic—don’t just identify neuroses, they cultivate them. They water them daily with fear, guilt, curated envy, and a steady drip of dopamine-branded despair. They don’t sell solutions; they sell symptoms with a dashboard.

Want to feel connected? Here’s a social network built to destroy your attention span and monetize your loneliness. Want clarity? Here’s an app that tracks your thoughts like an Orwellian Fitbit and sells them to hedge funds in Singapore. Want meaning? We’ve got twelve different gurus live-streaming from Bali on how to turn your trauma into passive income.

It’s not a market anymore. It’s a menagerie.

Every user a case study. Every swipe a confession.

And the high priests of this new digital tabernacle?

They know exactly what you want before you do.

This is the meal. This is what we’re all chewing on:

Processed dreams, sprayed with synthetic hope,

served on biodegradable platitudes with a side of algorithmic slop.

And we keep eating.

Because the thing about noble lies—real, juicy, professionally engineered noble lies—is that they’re more comforting than truth. Truth demands something. Lies tuck you in, kiss your forehead, and offer you 10% off with a promo code.

Success, in this twisted empire, isn’t about building something beautiful. It’s about scaling delusion. Manufacturing identity crises in bulk. Gaslighting as-a-service.

And if you do it really well?

You get a TED Talk.

You get a podcast.

You get a VC-backed brand of artisanal nootropics made from moonlight and ketamine.

Bon appétit, America.

OPIUM

Was alcohol better than opium? Christ, that’s like asking if being mauled by a bear is better than drowning in a warm bath. Both’ll kill you — the only difference is how poetic your obituary sounds.

Back in the glory days — when men were men, and bars were confessionals soaked in cigarette ash and whiskey stink — we drank to obliterate. To see God, or at least forget that He stopped returning our calls. Booze was democratic. Available. American. It didn’t require a login, a subscription, or an influencer with a collagen sponsorship. You belly up to the bar, throw down a bill, and gamble your liver on the warm hope of temporary amnesia.

But opium — ah, that silky serpent — that was a different beast. Opium was mythic. The choice of romantics and revolutionaries. You didn’t do opium to forget — you did it to float. To become a ghost in your own skin. A poet without a pulse. It whispered to you, wrapped you in gauze, and lulled you into a dream where the rent was paid and the wars were over.

Now? We don’t need either. We’ve synthesized both.

Liquor is an app.

Opium is a feed.

Despair is user-generated and monetized by the click.

We are self-medicating on serotonin loops and cybernetic shame spirals. Dopamine drip-fed through likes, swipes, retweets, and targeted outrage. Forget the needle. Forget the bottle. The new high is being seen. Or believing you’re being seen. Same difference.

And the comedown? Oh, it’s clinical. Sterile. You don’t wake up in a gutter anymore. You wake up with 137 unread notifications and a sinking suspicion that you sold a piece of your soul for a blue checkmark and some mid-tier engagement.

So was alcohol better than opium?

Was either better than this current hell-broth of digital anesthesia?

Debatable.

At least the old poisons had taste.

Now we overdose on blandness.

On soft, slippery lies piped in 4K resolution, narrated by friendly robots with dead eyes and helpful tips.

Progress? Maybe.

But I’d trade all the smart tech and lifehacks for one more night drunk on gasoline and thunder, yelling poetry at the moon and chasing demons through the desert on a stolen motorcycle.

At least that felt like living.

But I too felt it at the time. Jesus, how could you not? The air was thick with it — not love, not hope, not even the usual cocktail of fear and masturbation — but meaning, man. A cheap, nasty strain of counterfeit meaning passed around like bathtub gin at a dying wedding. That was probably as good as it was ever gonna metaphorically get — the highwater mark of the American hallucination, just before the lights flickered and the rats started wearing AirPods.

I felt it in my teeth.

I didn’t see it coming — I felt it, like a bad drug turning in your bloodstream. A sudden wrongness in the high. The buzz that used to carry you suddenly collapsing under its own weight, leaving only the tremors and dry mouth. That was the first sign: the drugs didn’t work anymore. Not the literal ones — though those, too, started feeling like sugar pills wrapped in marketing — but the psychic drugs. The idea of being in a band. The myth of independence. That whole beautiful, blood-soaked lie we told ourselves in the ‘90s: that if you stayed weird and played honest, the world would eventually catch on. That was the trip. And for a while, it worked. Long enough to believe it. But then the high wore off, and I started to feel the cracks in the culture. No explosions, no warnings — just a slow evaporation of meaning. I didn’t have a grand vision of the collapse; I wasn’t perched on the edge of the digital apocalypse with a bullhorn and a bag of mescaline. But I knew. I felt it in green rooms and gas stations, in the hollow eyes of promoters who used to give a damn. The strange dead air after shows. The numbing echo of a thousand songs floating into algorithmic purgatory. Everything started feeling performed, like we were all auditioning for something that had already been canceled. And somewhere in that haze, I realized: the independence we built our whole identity around had been monetized, dissected, branded, and sold back to us with a monthly subscription fee. And we took it. Willingly. Like pigs at the trough, grinning with slop on our faces.

It was peak-fantasy realism, and you knew — like a hungover prophet in a desert of discount self-actualization — that the whole thing was seconds from rot.

And now

I’ve been around long enough to smell a trend going rancid. I’m a trader in sell-by-date narratives, baby. I know when a drug’s about to get unfashionable.

That’s why I can tell when someone’s drugs starts to wear off. That is what is happening now.

That’s it. That’s the whole twisted truth, boiled down to a grim little shard of instinct: I can tell when someone’s drugs start to wear off. It’s not subtle — it’s a psychic shiver, a short-circuit in the rhythm. In the glowing eyes of every party ghoul and tech grifter In the shaky hands of washed-up Instagram therapists and mushroom microdosers trying to rebrand as prophets.

Their eyes don’t dance the same. Their speech stutters in the corners, like an old car with bad brakes coasting downhill into the future. That hollow conviction, the frantic energy of someone trying to outrun the comedown. And that’s what’s happening now. Culturally. Spiritually. Across the board. The dopamine drip is sputtering, and all the pretty plastic people are starting to twitch. Their hits don’t hit. Their affirmations don’t affirm. The mirror stopped loving them back. You can see it in the timelines and the TikToks — the grins are just a little too wide, the messages a little too desperate. They’re not on top of the wave anymore — they’re under it, holding their breath and hoping no one notices the panic in their filtered eyes. The supply is poisoned. The high is broken. And now we’re all just waiting to see who snaps first.

You could see the come-down coming like a freight train full of Buddhist MLM consultants.

Ketamine, mindfulness, ayahuasca in a tent with a man named Derek —

all of it part of the same desperate crawl toward meaning in a culture that had already pawned its soul for engagement metrics.

And the great monster of it all — the cracked-out vampire lurking behind the whole glittering facade — was narcissism. Not the old-school Elvis kind, with rhinestones and charisma. I mean the bloated, ghoulish, app-optimized narcissism that came standard with every smartphone and a front-facing camera.

But even that is fading now.

You can feel it — like a drop in barometric pressure before a cyclone of cultural malaise.

Narcissism is going out of style bigly.

The zoomers want sincerity. The millennials are burned out from performative selfhood. Even the crypto bros are weeping into their Ring lights, begging for forgiveness from God and the SEC. The tides are turning. The mirrors are cracking. And all the old freaks who made a killing in the age of the self are waking up to find the market flooded with remorse and AI-generated poetry.

No more dopamine-on-demand.

No more selfies as sacrament.

No more influencer-gurus hawking trauma as lifestyle.

We are entering the post-narcissist hangover —

a national come-to-Jesus moment where everyone looks in the mirror and sees a sponsored ghost.

And the worst part?

There’s no going back.

You can’t uninvent the ring light.

You can’t put the teeth back in the cocaine.

And you sure as hell can’t repackage sincerity once people stop buying it.

So what’s next?

Hell if I know. Maybe a return to muttering into typewriters in windowless rooms.

Maybe fire. Maybe silence.

But if you want a tip from a man who’s chased the ghost of America through barrooms, bunkers, and bureaucracies…

Buy stock in regret.

It’s about to be the only growth sector left.

INT: ROYAL TREASURY, MADRID, 1637.

OLIVARES (slamming open the door):

Gentlemen! Welcome to a new age of finance. Spain is proud to unveil its latest instrument of international liquidity: the Soul-Backed Evangelical Bond.

GENOESE BANKER (twitching):

What… exactly backs this bond?

OLIVARES (beaming):

Salvation.

(He clicks, and the Jesuit Consultant unfurls a scroll depicting cherubs baptizing Indigenous Americans.)

OLIVARES (cont’d):

For every 1,000 ducats you lend us, we guarantee:

The spiritual salvation of at least four souls in New Spain. One hundred rosaries, blessed by someone who has definitely met the Pope. And a notarized indulgence, suitable for framing or eternal damnation insurance.

DUTCH ENVOY:

Is this… collateral?

OLIVARES:

Better. It’s moral yield. These are grace-indexed returns, gentlemen.

GENOESE BANKER:

But how do we redeem these bonds?

OLIVARES:

Redemption is the point! The soul is eternal. Unlike your ledgers, which we may or may not recognize next quarter.

/The Count-Duke gestures to the scribe, who begins drafting a papal-sounding letter titled “On the Virtues of Deferred Payment.”)

OLIVARES (cont’d):

We’re also offering grace tranches. Tier One includes baptisms and full confessionals. Tier Two—just a firm handshake and a whispered Ave Maria. But the interest compounds either way—in heaven.

DUTCH ENVOY:

This sounds like religious indulgences wrapped in bankruptcy.

OLIVARES:

It’s a structured spiritual instrument. We call it… the Salvation Swap.

GENOESE BANKER:

Are you proposing to securitize mass conversion?

OLIVARES:

We prefer to say divinely collateralized.

(A bell tolls ominously outside. The Jesuit bows and leaves to light candles somewhere.)

# ACT II

INT. ROYAL TREASURY, MADRID – THREE MONTHS LATER

The room is now adorned with elaborate charts showing “Soul Yields” and “Baptismal Futures.” OLIVARES stands proudly before a small group of increasingly skeptical European financiers.

OLIVARES:

Gentlemen! Our first-quarter salvation metrics have exceeded expectations. 

He gestures dramatically to a ROYAL ACCOUNTANT who unfurls a scroll with numbers.

ROYAL ACCOUNTANT (nervously):

We’ve baptized seventeen thousand souls in Peru alone. That’s a grace-adjusted return of… um… infinity percent.

VENETIAN BANKER:

But the silver fleet is three months overdue, and our actual returns remain at zero ducats.

OLIVARES (dismissively):

Temporal returns! So limiting. Our Jesuit analysts have developed a new metric: EBITDA.

PORTUGUESE MERCHANT:

Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization?

OLIVARES:

Evangelism Before Indulgence, Tithes, Damnation, and Absolution! The growth is exponential.

OLIVARES snaps his fingers. A PRIEST wheels in a model of a cathedral with coin slots.

OLIVARES (cont’d):

Introducing our latest innovation: the Sacramental Deposit Account. Each soul-share now comes with perpetual prayer options.

GENOESE BANKER (rubbing temples):

My syndicate has concerns about liquidity…

OLIVARES:

Ah! We’ve addressed that with Holy Water Liquidity Pools.

He produces a small vial with a wax seal.

OLIVARES (cont’d):

Each drop blessed by three different orders of monks for triple-A spiritual security.

FLORENTINE INVESTOR:

The Medici Bank requires actual repayment schedules.

OLIVARES:

Of course! We’re offering flexible repayment options in three currencies: Spanish doubloons, divine grace, or conquistador promissory notes. Pick any two!

The DUTCH ENVOY examines a contract closely.

DUTCH ENVOY:

This clause states that in case of default, the bond converts to… prayers for our souls?

OLIVARES:

Premium prayers! By monks who haven’t spoken in decades. Their spiritual focus is unmatched.

ROYAL ACCOUNTANT (whispering urgently):

Your Excellency, the courier from America brings news…

OLIVARES (loudly interrupting):

Wonderful! I’m sure it’s about the overwhelming success of our missionary positions!

ROYAL ACCOUNTANT:

No, sir. The silver convoy was… diverted. By Dutch ships.

All eyes turn to the DUTCH ENVOY, who sips his wine innocently.*

OLIVARES (recovering quickly):

A temporary setback! This is why diversification into spiritual assets is crucial. Unlike silver, souls cannot be pirated!

DUTCH ENVOY:

Actually, we Calvinists might disagree…

OLIVARES (ignoring him):

Gentlemen, I’m pleased to announce our newest offering: Purgatorial Default Swaps. Insurance against spiritual bankruptcy!

He gestures to a MONK who unveils a terrifying painting of souls in purgatory, with arrows indicating “Expedited Processing.”

ACT III

INT. ROYAL TREASURY, MADRID – SIX MONTHS LATER

The treasury has been transformed. Rows of MONKS sit at small desks, each solving complex theological equations with abacuses. A large board displays “SOUL-CHAIN: BLOCKS VALIDATED TODAY: 144.”

OLIVARES (proudly):
Behold, gentlemen! The SoulChain – Spain’s revolutionary salvation ledger system!

He gestures to a massive illuminated manuscript chained between several MONKS.

OLIVARES (cont’d):
Every baptism, confession, and indulgence is now recorded on our distributed sacred ledger. Immutable! Transparent! Divine!

GENOESE BANKER (examining the setup):
So… who maintains these records?

OLIVARES:
That’s the brilliance! Our network of monasteries each maintains identical copies. To add new souls to the ledger, monks must solve complex theological proofs – we call it “Proof of Prayer.”

A MONK completes a calculation and rings a small bell triumphantly.

MONK:
Block 1637! Verified and sealed with the royal wax!

OLIVARES:
See? Once 51% of our monasteries verify a conversion, it becomes permanently recorded in the SoulChain. No bishop, cardinal, or even the Pope himself can alter it!

FLORENTINE INVESTOR:
But what prevents false entries? What if someone claims more conversions than occurred?

OLIVARES:
The divine consensus mechanism! Each monk must sacrifice valuable prayer time to solve these theological puzzles. The harder they pray, the more secure our ledger!

He leads them to a massive room where MONKS are copying ledgers, their fingers stained with ink.

OLIVARES (cont’d):
We call them “node monks.” They receive small indulgences for their service to the network.

DUTCH ENVOY:
This seems unnecessarily complex when a single registry would—

OLIVARES (interrupting):
Centralized systems are vulnerable! What if the Vatican questions our numbers? With SoulChain, the truth is distributed across the kingdom!

The ROYAL TREASURER approaches with a worried expression.

ROYAL TREASURER:
Your Excellence, we’ve detected unauthorized ledger activity in the Catalan monastery.

OLIVARES:
A heretical fork attempt! Dispatch the inquisitors immediately!

He turns back to the financiers, composing himself.

OLIVARES (cont’d):
Early adoption challenges. Now, for our premier financial instrument: the SoulToken.

He presents ornate wooden tokens with crosses carved into them.

OLIVARES:
Each token represents one soul saved in the New World. They can be traded, split, or combined! The value is backed by divine grace – the ultimate store of value!

VENETIAN BANKER:
How do we know the supply won’t be… inflated?

OLIVARES:
The system is programmed—I mean, divinely ordained—to reduce the salvation reward by half every four years. We call it “The Halving.” Makes early investors—I mean, donors—more blessed!

PORTUGUESE MERCHANT:
But what practical use do these tokens have?

OLIVARES:
Transaction fees for the Spanish Empire’s services will now be payable in SoulTokens! Need a royal license? Five tokens. Court judgment? Ten tokens. They’re the future of imperial finance!

A MONK rushes in with a smoking candle.

MONK:
Excellence! The Jesuits in Mexico are consuming enormous amounts of candle wax to validate transactions! The network is congested!

OLIVARES:
Scaling challenges. We’re implementing our “Lightning Prayer Network” soon – off-chain salvation for smaller sins.

He notices the DUTCH ENVOY examining his ledger closely.

OLIVARES (suspiciously):
I see the Dutch are interested in our technology? Planning your own SoulChain, perhaps?

DUTCH ENVOY:
We prefer a different consensus mechanism. “Proof of Trade” is more our style.

OLIVARES (addressing everyone):
Gentlemen, those who invest early in SoulChain will secure their position in this revolutionary system! The Spanish Empire isn’t just conquering lands; we’re conquering the future of finance!

As he speaks, a MONK quietly updates the conversion count on the board, manually adding a zero to make the numbers look more impressive.

Crypto: A Password Manager at a House Fire

I’m starting to feel like crypto is a solution designed for a different era—specifically the post-9/11, pre-Occupy moment when fear of institutional collapse and distrust in centralized systems reached a kind of fever pitch. The trauma of the 2008 financial crisis birthed a thousand libertarian dreams of algorithmic salvation. But here we are, over a decade later, and crypto still feels like it’s addressing the ghosts of problems, not the ones actually haunting us now.

It has the same misplaced urgency as the bicycle panic of the 1880s, when people feared that women on bikes would destroy the moral fabric of society. Or the early-20th-century belief that too much electricity would overstimulate the human brain. Or the Victorian terror at the thought of women riding trains unchaperoned. These weren’t real problems—they were projections, anxieties masquerading as revolutions.

Crypto promises to fix banking, privacy, and “the system.” But which system, exactly? The dollar? Central banks? Gold? The one where you have to wait two days for a wire transfer? Meanwhile, in the real world, the bond market is quietly losing faith in the dollar. Long-term yields are creeping up, foreign buyers are backing away, and Washington seems determined to test how far confidence can fall before anyone notices. That’s an actual systemic shift—but crypto, rather than serving as a refuge, is just tagging along for the ride. Despite all the breathless talk about digital gold, Bitcoin and friends aren’t tracking gold, silver, or anything remotely tangible. They’re pegged to tech stocks. To vibes. To rate cuts and risk-on sentiment. It’s less a counter-system than a high-volatility cousin of the Nasdaq with worse UX and more people yelling “do your own research.”

It’s less a revolution and more of a mood ring for capital anxiety.

Crypto originally set out to solve “problems” like slow wire transfers, middlemen taking tiny cuts, and the terrifying possibility that your bank might have to know your name. These were framed as existential crises, even as the planet overheats, democratic institutions crumble, generational wealth gaps widen, and AI races ahead with all the subtlety of a runaway train.

We were promised digital gold, censorship resistance, financial liberation. What we got, mostly, are cartoon apes, rug pulls, and breathless YouTube tutorials explaining how to recover a lost seed phrase. It’s like showing up to a four-alarm fire with a password manager and saying, “Don’t worry. I’ve got this.”

The Medieval Vibes of the 21st Century

Lately, I’ve been getting this strange sense that the period between 2001 and today is starting to feel a lot like a lost chapter in history. Not in the sense of “we’re doomed,” but more like the Middle Ages—a time of vibes, an era that future historians will look back on and wonder just what in the hell was going on.

Think about it: from the rise of global terrorism after 9/11 to the economic chaos of 2008, to today’s social media-driven existential crisis, it all feels like we’re living through an age of disruption with no clear end. We’ve got all these weird, unmoored phenomena—the kind of stuff that you would only expect in a time of shifting power, just before everything falls into place and becomes clear again.

It’s almost like we’re living in a medieval manuscript—full of cryptic scribbles, strange, chaotic visions, and unexplainable happenings that future generations will analyze as if they hold all the answers. Instead of a feudal system, though, we’re dealing with a globalized tech oligarchy, economic bubbles that blow up faster than anyone can track, and financial systems that seem perpetually on the edge of collapse. We’re just vibing through the dark ages of tech and finance, hoping we’ll stumble upon something that makes sense.

We’ve spent the last two decades lurching from one crisis to another, trying to solve problems that weren’t really problems—crypto was supposed to “fix” banking and government control, but all it’s done is attach itself to the tech stock market, riding high when the Fed cuts rates and crashing when they raise them. It’s like bringing a sword to a gunfight—or better yet, bringing a knight’s armor to a battle against climate change.

Like the medieval period, this age is fueled by belief—belief in institutions that no longer hold weight, in technologies that don’t live up to the hype, in ideologies that don’t seem to match the reality. Just as medieval peasants were told that heaven awaited them if they toiled away for their lords, we’re told that tech will save us if we just keep “innovating” and “disrupting.” But both the peasants and us are stuck in a kind of limbo—waiting for something to change but never seeing it.

What does all of this mean for the future? Honestly, who knows. But it’s starting to feel like we’re stuck in the medieval era of the 21st century—too close to see the real picture, but distant enough that we can tell it’s all going somewhere strange.

Lu-Tze and the Tao of Non-Engagement

A Radical Simplicity

Terry Pratchett’s Lu-Tze, the humble sweeper-monk, embodies a philosophy that transcends the binaries of control and chaos, order and entropy. His approach echoes the Taoist principle of wu wei—effortless action—where effectiveness arises not from force or rigid doctrine, but from alignment with the natural flow of things. In a world where systems demand either compliance or rebellion, Lu-Tze’s quiet labor becomes a subversion of both. He sweeps floors, tends gardens, and occasionally nudges history with a well-timed proverb, all while maintaining an almost Zen-like detachment. This isn’t apathy; it’s a deliberate refusal to be ensnared by the narratives that trap others.

Where Jeremy Clockson is a being of precision, of engineered inevitability, Lu-Tze is improvisation wearing a broom. He acts, but never hurries. He intervenes, but rarely directly. He knows when to do nothing—not out of laziness, but because doing nothing is sometimes the most powerful move on the board. This is wu wei: not passivity, but attunement. Not resistance, but redirection.

Lu-Tze’s true rebellion is his refusal to play the game on the game’s terms. In a monastery of time-obsessed monks and obsessive administrators, he becomes a kind of counter-temporal agent. His toolkit isn’t quantum precision—it’s tea, footnotes, and aphorisms. He smuggles agency into a world obsessed with schedules. He practices radical patience in an age of urgency.

Importantly, wu wei does not mean disengagement from the world. On the contrary: it demands deep presence. But presence without domination. Lu-Tze notices—and this makes him dangerous. He is underestimated precisely because he refuses to self-mythologize. He does not posture. He sweeps. And in that sweeping, he rewrites the future.

Lu-Tze’s simplicity isn’t just spiritual—it’s political. In a world increasingly obsessed with spectacle and optimization, he embodies a slow refusal. His sweeping is a practice of soft power, a kind of monkish mutual aid. It doesn’t scale. It doesn’t trend. But it works. And that’s why the Auditors hate him. He cannot be predicted. He cannot be optimized. He is the chaotic good of quiet maintenance.

And while characters like Lobsang enact the tension between order and soul, Lu-Tze offers a third path: the invisible art of keeping things just functional enough not to collapse. He’s not the hero. He’s the janitor of the sacred. The clock ticks because he keeps the dust off the gears.

In terms of art and meaning-making, Lu-Tze is the analog craftsperson in the back room. The slow artist who whittles spoons. The poet who doesn’t publish. He doesn’t need applause. He just needs the floor to be clean.

Marx, Zen, and the Clock as Capital

When the Abbot instructs Lu‑Tze to “stop the clock,” the order resonates beyond plot. The clock—especially the perfect one Jeremy Clockson builds under the Auditors’ influence—isn’t just a timepiece; it’s the fantasy of total control. In Marxist terms, it’s capital’s dream object: pure quantification, the commodification of time itself. No deviation, no subjective experience, just value measured in ticks and tocks.

Lu‑Tze is the anti-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic Zen Marxist janitor. He doesn’t wage war against the machine—he sweeps around it, confounds it, slips through its gears. His proverbs, riddles, and broom are more subversive than any manifesto. Like a Zen koan, he can’t be neatly interpreted, and that’s the point. He’s not here to solve the system; he’s here to remind us it was never sacred to begin with.

Marx wrote that under capitalism, even time becomes alienated—we no longer live in it, we sell it. Lu‑Tze refuses that paradigm. Ask his job, and he says, “I’m just the sweeper.” Which is to say: I exist outside your categories. He’s the embodiment of kairos—opportune time—against the capitalist worship of chronos—measurable time.

Lobsang and the Split Self

Lobsang Ludd, apprentice monk and living incarnation of Time itself, is where the grand cosmic argument becomes achingly personal. His story is not just the tension between past and future, or between chaos and order—it’s the fracture at the heart of the modern self. Lobsang is a contradiction made flesh: half-human, half-myth, half-clock. His very existence is a split screen—on one side, the warm, impulsive, half-smiling boy who steals apples and tells jokes; on the other, Jeremy Clockson, the ultra-competent craftsman of inevitability, built to measure, built to obey.

This isn’t just narrative cleverness—it’s a diagnosis. Lobsang is the embodiment of the contemporary condition: a being caught between the speed of machines and the slowness of meaning. Between the spreadsheet and the dream. He is what happens when the soul tries to survive under metrics. When intuition is pressed into a uniform and told to meet deadlines.

Lu-Tze, the sweeper monk, sees this. And crucially, he doesn’t try to resolve it with doctrine or logic. He doesn’t lecture. He doesn’t offer a syllabus. Instead, he teaches Lobsang with confusion. With humor. With badly-timed jokes and inexplicable errands. His method is methodlessness: pedagogy by surprise. He introduces Lobsang to the art of the sidelong glance, the subtextual lesson, the broomstroke that changes history.

This is not revolution in the industrial sense—there are no manifestos, no barricades. It’s resistance by living otherwise. To take joy in something unmeasurable. To make tea slowly. To laugh at a pun. These are not small things. In a world obsessed with precision, a bowl of noodles can be an act of defiance. A quiet joke can derail a deterministic future.

Lu-Tze teaches Lobsang that time is not a prison to be maintained but a river to be floated on, or sometimes stepped out of entirely. In doing so, he reframes the problem. The question is no longer how to perfect time, but how to inhabit it. How to dwell in it, care for it, misuse it even—and in doing so, reclaim it.

Lobsang’s journey, then, is not to choose between Jeremy and himself, but to integrate the two. To become both clock and cloud. Both structure and soul. This synthesis—impossible, absurd, necessary—is the real victory. Because the enemy is not order, nor even chaos, but the idea that one must erase the other to function.

In a culture that demands specialization and speed, Lobsang learns instead to be whole. Not perfect, not optimized—just whole. That, in the end, is what saves the world: not stopping time, not preserving it, but allowing it to contain multitudes.

Stopping the clock isn’t about breaking time—it’s about restoring it. Thief of Time argues that history isn’t a riddle to be solved or a path to be completed. It’s a garden. Messy, uneven, and alive. And someone, quietly, has to sweep the paths.

THE AUDITORS

The Auditors in Thief of Time are terrifying from central casting not because they’re evil in the traditional sense, but because they’re pure function. They’re obsessed with eliminating chaos, optimizing everything, and making the universe neat, clean, and predictable. In that way, they’re like a cosmic version of the “paperclip maximizer” thought experiment—an AI that pursues its goal with such blind efficiency that it destroys everything else in the process.

They don’t hate humanity. They just see people as messy. Irrational. Inefficient. Too unpredictable to fit into a perfectly ordered system. So their solution is to remove the mess entirely—by removing us.

This is what makes them funny. They’re not monsters in jackboots. They’re not driven by hatred. They’re driven by logic—cold, bloodless logic. They’re what happens when you take the tools of technocratic liberalism—optimization, system design, rational planning—and strip away any empathy, humility, or tolerance for contradiction. What’s left is a mindset that wants the world to be smooth, silent, and sterile.

In that sense, the Auditors are like the evil twin of the liberal world order: not violent tyrants, but clean managers of doom. They don’t scream. They just delete.

Now contrast that with the monks. They’re flawed, yes—but they still tolerate mess. They try to keep time flowing properly, understanding it’s a balancing act, not a solved equation. They’re like caretakers of a delicate ecosystem rather than engineers of a perfect machine.

But even they fall short. Because they, too, come from a worldview that believes in managing history—as if history were something you could balance forever. And when time begins to break apart, their calm detachment becomes paralysis.

Only Lu-Tze can respond—not because he’s stronger, but because he’s freer. He doesn’t buy into the idea that the world can be perfected. He doesn’t try to control history. He just shows up, broom in hand, and starts sweeping. He accepts the chaos. He works within it. He does the job, with humility and humor.

In an age where both authoritarian systems and well-meaning managerial ones are failing—where optimization itself becomes a form of violence—Lu-Tze represents something radically different. Not a new system. Not a better theory. Just a person doing honest work without illusions of control.

 In refusing the ego’s demand to be seen, branded, optimized. He chooses simple labor over a life of performance. He holds on to his mind, even as he gives his body to the work.

Because in Lu-Tze’s quiet refusal to turn his soul into a product, there’s a radical dignity—one that many in modern, “creative” industries have traded away in exchange for LinkedIn clout or “personal branding.” In this light, sweeping isn’t just a job. It’s a form of resistance. A refusal to be consumed by the economy of self-exploitation.

This continues in a sort of, you know, Machiavellian way—like somewhere back in the boardrooms of capitalism in the 1950s, someone realized a terrible truth: if we only work them physically, they still have their minds to themselves. They can think. They can dissent. They can dream. But if we own their minds—if we capture their attention, their imagination, their very sense of self—we won’t need to police them. They’ll police themselves.

So the strategy shifts. The new labor isn’t just lifting or building; it’s aligning yourself with corporate values, being “passionate” about KPIs, injecting your personality into your emails. The worker becomes the product. The sellable thing is no longer what you do, but who you are—or at least, who you pretend to be.

And here, again, Lu-Tze sweeps in—not as a guru, but as a quiet rebuke. He sweeps the floor, not his soul. He gives the world his labor, but never his mind. In this age where rebellion looks like burnout and docility looks like ambition, the old monk with a broom might be the last revolutionary.

The strategy doesn’t just shape the workplace, it colonizes the imagination. It bleeds directly into our storytelling, especially in Hollywood and Netflix-era content, where the protagonist has subtly shifted. The old hero archetypes—the farmer called to greatness, the dreamer resisting the empire—have been replaced by agents, analysts, special forces vets, or start-up founders. These are people who already belong to systems of control. They’re not breaking out—they’re maintaining order, upholding protocol, or innovating inside frameworks that already exist.

Even when they “rebel,” it’s within limits that flatter the machine: the FBI agent who goes rogue to save the world still proves the FBI was right to hire her. The ex-military man haunted by war trauma still resolves it through more violence, but now “on his own terms.” The tech bro turned savior doesn’t overthrow the system—he just upgrades it. These characters don’t escape the algorithm—they are the algorithm’s fantasy of rebellion. Branded authenticity.

It’s all part of that same Machiavellian realization: don’t just command people—make them want it. Don’t suppress their individuality—monetize it. The contemporary protagonist is no longer a mirror to our struggles; he’s a recruiting poster. He performs freedom while embodying control. And in that sense, these narratives are the cultural arm of the same logic that gave us the corporate wellness seminar, the “personal brand,” and the company Slack channel that feels like a dystopian high school.

This is why someone like Lu-Tze matters so much. He isn’t optimized. He isn’t curated. He’s not a brand. He’s just a guy doing what needs doing, outside the spectacle. And that’s why he’s radical.

What we’re seeing is the deep saturation of ideology—not in the old sense of state propaganda or brute censorship, but in a much more insidious form: narrative capture. Capital doesn’t want to stop stories—it wants to own them. And what better way than to write the protagonist as someone whose only real power is to work better within the system?

So rebellion becomes a product feature. The hacker is now a start-up founder. The punk is an influencer. The rogue cop is the best cop. The spy questions authority, but only to save the world on its terms. It’s not that culture stopped telling stories of resistance—it’s that resistance got turned into a genre with a three-act structure and a Disney+ spin-off.

In this environment, every main character is either trauma-forged or professionally competent. They have to be broken, but in a narratively useful way. And most importantly, they must be redeemable by the system. Their inner conflict resolves when they get their badge back, their startup funded, or their team reassembled. 

Catharsis becomes compliance.

Now contrast that with Lu-Tze: the sweeper monk who doesn’t seek attention, who dodges the spotlight, who doesn’t want to be the main character. He refuses the call—not out of fear, but out of understanding. He knows that history is made by people who don’t try to control it. He sweeps. He listens. He waits. And when he acts, he does so without drama.

In a world that’s turned “authenticity” into a monetizable trait and main characters into brand extensions, Lu-Tze is dangerous. He’s not “off the grid” in a performative way—he’s simply free. Free in the oldest and strangest sense: detached, modest, impossible to incentivize. He’s immune to optimization.

This is why Pratchett’s world hits harder now than it did when he wrote it. He saw what was coming—not just the collapse of systems, but the rise of counterfeit freedom, scripted rebellion, and algorithmic individuality. And he offered something better: humility, absurdity, action without ego.

What Pratchett sketches in Thief of Time is not just a witty fantasy about monks tinkering with clocks—it’s a profound meditation on history, time, and agency. If Fukuyama’s “End of History” imagines a world where liberal democracy and capitalism have resolved all major ideological conflicts, then time, in that schema, becomes flat and singular: we’ve arrived, the story is over, and all that remains is management.

This is the world the Auditors dream of. They abhor the messiness of human narratives and long to impose an eternal present, scrubbed clean of desire, error, and surprise. In a way, they are the spiritual children of the End of History thesis—believers in order for its own sake, where time is reduced to quantifiable ticks, a perfect loop with no deviation.

But Pratchett gives us another vision in the Monks of Time. Unlike the Auditors, the Monks understand that time is not a monolith. It is lived unevenly across the world. A grieving village needs more time. A battlefield needs to pause. A moment of epiphany must stretch beyond the confines of the clock. Their work is to redistribute time, not in the cold logic of administration, but in the spirit of care and responsiveness. They are not trying to stop history, nor complete it—they’re trying to keep it humane.

And that is why Lu‑Tze, the humble sweeper, who operates in the cracks of the grand system, understands that the world is not governed by doctrines or end-states, but by small acts of compassion, disruption, and patience. While the Abbot contemplates the eternal in infant form, Lu‑Tze walks the earth, subtly correcting course, never seeking credit. He embodies an ancient truth found in both Zen koans and Marxist critique: that true understanding isn’t about controlling history, but about living rightly within it—even if that means sweeping floors and defying fate in small, absurd, very human ways.

In this framework, Thief of Time becomes a powerful rebuttal to any notion of temporal finality. It’s not just that history hasn’t ended—it’s that history, like time itself, must remain alive, messy, and open to revision.

Architectures of Contradiction

Let’s get one thing out of the way: the plagiarism debate is a red herring. It’s a convenient distraction, an intellectual sleight-of-hand designed to keep us arguing in circles while the real game unfolds elsewhere.

Framing the conversation around whether AI “plagiarizes” is like asking if a vacuum cleaner steals the dust. It misunderstands the scale, the mechanism, and—most critically—the intent. Plagiarism is a human ethical violation, rooted in the act of copying another’s work and passing it off as your own. Extraction, by contrast, is systemic. It is the automated, industrial-scale removal of value from cultural labor, stripped of attribution, compensation, or consent.

To conflate the two is not just sloppy thinking—it’s useful sloppiness. It allows defenders of these systems to say, “But it doesn’t copy anything directly,” as if that settles the matter. As if originality were the only axis of concern. As if we hadn’t seen this move before, in every colonial, corporate, and computational context where taking without asking was rebranded as innovation.

When apologists say “But it’s not copying!” they’re technically right and conceptually bankrupt. Because copying implies there’s still a relationship to the original. Extraction is post-relational. It doesn’t know what it’s using, and it doesn’t care. That’s the efficiency. That’s the innovation. That’s what scales.

Framing this as a plagiarism issue is like bringing a parking ticket to a climate summit. It’s a categorical error designed to keep the discourse house-trained. The real question isn’t whether the outputs resemble human work—it’s how much human labor the system digested to get there, and who’s cashing in on that metabolized culture.

Plagiarism is an ethical dilemma. Extraction is an economic model. And pretending they belong in the same conversation isn’t just dishonest—it’s a smoke screen. A high-gloss cover story for a system that’s built to absorb everything and owe nothing.

This isn’t about copying—it’s about enclosure. About turning the commons into training data. About chewing up centuries of creative output to produce a slurry of simulacra, all while insisting it’s just “how creativity works.”

ARCHITECTURES OF CONTRADICTIONS

There’s a particular strain of technological optimism circulating in 2025 that deserves critical examination—not for its enthusiasm, but for its architecture of contradictions. It’s not your garden-variety utopianism, either. No, this is the glossier, TED-stage, venture-backed variety—sleek, frictionless, and meticulously insulated from its own implications. It hums with confidence, beams with curated data dashboards, and politely ignores the historical wreckage in its rear-view mirror.

This optimism is especially prevalent among those who’ve already secured their foothold in the pre-AI economy—the grizzled captains of the tech industry, tenured thought leaders, and self-appointed sherpas of innovation. Having climbed their particular ladders in the analog-to-digital pivot years, they now proclaim the dawn of AI not as a rupture but as a gentle sunrise, a continuum. To hear them tell it, everything is fine. Everything is fine because they made it.

They speak of “augmenting human creativity” while quietly automating the livelihoods of everyone below their tax bracket. They spin glossy metaphors about AI “co-pilots” while pretending that entire professional classes aren’t being ejected from the cockpit. They invoke the democratization of technology while consolidating power into server farms owned by fewer and fewer actors. This isn’t naiveté—it’s a kind of ritualized, boardroom-friendly denialism.

The contradiction at the core of this worldview isn’t just cognitive dissonance—it’s architecture. It’s load-bearing. It is built into the PowerPoint decks and the shareholder letters. They need to believe that AI is an inevitable liberation, not because it’s true, but because their portfolios depend on it being true. And like all good architectures of belief, it is beautiful, persuasive, and profoundly vulnerable to collapse.

THE ARCHITECTS PARADOX

Those who warn us about centralization while teaching us how to optimize for it are practicing what I call the Architect’s Paradox. They design the layout of a prison while lamenting the loss of freedom. These voices identify systemic risks in one breath and, in the next, offer strategies to personally capitalize on those same systems—monetize the collapse, network the apocalypse, syndicate the soul.

This isn’t mere hypocrisy—it’s a fundamental misalignment between diagnosis and prescription, a kind of cognitive side-channel attack. Their insights are often accurate, even incisive. But the trajectory of their proposed actions flows in the opposite direction—toward more dependence, more datafication, more exquisitely managed precarity.

It’s as if they’ve confused moral awareness with moral immunity. They believe that naming the system’s flaws somehow absolves them from reinforcing them. “Yes, the algorithm is eating culture,” they nod sagely, “now let me show you how to train yours to outperform everyone else’s.”

They aren’t saboteurs. They aren’t visionaries. They are engineers of influence, caught in a recursive feedback loop where critique becomes branding and branding becomes power. To them, every paradox is a feature, not a bug—something to be A/B tested and leveraged into speaking fees.

They warn of surveillance while uploading their consciousness to newsletter platforms. They caution against monopolies while licensing their digital selves to the very monopolies they decry. Theirs is not a vision of reform, but of survival through fluency—fluency in the language of systems they secretly believe can never be changed, only gamed.

In this paradox, the future is not built. It is hedged. And hedging, in 2025, is the highest form of virtue signaling among the clerisy of collapse.

REVISIONISM AS DEFENSE

Notice how certain defenses of today’s algorithmic systems selectively invoke historical practices, divorced entirely from the contexts that gave them coherence. The line goes something like this: “Art has always been derivative,” or “Remix is the soul of creativity.” These are comforting refrains, weaponized nostalgia dressed in academic drag.

But this argument relies on a sleight-of-hand—equating artisanal, context-rich cultural borrowing with industrial-scale computational strip-mining. There is a categorical difference between a medieval troubadour reworking a melody passed down through oral tradition and a trillion-parameter model swallowing a century of human expression in a training set. One is a gesture of continuity. The other is a consumption event.

Pre-modern creative ecosystems weren’t just derivative—they were participatory. They had economies of recognition, of reciprocity, of sustainability. Bardic traditions came with honor codes. Patronage systems, while inequitable, at least acknowledged the material existence of artists. Folkways had rules—unspoken, maybe, but binding. Even the black markets of authorship—the ghostwriters, the unsung apprentices—knew where the lines were, and who was crossing them.

To invoke these traditions while ignoring their economic foundations is like praising the architecture of a cathedral without mentioning the masons—or the deaths. It’s a kind of intellectual laundering, where cultural precedent is used to justify technological overreach.

And so the defense becomes a kind of revisionist ritual: scrub the past until it looks like the present, then use it to validate the future. Aesthetics without economics. Tradition without obligation. This is not homage. It’s an erasure wearing the mask of reverence.

What we’re seeing in 2025 isn’t a continuation of artistic evolution. It’s a phase change—a transition from culture as conversation to culture as input. And no amount of cherry-picked history will make that palatable to those who understand what’s being lost in the process.

THE PRIVILEGE BLIND SPOT

Perhaps most telling is the “I’m fine with it” stance taken by those who’ve already climbed the ladder. When someone who built their reputation in the pre-algorithm era claims the new system works for everyone because it works for them, they’re exhibiting what I call the Privilege Blind Spot. It’s not malevolence—it’s miscalibration. They mistake their luck for a blueprint.

This stance isn’t just tone-deaf—it’s structurally flawed. It ignores the ratchet effect of early adoption and pre-existing capital—social, financial, and reputational. These individuals benefited from a slower, more porous system. They had time to develop voices, accrue followers organically, and make mistakes in relative obscurity. In contrast, today’s creators are thrown into algorithmic coliseums with no margins for failure, their output flattened into metrics before they’ve even found their voice.

And yet, the privileged still preach platform meritocracy. They gesture toward virality as if it’s a function of quality, not a function of pre-baked visibility and infrastructural leverage. Their anecdotal successes become data points in a pseudo-democratic fantasy: “Look, anyone can make it!”—ignoring that the ladder they climbed has since been greased, shortened, and set on fire.

This is the classic error of assuming one’s exceptional position represents the universal case. It’s the same logic that produces bootstrap mythology, just dressed in digital drag. And worse, it becomes policy—informing the design of platforms, the expectations of audiences, and the funding strategies of gatekeepers who sincerely believe the system is “working,” because the same five names keep showing up in their feed.

The Privilege Blind Spot isn’t just an individual failing—it’s a recursive error in the feedback loop between platform logic and human perception. Those who benefit from the system are the most likely to defend it, and their defenses are the most likely to be amplified by the system itself. The result is a self-affirming bubble where critique sounds like bitterness and systemic analysis is dismissed as sour grapes.

And all the while, a generation is being told they just need to try harder—while the game board is being shuffled beneath their feet.

FALSE BINARIES AND RETHORICAL DEVICES

Look at the state of tech discourse in 2025. It thrives on compression—not just of data, but of dialogue. Complex, multifaceted issues are routinely flattened into false binaries: you’re either for the algorithmic future, or you’re a Luddite dragging your knuckles through a sepia-toned fantasy of analog purity. There is no spectrum. There is no ambivalence. You’re either scaling or sulking.

This isn’t accidental. It’s a design feature of rhetorical control, a kind of epistemic sorting mechanism. By reducing debate to binary choices, the system protects itself from scrutiny—because binaries are easier to monetize, easier to defend in a tweet, easier to feed into the recommendation engine. Nuance, by contrast, doesn’t perform. It doesn’t polarize, and therefore it doesn’t spread.

Within this frame, critique becomes pathology. Raise a concern and suddenly you’re not engaging—you’re resenting. Express discomfort and you’re labeled pretentious or moralizing. This is not an argument—it’s a character assassination through taxonomy. You are no longer responding to an issue; you are the issue.

The tactic is elegantly cynical: shift the ground from substance to subject, from the critique to the critic. By doing so, no engagement with the actual points raised is necessary. The critic’s motivations are interrogated, their tone policed, their credentials questioned. Are they bitter? Are they unsuccessful? Are they just nostalgic for their moment in the sun? These questions serve no investigative purpose. They are not asked in good faith. They are designed to dismiss without having to refute.

And so the discourse degrades into a gladiatorial match of vibes and affiliations. You’re either “pro-innovation” or “anti-progress.” Anything in between is seen as suspiciously undecided, possibly subversive, certainly unmonetizable.

But reality, as always, is messier. You can value creative automation and still demand ethical boundaries. You can acknowledge the utility of machine learning while decrying its exploitative training practices. You can live in 2025 without worshiping it. But good luck saying any of that in public without being shoved into someone else’s false dichotomy.

Because in the binary economy of attention, the only unacceptable position is complexity.

THE SUSTAINABILITY QUESTION GOES UNANSWERED

The most glaring omission in today’s techno-optimistic frameworks is the sustainability question—the question that should precede all others. How do we maintain creative ecosystems when the economic foundations that supported their development are being quietly dismantled, restructured, or outright erased?

Instead of answers, we get evasions disguised as aphorisms. “Creativity has always been remix.” “Artists have always borrowed.” These are bumper-sticker retorts masquerading as historical insight. They dodge the real issue: scale, speed, and asymmetry. There’s a material difference between a poet quoting Virgil and a multi-billion-parameter model strip-mining a century of human output to generate low-cost content that competes in the same attention economy.

It’s like comparing a neighborhood book exchange to Amazon and declaring them functionally identical because both involve books changing hands. One operates on mutual trust, informal reciprocity, and local value. The other optimizes for frictionless extraction at planetary scale. The analogy doesn’t hold—it obscures more than it reveals.

When concerns about compensation and sustainability are brushed aside, what’s really being dismissed is the infrastructure of creative life itself: the teaching gigs, the small grants, the advances, the indie labels, the slow growth of a reputation nurtured over decades. These were never utopias, but they were something—fragile, underfunded, imperfect somethings that at least attempted to recognize human effort with human-scale rewards.

The new systems, by contrast, run on opacity and asymmetry. Scrape first, apologize later. Flatten creators into “content providers,” then ask why morale is low. Flood the zone with derivative noise, then celebrate the democratization of mediocrity. And when anyone questions this trajectory, respond with a shrug and a TED Talk.

Here in 2025, we are awash in tools but impoverished in frameworks. Every advance in generative output is met with diminishing returns in creative livelihood. We can now generate infinite variations of style, tone, and texture—but ask who gets paid for any of it, and the answer is either silence or spin.

A culture can survive theft. It cannot survive the removal of the incentive to create. And without some serious reckoning with how compensation, credit, and creative labor are sustained—not just applauded—we’re headed for an artistic monoculture: wide as the horizon, but only millimeters deep.

BEYOND NAIVE OPTIMISM

Giving tech the benefit of the doubt in 2025 isn’t just optimistic—it’s cringe. At this point, after two decades of platform consolidation, surveillance capitalism, and asymmetrical power growth, insisting on a utopian reading of new technologies is less a sign of hope than of willful denial.

We’ve seen the pattern. It’s not theoretical anymore. Power concentrates. Economic rewards stratify. Systems optimize for growth metrics, not human outcomes. Every technological “disruption” is followed by a chillingly familiar aftershock: enclosure, precarity, and a chorus of VC-funded thought leaders telling us it’s actually good for us.

A more intellectually honest position would start from four simple admissions:

Power asymmetries are not accidental. They are baked into the design of our platforms, tools, and models. Tech doesn’t just reveal hierarchies—it encodes and amplifies them. Pretending otherwise is not neutrality; it’s complicity. Creative exchange is not monolithic. Not all remix is created equal. There is a difference between cultural dialogue and parasitic ingestion. Between quoting a line and absorbing an entire stylebook. Lumping it all under “derivative culture” is a rhetorical dodge, not an analysis. Economic sustainability is not a footnote. It is the core problem. A system that enables infinite production but zero support is not innovation—it’s extraction. You cannot build a vibrant culture by treating creators as disposable training data. Perspective is positional. Your comfort with change is a function of where you stand in the hierarchy. Those at the top often see disruption as an opportunity. Those beneath experience it as collapse. Declaring a system “fair” from a position of inherited advantage is the oldest trick in the imperial playbook.

The future isn’t predetermined by historical analogy or corporate roadmap. It is shaped by policy, ethics, resistance, and the thousand small choices we make about which technologies we adopt, fund, regulate, and refuse. To pretend otherwise is to surrender agency while cosplaying as a realist.

What we need now is not uncritical optimism—nor its equally lazy cousin, reflexive rejection. We need clear-eyed analysis. Frameworks that hold contradictions accountable, rather than celebrating them as sophistication. A discourse that recognizes both potential and peril, without using potential as a shield to deflect every legitimate concern.

Because here’s the truth: the people most loudly insisting “there’s no stopping this” are usually the ones best positioned to profit from its advance. And the longer we mistake their ambivalence for balance, the more we allow them to write a future where complexity is flattened, critique is pathologized, and creativity becomes little more than algorithmic residue.

The choice is not between embrace and exile. The choice is whether we build systems worth inheriting—or ones we’ll spend decades trying to undo.

TL;DR: THE DOUBLETHINK DOCTRINE

Tech discourse in 2025 is dominated not by clarity, but by a curated fog of contradictions—positions that would collapse under scrutiny in any other domain, yet somehow persist under the banner of innovation:

• AI is not comparable to masters like Lovecraft—yet its outputs are breathlessly celebrated, anthologized, and sold as literary breakthroughs.

• All creativity is derivative, we’re told—except, of course, when humans do it, in which case we bring ineffable value and should be spared the comparison.

• Compensation concerns are naïve, critics are scolded—right before the same voices admit creators deserve payment, then offer no credible path forward.

• We’re told to develop ‘genuine’ relationships with AI, while simultaneously reminded that it has no intent, no mind, no soul—demanding a kind of programmed cognitive dissonance.

• AI alone is exempt from the ‘good servant, bad master’ principle that governs our relationship with every other tool we’ve ever built.

• Safety research is hysteria, unless it’s being conducted by insiders, in which case it’s suddenly deep, philosophical, and nuanced—never mind the overlap with everything previously dismissed.

These are not accidental lapses in logic. They are deliberate rhetorical strategies—designed to maintain forward momentum while dodging accountability. Together, they form what can only be called the Doublethink Doctrine: a framework that allows its proponents to inhabit contradictory beliefs without consequence, all in service of technologies whose long-term effects remain unsolved and largely ungoverned.

This isn’t optimism. It’s intellectual surrender dressed as pragmatism. And the longer we allow this doctrine to define the debate, the harder it becomes to ask the questions that actually matter.

CODA

Trump wasn’t an anomaly. He was a prototype. A late-stage symptom of legacy systems imploding under their own inertia—hollow institutions, broadcast-era media, industrial politics held together by branding, grievance, and pure spectacle. He didn’t innovate. He extracted. Extracted attention, legitimacy, airtime, votes—then torched the machinery he climbed in on.

And now here comes Tech, grinning with that same glazed stare. Different vocabulary, same function. Platform logic, data laundering, AI hallucinations sold as wisdom—another system optimized for maximum throughput, minimum responsibility. Where Trump strip-mined the post-war order for personal gain, these systems do it to culture itself. Both operate as parasitic feedback loops, surviving by consuming the very thing they pretend to represent.

If you can’t see the symmetry, you’re not paying attention. One is a man. The other is a machine. But the architecture is identical: erode trust, flatten nuance, displace labor, accumulate power, and let the collateral damage write its own obituary.

Trump was the ghost of broadcast politics; AI is the apex predator of posthuman creativity. Both are outcomes, not outliers. Both are extraction engines wrapped in the costume of progress.

And if that doesn’t make you nervous, it should.

Minecraft

I went to see Minecraft and couldn’t help noticing a pattern in recent blockbusters—from Mario Bros. and Everything Everywhere to Spider-Man, Ghostbusters, and The Batman: every character is hustling, struggling, or just scraping by. It signals how economic precarity has been normalized in American storytelling—and not just in dramas or indie films, where you’d expect that tone. It’s everywhere now.

It’s as if the industry’s collective unconscious lags people’s reality but much is much faster than politics. Back in 2020 or 2021, when these scripts were finalized, screenwriters and execs had already recognized that “broke and overworked” wasn’t a quirky character trait anymore—it was the default condition of the American viewer.

The contradiction is sharper considering media kept insisting things were improving—or, in Fox’s case, that they weren’t because of “woke” or brown people. Meanwhile, Hollywood was already packaging narratives that admitted the opposite.

<>

At first glance, Minecraft—a game about infinite possibility, where players sculpt blocky worlds with godlike creativity—seems like an escapist fantasy. But dig beneath its colorful surface, and you’ll find a mirror reflecting the quiet desperation of modern life: the grind. Survival mode, the game’s most iconic format, isn’t about building castles in the clouds. It’s about punching trees for lumber before sunset, frantically cobbling together a shelter to fend off zombies, and mining deep into the earth for scarce resources, all while hunger gnaws at your pixelated stomach. This is precarity, gamified.

Minecraft’s core loop—grind, hoard, survive—resonates because it replicates the rhythms of late capitalism. Players aren’t just crafting tools; they’re performing the daily calculus of scarcity. Will this coal last the night? Can I afford to risk the caves for diamonds? Should I prioritize bread or armor? These aren’t just gameplay choices; they’re metaphors for a world where stability feels just out of reach, where every gain is shadowed by the threat of losing it all. Even Creative mode, with its cheat-code abundance, can’t escape the ethos of productivity: the pressure to build bigger, faster, better, as if self-worth is measured in virtual monuments.

The game’s brilliance lies in its unspoken critique. While politicians spin fictions about “resilient economies” and “opportunity for all,” Minecraft admits the truth: life is a series of precarious transactions. You labor to stack blocks, only to watch a creeper blow them apart. You plant crops, only to have them trampled. You build empires, but the grind never stops—there’s always another resource to extract, another threat to outrun. It’s no accident that “automated farms” became a hallmark of advanced play: even in a world of limitless dirt, players engineer systems to optimize their toil, mirroring our own obsession with gig apps and side hustles.

<>

Hollywood’s recent blockbusters—from Spider-Man’s rent woes to Everything Everywhere’s multiverse-adjacent IRS trauma—have begun to acknowledge this reality. But Minecraft short of did it first, and more honestly. It doesn’t package precarity as a plot twist or a character quirk; it’s the default condition of existence. The game’s unrelenting demand for labor, its indifference to your struggles, and its refusal to guarantee safety even after hours of work make it the purest cultural artifact of our age. In a world where politics peddles fantasy, sometimes the clearest truths come from a world made of blocks—where survival isn’t a hero’s journey, but a daily scramble to keep the lights on.

The pervasive theme of economic precarity in recent blockbusters—from Minecraft to Spider-Man and The Batman—does more than mirror America’s fraying economic reality; it underscores a profound political failure. While Hollywood’s storytellers have instinctively woven narratives of hustling, scraping-by protagonists into mainstream entertainment, the center-left and center-right political coalitions remain strikingly unable—or unwilling—to articulate a coherent response to the material conditions driving this cultural shift. This dissonance reveals a vacuum in political imagination, where pop culture has become a reluctant truth-teller while partisan elites cling to outdated frameworks.

When these films entered development in 2020-2021, creators implicitly acknowledged what policymakers still struggle to name: that stagnant wages, gig-economy exploitation, and the erosion of social safety nets had transformed “broke and overworked” from a temporary setback to a permanent state of being. Yet the political establishment’s response has been muted, even as Hollywood packaged precarity as escapism. The center-left, tethered to incrementalism and allergic to structural critique, offers Band-Aid solutions—student debt tweaks, means-tested tax credits—that fail to match the scale of collapse. The conservative right, meanwhile, defaults to nostalgia for a mythologized post-war prosperity, blaming cultural scapegoats (“wokeness,” immigrants) while accelerating the very policies—deregulation, union-busting, austerity—that gutted economic stability.

This paralysis is amplified by media narratives that oscillate between gaslighting and deflection. Corporate outlets tout declining inflation or “record job growth” as proof of recovery, ignoring how metrics like GDP obscure lived realities of working-class Americans juggling three apps to pay rent. Right-wing media, as noted, weaponizes precarity to fuel culture-war panic, framing inequality as a symptom of moral decay rather than policy choices. Both approaches alienate audiences who see their struggles reflected not in political rhetoric, but in Peter Parker’s eviction notices or the existential fatigue of Everything Everywhere’s laundromat-timeline-hopping heroine.

Hollywood’s embrace of precarity-as-backdrop exposes how thoroughly neoliberalism has eroded political language. The center-left, still courting donor classes invested in the status quo, avoids terms like “class struggle” or “redistribution,” recasting systemic failure as individual hardship to be mitigated, not overturned. The center-right, having abandoned even lip service to economic populism, peddles libertarian fairy tales (“just work harder!”) that resonate only with those insulated by wealth. Meanwhile, blockbuster screenwriters—unburdened by partisan constraints—depict a world where systemic collapse is the air everyone breathes: Batman’s Gotham isn’t saved by a bold policy agenda, but by a traumatized billionaire punching clowns.

The result is a cultural moment where fiction feels more honest than politics. Audiences flock to these films not just for escapism, but for the relief of seeing their struggles acknowledged in an era when political leaders refuse to do so. Until the center-left and center-right confront the roots of precarity—corporate power, financialized capitalism, the dismantling of worker solidarity—their platforms will remain as disconnected from reality as a Mario Bros. warp pipe. And Hollywood, however unwittingly, will keep drafting the obituary for an American Dream that politics no longer dares to name.

The irony is almost too rich: Hollywood, an industry built on selling fiction, now peddles narratives closer to material reality than the Democratic Party does. For all its corporate cynicism, Hollywood at least acknowledges the dystopia it monetizes. Its superheroes juggle rent and existential dread; its multiverse-hopping heroes are crushed by IRS audits and immigrant parent guilt. These stories, however garish, are rooted in the lived texture of precarity—the three jobs, the debt, the sense of systems spiraling beyond control. Democrats, by contrast, have crafted a political brand so untethered from material conditions that it verges on magical realism.

Consider the plot holes in the Democratic script: They tout “Bidenomics” while presiding over a housing market where the median home price now requires a $115,000 salary—a sum 75% of Americans don’t earn. They celebrate “record low unemployment” as if gig work and AI-driven layoffs haven’t turned full-time employment into a luxury good. They nod at climate disaster while approving more oil drilling than Trump, as if we’re all living in a Pixar film where the laws of physics pause for moderate bipartisanship. Hollywood’s heroes might battle cartoonish villains, but the Democrats’ villains—corporate greed, oligarchic power—are treated as unmentionable ghosts, haunting a set everyone pretends isn’t on fire.

Hollywood’s “unrealism” is at least honest about its artifice. When The Hunger Games franchises rake in billions by dramatizing wealth inequality and elite sadism, they’re channeling a collective recognition that capitalism has become a death game. Yet Democrats still frame poverty as a personal failure to be solved with tax credits and bootstraps, a narrative so detached from the algorithmic wage suppression and monopoly pricing crushing households that it makes Avengers time travel look plausible. Even Marvel’s Thanos had a clearer policy platform (“snap away half of life”) than the party’s milquetoast stance on corporate monopolies.

The true fiction isn’t Batman’s rogues’ gallery—it’s the Democratic Party’s insistence that incremental tweaks to a broken system will reverse decades of collapse. Hollywood’s writers, for all their clichés, understand that audiences crave catharsis: a villain to punch, a system to smash, a blueprint for revolt. Democrats offer none of these. Instead, they gaslight voters with spreadsheet macros about “cost-saving efficiencies” and “public-private partnerships,” as if the working class hasn’t already seen this movie—and hated the ending.

In this era of compounding crises, Hollywood’s lies are at least useful lies. They admit, however crassly, that life under late capitalism feels apocalyptic. Democrats, meanwhile, are stuck in a Frank Capra fanfic, insisting America is one bipartisan infrastructure bill away from a rainbow-farting utopia. The party’s refusal to name power—to confront banks, monopolists, or the billionaire donor class—renders its rhetoric more delusional than anything in Barbie’s plastic feminist dreamhouse.

So yes: Hollywood is a profit-hoarding, union-busting machine. But in a perverse twist, its greed forces it to listen. To stay relevant, it must metabolize the anxieties of its audience, even if only to repackage them as entertainment. The Democratic Party, by contrast, answers to a donor aristocracy that profits directly from the status quo—and thus has no incentive to see, hear, or speak the truth. The result? An industry that sells $20 popcorn to audiences watching films about late-stage collapse is still more reality-based than a political party asking those same audiences to vote for “4 more years of normalcy.”

The final act twist? Hollywood’s fictions are a cry for help. The Democratic Party’s fictions are a demand for complacency. One admits the house is burning. The other hawks commemorative “This Is Fine” mugs.

Notes on TPOT/RATS

One of the defining features of the TPOt crowd was that medium rat was running on such obscene levels of dopamine and peer validation, basic brain functions like memory got completely fried. The social high was so unrelenting it turned executive function into background noise. What emerged was a closed-circuit attention economy: ideas weren’t tested against reality but bounced around in a sealed chamber of retweets, ironic dogwhistles, and niche status signals. Epistemic hygiene? Nah—just dopamine-chasing with a side of smug.

This was rocket fuel for disinformation and neoreaction. If no one remembers what was said 20-30 years ago, and no one’s checking facts outside the compound, anything can fly—as long as it flatters the in-group and terrifies the out-group. With no memory and no guardrails, even the most baroque ideologies can sprint straight into public discourse wearing a monocle and jackboots.

The tragicomic twist? A movement that once fetishized Bayesian rationality turned itself into a Skinner box of pure clout-chasing. It’s like everything was up for grabs—AI timelines, empire collapse, obscure 14th-century succession crises—except the postmodernist analysis after WWII, which proved… inconvenient, to say the least. You can’t build a dopamine-fueled status game on Foucault’s grave without tripping over your own contradictions.

So instead, they memory-holed it. And without memory, what followed was a full-blown minion/meaning crisis: armies of midwits squabbling over which steelman had the most moral clarity, while recycling the same three post dressed up in tech-washed prose. Critical theory was dismissed as cringe, despite the fact that Baudrillard basically called this entire circus 30 years ago. But you can’t gamify nuance, so it had to go.

The result? A scene that could metabolize everything except its own reflection. No mirrors, no memory, just vibes and velocity.

As the scene aged, it didn’t deepen—it fractured, like a meme economy running out of templates. Some went full tradcath cosplay. Others pivoted to AI doom evangelism. A few just started posting shirtless pics next to unread copies of Gödel, Escher, Bach. Everyone had a grift or a gospel, but nobody had a map. It was a networked nervous breakdown with funding rounds.

The deeper irony? In rejecting postmodernism as cringe, they managed to recreate it in real-time: infinite simulacra, collapsing referents, authority based on aesthetics rather than evidence. Only now the semiotics were dressed in Patagonia vests and Ray Dalio quotes.

And once that happened, all that remained was brand management disguised as thought. You weren’t rewarded for being right, but for being retweetable. For being early. For being adjacent to the guy who might be right, eventually.

And then we got to that point—the part in every cursed ideology arc where something had to give. The vibes curdled. The spreadsheets stopped correlating. The dopamine wore off.

Teapot supported Trump.

Not all of them, of course. Some hedged. Some posted long threads about “accelerationism” or “epistemic sabotage” or “the left’s own fault, really.” But the core crowd—the medium rats marinating in their own irony—pivoted hard.

Why? Because Trump wasn’t a contradiction. He was the logical endpoint: a vibes-based epistemology wrapped in chaos energy, wielding pure spectacle as power. He didn’t need truth. He had attention. He didn’t need coherence. He had the algorithm.

To the Teapotters, Trump was a kind of anti-Bayes: a walking info-bomb, a human LARP whose primary appeal was how unmodellable he was. He broke prediction markets. He collapsed priors. He became a status object for those who believed everything was narrative—and wanted to back the loudest one.

It wasn’t about policy. It wasn’t even about ideology. It was about vibe alignment. Trump was the ultimate shitpost, and supporting him was the biggest flex: a final, glorious rejection of consensus reality.

And once that line was crossed?

No more nuance. No more rationalist posturing. Just pure, flaming spectacle—a coliseum of collapsing context, where the crowd cheers for the weirdest gladiator and no one remembers what round it is.

What followed wasn’t a reckoning. It was a blackout. A collective epistemic wipeout, like someone pulled the plug on memory, coherence, and shame—all at once.

The Teapot didn’t just drift into nihilism. It somersaulted into it, giggling and high on its own supply. Posts got weirder. Takes got colder. The irony stopped being a filter and became the substance. Any remaining gestures toward truth-seeking were drowned in layers of sarcasm, memes referencing other memes, and post-structural cosplay for startup bros.

Twitter spaces turned into late-night séance rituals where washed-up e/accs and ex-crypto visionaries read Nick Land aloud like scripture. Everyone was either pivoting to AI alignment or advocating for monarchy. The mood was pure post-ironic panic.

They weren’t seeking meaning anymore. They were optimizing for maximal signal distortion. The only thing worse than being wrong was being earnest. Certainty was for suckers. Doubt was currency—if you packaged it well.

And the most tragicomic part?

They knew it. They knew they were burning through coherence like a tech company hemorrhaging runway. But they couldn’t stop. The feedback loop was too tight. The rewards too immediate. The collapse was just another aesthetic—another bit.

So when the world started asking actual questions—about climate, labor, fascism, war—they had nothing. Just vibes, vintage memes, and a haunted look in the eye that said, “We did all this so we wouldn’t have to feel cringe.”

They wanted to be Nietzsche’s overmen.

They became content moderators for the abyss.

The Non Existent Knight

Of Empty Armor and Absurd Quests

The first time I read The Nonexistent Knight by Italo Calvino, I imagined I had stumbled onto a lost Monty Python script—one written in secret, translated from the Italian, and perhaps smuggled through time in a hollowed-out codpiece. There it all was: the self-serious knight with no self, the ludicrous battles fought for reasons long forgotten, the crumbling machinery of Church and State, and a narrator who may be inventing the entire tale while cloistered in a convent. If Don Quixote and Waiting for Godot had a baby in a suit of armor, and then handed that baby over to the Pythons for finishing school, this would be the result.

Calvino’s Agilulf is a knight in shining armor—literally only that. He’s a suit of armor animated by sheer will and adherence to knightly protocol, a bureaucrat in a battlefield, a man so perfect he ceases to exist. The knights who surround him are petty, confused, and perpetually distracted. The Church is there to muddle things. Women disguise themselves as men. And all quests lead not to glory, but to farce.

Sound familiar?

Though there is a 1969 film version of The Nonexistent Knight—a strange hybrid of animation and live-action directed by Pino Zac—it’s worth remembering that Calvino’s novel came first, published in 1962. The film adaptation captures some of the book’s surreal, satirical energy, but it’s the novel itself that feels eerily ahead of its time.

Reading The Nonexistent Knight now, you can’t help but notice how much it seems to anticipate the tone and structure of Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). The empty armor, the collapsing logic of knightly codes, the bureaucratization of the quest, the existential jokes delivered in deadpan—Calvino’s book often feels like a conceptual blueprint the Pythons could have stumbled upon, giggled at, and filed away until the coconuts were ready.

it practically is—albeit accidentally, accidentally Italian, and about 70% more philosophical, a dreamlike prequel where the Holy Grail hasn’t been lost yet, the knights are even more neurotic, and God is replaced by bureaucratic absurdity. In other words, imagine this madcap meditation on identity, purpose, and purity… performed by the Monty Python gang.

You’ve got:

A chivalric order reduced to absurd rituals, where no one remembers why they’re fighting but everyone insists on the forms—check.A protagonist defined more by concept than by character (Agilulf as pure will, Arthur as divine appointment)—check.

Knights whose quests collapse into petty squabbles, misunderstandings, or bureaucratic mishaps—check.A narrator who may be making it all up, filtering the story through a lens of religious guilt and romantic confusion—sounds an awful lot like the Holy Grail’s opening intertitles crossed with Terry Gilliam’s God character.

And the kicker: an obsession with the emptiness inside armor—literal in Agilulf’s case, symbolic in the Pythons’.Even the tone overlaps—equal parts high-concept satire, medieval parody, and lowbrow farce.

You could almost imagine The Nonexistent Knight sitting on the same shelf as 1066 and All That or The Goon Show scripts—slotted between Dante and Dada, passed around late-night at Oxford or Cambridge parties.

You’ve got:

A chivalric order reduced to absurd rituals, where no one remembers why they’re fighting but everyone insists on the forms—check.

A protagonist defined more by concept than by character (Agilulf as pure will, Arthur as divine appointment)—check.

Knights whose quests collapse into petty squabbles, misunderstandings, or bureaucratic mishaps—check.

A narrator who may be making it all up, filtering the story through a lens of religious guilt and romantic confusion—sounds an awful lot like the Holy Grail’s opening intertitles crossed with Terry Gilliam’s God character.

And the kicker: an obsession with the emptiness inside armor—literal in Agilulf’s case, symbolic in the Pythons’. Even the tone overlaps—equal parts high-concept satire, medieval parody, and lowbrow farce albeit accidentally, accidentally Italian, and about 70% more philosophical.

If the Pythons didn’t read Calvino, then we’re dealing with one of those eerie creative convergences where the postwar absurdist current broke the surface at the same time in Italy and Britain, each wearing a slightly different helmet.

But imagine, if you will, a dreamlike prequel where the Holy Grail hasn’t been lost yet, the knights are even more neurotic, and God is replaced by bureaucratic absurdity. In other words, imagine this madcap meditation on identity, purpose, and purity… performed by the Monty Python gang.

John Cleese as Agilulf the Nonexistent Knight

Cleese is perfect as Agilulf, the knight so perfect he doesn’t actually exist. With his trademark rigid posture, clipped delivery, and commitment to rules (even when the rules make no sense), Cleese turns Agilulf into a send-up of fascistic order—a man of armor and principle, who literally evaporates if you question him too hard. One can picture him ranting in a tent, correcting everyone’s Latin declensions while polishing armor that may or may not be empty.

Michael Palin as Rambaldo, the Naïve Young Knight

Palin brings his signature wide-eyed innocence to Rambaldo, a character who could wander straight into a shrubbery skit without batting an eyelash. Rambaldo’s quest for glory and love mirrors Palin’s turn as Sir Galahad, always enthusiastic and painfully confused by everything around him. Whether charging into battle or flirting awkwardly with Bradamante, he maintains that classic “Palin-in-peril” charm.

Eric Idle as Torrismund the Monk (Who Might Also Be a Peasant and a Revolutionary)

Let’s slot Idle into this role, shall we? Torrismund, with his secret lineage and shifting loyalties, is ripe for Idle’s gift at playing self-important everymen who talk too much and know too little. Cue a subplot involving mistaken identities, sermons interrupted by peasants complaining about the feudal system, and a song about the joy of not knowing who your father is.

Terry Jones as Bradamante, Warrior Nun and Lovesick Mess

Jones, never one to shy away from playing women, would be perfect as Bradamante, especially in the tragicomic scenes where she pines for Agilulf—yes, the guy who doesn’t exist. His performance would add a delightful awkwardness to Bradamante’s struggle between chaste virtue and frustrated libido, somewhere between Life of Brian’s mother and a lovestruck Valkyrie with a battle axe.

Terry Gilliam as the World Itself (And Probably the Narrator Nun Too)

Gilliam, the animating madman, wouldn’t act so much as warp the entire visual aesthetic of The Nonexistent Knight. Expect forests that look like melting chessboards, siege engines with eyeballs, and paper cutouts of saints wagging fingers. As Sister Theodora, the unreliable narrator who may be inventing the whole story, Gilliam would peer from behind an illuminated manuscript, giggling at inconsistencies and sipping mead from a fish.

David Chapman (a surprise guest star as the Horse)

Let’s get weird and have Chapman play Agilulf’s horse—a beast of burden that, much like its rider, has no actual personality but is imbued with strange dignity. Chapman, master of playing the ultimate straight man in a world gone mad, might even steal the show with a deadpan whinny or a stoic refusal to move in protest of metaphysical contradiction.

The Nonexistent Knight, in Monty Python’s hands, would be less a film than a fever dream of false identities, empty armors, collapsing authority, and slapstick heresy. It’s Holy Grail before there was a grail to lose—where the main joke is that the knightly ideal isn’t dead, but never lived to begin with. A crusade against meaning, carried out by fools, lovers, clerics, and the ghost of reason.

All that’s missing is a shrubbery. And maybe a foot that comes down from the sky and squashes Agilulf into a puff of existential despair.

I mean, the parallels are so specific, it starts to feel less like coincidence and more like a secret adaptation done under the cover of coconut halves.

Honestly, it’s the kind of literary mystery that deserves its own sketch:

Michael Palin: “Look, I told you, Agilulf doesn’t exist!”

John Cleese (in full armor): “Then who’s polishing my pauldrons, you silly man?!”

Terry Jones (as Bradamante): “Does this mean I’ve been flirting with a concept all along?!”

Makes you wonder if Holy Grail was the Pythons’ own answer to Calvino: “What if we took that metaphysical knight… and made him look even more ridiculous?”

HYPERREALITY

In attempting to place The Nonexistent Knight within the world of Monty Python, we inadvertently construct an accidental hyperreality—a blending of Calvino’s medieval archetypes with the absurdity of Python’s comedic sensibilities. By layering these distinct worlds, we’re left with a knight who, while rooted in the medieval tradition, is refracted through the absurdity of modern sensibilities. The Pythons’ characters often embody archetypes of authority, absurd heroism, and misguided purpose—traits that mirror the empty nobility at the heart of Agilulf’s existential crisis. When these elements are layered on top of Calvino’s original medieval constructs, the knightly archetype becomes a hollow, comedic parody of itself. Instead of representing valor and honor, these characters begin to stand for the performance of those ideals, trapped in an endless loop of their own absurdity.

The beauty of this process lies in the accidental nature of it. What begins as an attempt to merge two worlds—the medieval and the absurd—results in a multi-dimensional satire where traditional symbols of knighthood are completely distorted. The knights in Calvino’s narrative are already part of a decaying system, performing a ritualistic role without any true meaning behind it. The Pythons take this idea further, layering on top their own archetypes of bumbling authority figures, smug tricksters, and everyman fools. These characters, often self-important and out of touch with reality, further detach the archetypes of knighthood from any semblance of their original meaning. What we are left with is a hyperreal version of knighthood, one that no longer serves its original purpose but instead reflects the absurd, fractured nature of modern life.

This blending of archetypes—both medieval and Python-esque—creates a simulacrum of knighthood, a copy of a copy, detached from the original context. The more we attempt to analyze these characters, the more they slip away from any grounded reality. They become symbols of symbols, performers of roles that are increasingly irrelevant to the world around them. In a Baudrillardian sense, this is the essence of hyperreality: the collapse of the “real” into an endless chain of representations that no longer refer to any original source. What’s left is a culture where meaning is perpetually shifting, fragmented, and disjointed—a space where archetypes, once fixed and meaningful, have become absurd performances detached from their historical or cultural origins.

Messianic Hype

How can the crypto/Web3 ecosystem believe its own messianic hype when it’s entirely built on a fragile global capital structure it doesn’t understand—and can’t survive without?

At its core, the illusion of crypto’s divinity is just a derivative trade. They sell it as destiny—“the future of finance,” “a decentralized revolution.” But the reality is more mundane: ZIRP-fueled liquidity hunting for yield, foreign capital recycling through U.S. venture firms, and VCs exploiting regulatory gray zones. Sovereign funds from Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore chase returns through Silicon Valley, funding an entire class of crypto startups never built to withstand rising interest rates or capital flight.

Crypto confuses global arbitrage for a holy mission. What looks like technological inevitability is really capital misallocation. The sector functions as a sandbox for excess money—capital with nowhere else to go because bonds return nothing and equities are oversaturated. Founders act like showmen, selling libertarian pipe dreams and collapse porn as a brand. But the real fuel behind the whole thing is international money—exactly what the rhetoric claims to resist.

The American players don’t need to understand any of this. They are the outlet. The crypto boom only poses as American—wrapped in cowboy-capitalist myth and allergic to regulation. But it runs on foreign surplus: Chinese capital dodging the CCP, European wealth seeking high-risk plays, Middle Eastern sovereign funds hedging against oil volatility. Silicon Valley VCs channel all of it, feeding the machine with liquidity events that bypass IPO scrutiny.

Then comes the choke. America First rewires the system: tariffs, sanctions, capital controls, dollar weaponization. The pipelines that carry the money in? They clog.

So why don’t they see it coming?

First, there’s ideological blindness. Crypto people drink their own Kool-Aid. They talk about building a parallel financial system, the collapse of the dollar, and how decentralization makes them antifragile. They don’t grasp that their entire market cap depends on the very system they claim is dying.

Second, VCs don’t care. They know it’s a pass-the-bag game. What they want is:
• cheap founders,
• high pre-money valuations,
• and liquidity within 18 months—ideally via token listings.

They don’t need the product to work. They just need a story strong enough to dump before the inflows dry up.

Third, they think Trump-era nationalism is theater. They don’t treat tariffs, capital restrictions, or anti-China rhetoric as real. But all of it directly disrupts the surplus capital their ecosystem feasts on. And they have no Plan B.

Now, with foreign capital pulling back, it’s U.S. retail left holding the bag. Robinhood users, YouTube traders, TikTok pumpers. The sector loses global credibility, especially post-FTX. And in D.C., crypto’s no longer seen as a revolution. It’s seen as a threat.

The final irony? Crypto becomes exactly what it claimed to oppose: a centralized, dollar-denominated, over-regulated mess with no new capital coming in and no exit on the horizon.

They align with “America First” without realizing they’re built on “Global Surplus First.” They preach decentralization, but depend entirely on centralized, external inflows. Now, with China’s ghost capital and Japan’s cheap debt gone, all that remains is a bunch of American bros LARPing with the last fumes of their stimulus checks.

GASPAR DE LA NUIT

There are accounts—fragmentary, contradictory—of a man by that name. A minor poet in the salons of Paris, a soldier lost in the Napoleonic wars, a condemned prisoner who vanished from his cell before the executioner arrived. In each case, the same detail: he was last seen at dusk.

A manuscript surfaced once, bearing his name in an elegant, spidery hand, though scholars dispute its provenance. It contained a single phrase, written again and again, as if the author had been attempting to anchor himself in time: The night does not begin; the night does not end. The script grew more erratic toward the final page, as though the hand that wrote it had begun to tremble—or dissolve. The manuscript was last recorded in the archives of a provincial library, but when a researcher sought it out years later, he found only an empty space where it had been. The librarian, an old man with failing sight, insisted it had never been catalogued at all.

Other traces exist. A lithograph from the early 19th century depicts a cloaked figure on the threshold of an unnamed city, his back turned to the viewer. An unsigned sonata, found in a forgotten drawer in an antiquarian shop, bears the notation à Gaspard, qui veille toujours—“To Gaspard, who always watches.” A traveler in the Levant, writing in his private journal, describes a man who spoke in flawless Arabic yet had the diction of a Frenchman from another century. The traveler pressed him for his origins, but the man only smiled and said, I have always belonged to the night.

Of course, there are those who claim that Gaspard is not a man at all, but a cipher, a reflection of the one who seeks him. Some have suggested that his name is a corruption of an older, forgotten word, a term once used for a particular kind of dream—one that occurs in the space between waking and sleeping, a dream that is not remembered but nonetheless alters the dreamer.

It is unclear whether Gaspard is dreaming, or whether he himself is the dream. The accounts of those who have glimpsed him do not agree on the matter. But they do agree on one thing: wherever he is seen, the night follows.

It’s not clear if he is dreaming, hallucinating, or caught in a liminal state, but the suite suggests a progression deeper into the subconscious. At first, the images arrive gently, like whispers from another world.

Gaspard does not remember lying down, but he feels the slow descent of sleep, as if sinking into dark water. He senses the outlines of a room that is no longer quite his, its dimensions altered, its corners vanishing into shadow. The objects around him exist in a state of uncertainty—at times familiar, at times estranged, their surfaces flickering between the known and the unknowable. The window remains where it should be, but the night beyond it is vast, endless, waiting.

There is no transition, no moment of realization, only the sudden knowledge that he is no longer inside. He is standing at the edge of something fluid and luminous, a world shifting between waking and dreaming. The air hums with a music he cannot name, a melody without source or end. It is not being played; it simply is. The night itself listens.

From the water, a voice calls to him.

Tonight, Gaspard lies in a room that is his and is not. The familiar shapes of his belongings are uncertain, flickering at their edges. The window looks out onto the city, but the city is vast, impossible, more like the memory of a place than the thing itself. He cannot remember undressing, yet he is in bed. He cannot remember lying down, yet he is sinking.

A thought occurs to him with unsettling clarity: This is how it happens.

There is no threshold, no moment of departure. The room recedes without moving. The world is no longer the world.

He stands on the shore of a water that is not water. It moves, but without waves. It reflects, but not the things above it. The air hums—not a sound, but the presence of one, waiting to be heard.

Then, the voice:

A woman’s, or something like a woman’s. Calling him from the water.

She calls him by name, though he does not remember telling it to her. The voice is laughter and longing, the melody of a secret never spoken aloud.

Gaspard looks upon her, and she is neither there nor not there. Her body is the water itself, shifting in ripples that become hair, arms, a face that vanishes the moment he understands it. Eyes like reflections on a lake.

“I have sung for you,” she whispers, “in the waves you never saw, in the fountains that never reached your lips.”

Her fingers—if they are fingers—trace the air before him. A gesture of invitation, or a spell. She speaks of the kingdoms beneath the surface, the cities without light, the halls paved with pearls. She asks him to follow.

Somewhere beyond this moment, in a world where time still holds meaning, Gaspard knows that he has dreamed this before. A childhood fever, a forgotten book, the shape of a story he once heard and then discarded. He knows what comes next.

But knowledge is not refusal.

The surface of the water—if it is water—breaks. She rises to him. The laughter remains, but it has changed. It is deeper now, less a song than the echo of something vast and old.

He steps forward.

<>

His foot touches the surface, and the water does not resist him. It accepts. It yields without breaking, as if it had always been waiting for this moment. The reflection beneath him is not his own.

Ondine encircles him, her laughter curling through the air like ripples through a still pond. “You have always belonged to the water,” she says, though he does not remember making such a promise. Her arms, or the idea of arms, coil around him. He feels their cool weight, but when he looks down, there is nothing.

The world above the waves dims. The city, the room, the memory of walls and windows—they are distant now, dissolving like mist in the morning. There is only her voice and the soft, insistent pull downward.

The surface trembles, blurring the boundary between one world and another. He sees glimpses of what she offers: towers woven from coral, cathedrals with ceilings lost to the depths, streets paved in mother-of-pearl. Shapes flicker in the water—figures moving in slow procession, their eyes luminous, their mouths singing a song older than time. He cannot tell if they are welcoming him or mourning him.

He knows now that there will be no return. The air above is thin, fragile. The world of stone and firelight has receded beyond reach. Even if he turned back, even if he willed himself to awaken, he would find nothing but echoes.

A final thought, as the last breath leaves him: This is how it happens.

Ondine laughs once more, and the water closes above him.

<>

But the water does not drown him. It does not fill his lungs, nor does it bear him down into darkness. Instead, it holds him in a weightless suspension, neither floating nor sinking, as if waiting for something unseen to decide his fate.

Ondine is everywhere now—her voice in the current, her touch in the cool pressure against his skin. The visions around him sharpen: the pearl-paved streets are real, the coral towers impossibly high. Through the shifting light, he sees figures moving, their bodies slow and sinuous. They are neither alive nor dead, neither flesh nor specter.

“You feared drowning,” Ondine murmurs. “But drowning is only the first step.”

He tries to speak, but the water steals the words from his lips before they are formed. A new sound emerges in their place—something less than speech, more than silence. A song, or the beginning of one.

The figures turn toward him. Their eyes are vast, luminous. They are waiting.

For a moment, he resists. He does not know what they expect of him, but something within him—some thin remnant of the world above—recoils. He reaches for a memory of himself: the room, the window, the name Gaspard.

Ondine sighs, amused. “You were never meant for that world.”

Her arms—he is certain now that she has arms—draw him closer. Her lips, colder than the deepest currents, brush his ear.

“Sing.”

The figures watch. The city of the drowned waits.

And Gaspard, treasurer of the night, opens his mouth—

And sings.

<>

At first, the sound is unfamiliar, foreign to his own ears. It is neither breath nor voice but something fluid, something that bends and twists like a current through the deep. It does not belong to him, and yet it is his.

The figures in the pearl-lit city begin to stir. They do not speak, but their bodies move in slow, deliberate response. Some bow their heads in recognition, others raise their hands as if in benediction. The song—his song—threads through them like an unseen tide.

Gaspard feels it, too. A pull, not downward but inward, as if something long buried is being called forth. His limbs are light, drifting as if they no longer belong to him. The memory of air, of weight, of a world above water, thins like mist in morning light.

“You are one of us now,” Ondine whispers. Her face, beautiful and inconstant, shimmers before him. “You have always been one of us.”

The thought does not frighten him. What was he before? A name, a shadow in an uncertain room, a fleeting self in a world that no longer exists. The moment stretches. There is no past, no future, only this music, this movement, this endless, shimmering now.

The figures begin to turn away, drifting back into the luminous avenues of their silent city. They have heard what they needed to hear. The song is complete.

Ondine watches him, her eyes dark and endless. “Come,” she says. “There is more to see.”

And so Gaspard follows, singing as he goes, his voice indistinguishable from the tides.

<>

Gaspard hesitates.

The song still lingers in the water, woven through the streets of the drowned city. He feels it moving within him, threading itself into his very being, dissolving the last fragile barriers between himself and this world beneath the waves.

But something resists. A thread of self, thin as a whisper, pulls taut inside him. He does not belong here. Not yet.

Ondine’s expression shifts—curiosity, then amusement, then something darker. “You do not wish to stay?”

The city around them shimmers, becoming less a place and more an idea of a place, its edges blurring into the water. The figures—no longer distinct—watch without watching. The song that once carried him now presses in, insistent. It does not want to let him go.

“I cannot,” he tries to say, though the words are swallowed before they reach the water’s surface.

Ondine tilts her head. “You already have.”

For a moment, Gaspard believes her. The memory of the world above seems distant, an illusion, something imagined rather than real. The thought of returning to it—its weight, its silence—feels impossible. He has stepped too far. He has passed through the veil.

But then, as if from nowhere, a sound. Distant, rhythmic, steady. A bell. A single chime ringing out, thin but undeniable.

The gallows.

The weight of death, waiting just beyond the water’s edge.

It is enough. The memory crashes over him, cutting through the song, through Ondine’s laughter, through the dream that has tried to claim him. The figures of the drowned flicker, their luminous eyes dimming. The water darkens, losing its shimmer.

Ondine’s face—so close to his—becomes uncertain. Her hands reach for him, but he is already rising, already breaking away. The current fights him, clinging, dragging, but the tolling bell grows louder, pulling him back, back—

And then, silence.

Gaspard opens his eyes.

He is in his room, or something like it. The walls are not quite steady. The window stares into a night that feels vast, too vast. The city beyond is there but not. His limbs are heavy, his breath thick in his chest. The bed beneath him is familiar, but he does not remember lying down.

Outside, somewhere far away, a bell chimes again.

He does not know if he is awake.

<>

The bell fades, leaving only the hush of midnight. Gaspard sits up, unsure if his body is his own. The weight of the dream—if it was a dream—clings to him, damp as river mist. His hands tremble, though not from cold. The song still lingers at the edges of his mind, not a melody but the memory of one. He resists the urge to hum it.

The room is dim, but not dark. The window glows faintly, though there is no moon. The city beyond should be familiar—rooftops, chimneys, the flicker of gaslight—but something is wrong. The streets are too still. The sky is too deep. He cannot tell where the horizon ends.

He swings his legs over the side of the bed. The floor is solid, yet he feels unsteady, as if the world beneath him is shifting in unseen currents. He forces himself to stand, to step forward. The boards creak beneath his feet, grounding him, anchoring him. He clings to the sound.

At the window, he hesitates before looking out. The city is there, but it is waiting. That is the only way he can describe it. He has returned, but something is not finished.

His reflection stares back at him in the glass—his face, his eyes. But for a moment, just a flicker, there is something else. A shimmer. A ripple. A presence just behind him.

He does not turn.

Instead, he raises a hand to the glass. His own fingers meet his own reflection, solid, real. And yet, beneath them, faint and distant, he swears he hears it—

Laughter.

Soft, lingering, and just below the surface.

<>

Gaspard pulls his hand away from the glass. The laughter fades, or perhaps it only sinks deeper, retreating where he cannot follow. He tells himself it is only his imagination. That it is only the lingering shadow of a dream.

He turns from the window. The room remains uncertain—its angles slightly wrong, its corners deeper than they should be. His belongings are where they always were, but they feel like props, set pieces in a world hastily reconstructed around him.

He crosses to the small desk in the corner. There, scattered pages of his own handwriting—poems half-written, lines abandoned. He searches for something familiar, something to fix himself to the waking world. His fingers brush the ink-stained paper, but even his own words feel distant, written by a hand not quite his own.

The bell has stopped. The silence presses against him.

He glances toward the mirror above the washbasin.

For a long moment, he does not move. He does not want to look.

But he must.

Slowly, he raises his eyes. His own reflection stares back—pale, wide-eyed, the face of a man unsure if he has awakened at all. And yet, behind him—

Nothing.

No shimmer, no ripple, no trace of the world beneath the water. The room is empty. He is alone.

Still, he does not trust it.

Gaspard exhales, unsteady, and reaches for the pitcher of water beside the basin. The act is simple, ordinary—filling the bowl, splashing his face. Cool drops run down his skin, grounding him in the weight of his own body.

But as he lifts his head, droplets fall back into the basin, disturbing the water’s surface—

And for the briefest moment, the reflection that stares up at him is not his own.

A woman’s face, laughing, vanishing.

Gaspard stumbles back, the bowl tipping, water spilling onto the floor. He presses himself against the desk, heart hammering in his chest. The basin is still. The mirror shows only his own frightened eyes.

He does not move for a long time.

Then, carefully, he steps over the spilled water and moves to the chair by the window. He sits. Waits. Watches the city.

He will not sleep again tonight.

LE GIBET

The night outside Gaspard’s window deepens, and with it, the sense of dread that has been following him since he awoke—or perhaps since he never truly awoke. The room feels heavier now, the air thick with an unspoken presence, pressing in from all sides. He cannot escape it; the quiet hum of inevitability hums through the walls, as persistent as the bell he heard earlier.

The clock on the wall ticks, and in its rhythm, he hears something else—an echo of the bell from the dream, a tolling that repeats in his bones. His mind flickers back to the memory of the gallows, the sound of that bell tolling steadily, endlessly, as if time had been reduced to that single note.

Gaspard shudders. The sun should have set by now, but instead, the light outside the window seems to linger in strange, muted tones, casting long shadows across the room. He cannot remember the last time he saw the sun set, or whether the night ever fully came.

A cold sweat beads on his forehead. His hands tighten around the arms of the chair, and he feels as if he might be pulled into something far darker than sleep, pulled into the very structure of fate itself.

The tolling bell rings again.

Gaspard is no longer sure whether it is real, or whether it has become part of the static noise in his mind, a fixed point around which everything else revolves. He can almost feel the weight of it—the sound pressing on him, suffocating the air, filling every corner of the room. He tries to close his eyes, but the image forms nonetheless.

The gallows. The rope hanging taut. A silhouette swaying in the distance, framed by the dying light of the setting sun. There is no movement, only the stillness of inevitability. The body hangs motionless, waiting for something that will never come. And the bell—endlessly tolling, marking the passing of time that will never return.

It is not just an image—it is an experience. Gaspard feels it as he feels his own pulse. The weight of death, the inevitability of it, the way it looms in every moment. He cannot escape it, cannot pull away from it. It is as much a part of him as his breath, as his heart, as his mind itself.

The room seems to close in on him.

The tolling bell continues. The presence of the gallows is here, in the room, in his mind, at the edges of his consciousness, impossible to shake. Gaspard looks out the window again, but the city has not changed—it is still there, waiting, frozen in its strange, muted twilight. The air is still thick with the sense of inevitability, as if the whole world is hanging, suspended in that one moment, that one constant note.

And then, as if through the bell’s very tolling, he hears it again—the sound of laughter.

Soft. Lingering.

Gaspard’s heart races. It is Ondine, of course—it must be. She is always there, just behind him, just out of sight, like the shadows that stretch across the walls. The water that should have drowned him now seems to seep through the cracks of the room, cold and inevitable, wrapping him in its grasp.

He reaches for the window again, as if to escape. But this time, his reflection does not stare back. Instead, the window shows only the gallows, hanging there in the distance, its shadow growing longer as the sun continues to sink. The bell tolls, and the world tilts.

Gaspard closes his eyes, clenching his fists. He is trapped here, suspended between death and waking, between dreams and the world that he knows. The bell tolls once more, louder now, like a hammer falling against the earth. And with it comes a realization: he is the one who hangs in the distance.

The tolling bell, the shadow of the gallows, the suffocating inevitability of it all—this is the truth he has been avoiding, the truth that has been waiting for him all along.

The final note rings out, and Gaspard falls silent.

<>

The silence that follows is deafening. The bell’s toll has ceased, yet its echo lingers in Gaspard’s chest, like the final beat of a heart that knows its end is near. He sits motionless, caught in the moment where time has stretched beyond its natural limits, suspended in a vast emptiness. The weight of the inevitability presses down on him, as though the world itself is holding its breath.

The image of the gallows hangs before him, a cruel mirror of his own fate. His mind fights against it, seeks any escape, any diversion from the knowledge that has clawed its way into his consciousness. But the more he struggles, the more the truth becomes clear, a shuddering certainty: the gallows are not just a symbol, not just a vision—they are real, as real as the room he sits in, as real as his own body.

He stands, trembling. His legs feel strange beneath him, as though they are no longer entirely his own. The room spins, a carousel of distorted reflections, shifting in the dim light. The walls breathe, the corners stretch away, and for a moment, he is caught between two worlds—one where the gallows await him, and another where he is merely a man who has awoken to something too vast to comprehend.

He stumbles toward the door, unsure of his direction. The weight of the bell tolls in the air, the sound too solid now, pressing against his temples, vibrating through his bones. The laughter he once thought distant returns, faint but unmistakable, curling around the edges of his thoughts.

“No…” he whispers, his voice trembling in the cold air of the room. “I won’t go back.”

The door opens before he touches it, and the world outside is waiting. It is the same city, the same streets, but the sky is darker now, deeper, as though it knows something he does not. The air carries the scent of rain, though the clouds are still far away. A quiet, oppressive stillness hovers, suffocating the once-familiar sounds of the world.

Gaspard steps out into the night, his footfall light and uncertain, as though the ground itself could give way beneath him. The tolling bell echoes behind him, growing fainter with each step he takes. Yet it is not truly fading—it is merely shifting, becoming part of the rhythm of the world around him, a constant presence in the background, waiting for him to accept it.

He walks on, unsure where he is going, unsure if it even matters. The city unfurls before him like a labyrinth, streets stretching into impossible distances. He sees the shadows of others, people who move like ghosts, their faces indistinguishable in the dark. But they do not see him. They do not see anyone, lost in their own paths, drawn forward by the same, unspoken force.

The streetlights flicker, casting brief moments of light across the pavement, then fading again into the dark. Gaspard’s heart races. He feels the pull of the gallows once more, not as a place, but as an inevitability. He knows the bell will toll again, knows that the shadow will fall upon him. But he cannot turn back. He cannot let the vision consume him again.

The city begins to dissolve. The streets twist, the buildings lean, and the air grows thick with the scent of something ancient, something old and decayed. Gaspard stumbles, but the ground beneath him gives way—not as dirt, not as stone—but as the deep, dark waters of the city’s past, pulling him down once more.

And then, before him, there is the shadow of the gallows again. Larger now, inevitable, impossible to ignore. The B-flat ostinato, steady and relentless, rises once more in his mind.

But this time, he does not allow himself to be drawn in. This time, he rejects it. The vision blurs. The bell rings once more—louder, harsher—but Gaspard wills it silent. He wills the silence, the void, the nothingness that will free him from the shadow of the inevitable.

And for the first time, the bell stops.

There is only the silence now.

Gaspard stands alone in the dark, breathing deeply, the weight of the world suddenly gone. The city, the gallows, the bell—all of it fades, retreating into the shadows from which it came.

And Gaspard, though lost, though forever changed, is free.

For now.

<>

Gaspard stands motionless in the void, the silence stretching out around him like a vast, endless sea. The weight that once pressed on him has lifted, but in its absence, he is confronted with something equally unsettling—an emptiness, profound and absolute, a place where even the memory of the tolling bell cannot reach.

He takes a step forward, unsure of where to go, unsure of what to expect. The ground beneath him is not solid; it shimmers, like a reflection on water, and for a moment, he wonders if he is still within the dream, or if the dream has swallowed him whole, transforming reality into something unrecognizable.

The city is gone now. There are no streets, no lights, no distant sounds of life. The world has dissolved into a blur of shadow and fog, swirling together in a slow dance of eternal twilight. The air is thick with the scent of something unfamiliar, something ancient—a dampness, a decay, the smell of forgotten things.

Gaspard feels a shiver run down his spine. The laughter that once seemed so far away now returns, distant but unmistakable, like an echo from some hidden corner of the world. It beckons to him, a reminder of the things that lie just out of sight, just beyond the reach of his understanding.

He moves forward again, his steps unsteady, his mind spinning with the fragments of images that have haunted him since he first awoke—or perhaps since he never truly awoke. The shadows twist and bend around him, taking on strange, familiar shapes: the outline of a figure, half-formed, flickering in and out of existence; a hand reaching for him, its fingers long and delicate, like the tendrils of some forgotten plant.

He raises his own hand to reach out, but the figure vanishes before he can touch it. The fog thickens, and for a moment, Gaspard is surrounded by nothing but darkness. The laughter rings louder now, its source unclear, as if it comes from every direction at once.

“Who are you?” Gaspard calls out, his voice shaking in the stillness.

The laughter fades for a moment, replaced by a new sound: a low, rhythmic thudding, like the beating of some immense heart. Gaspard’s pulse quickens, matching the rhythm, as if the very air around him is alive with a force beyond his understanding. He feels it in his chest, in his throat, in his very bones—the beat, the thud, the inexorable pull of something ancient, something that has been waiting for him.

He begins to walk again, drawn toward the sound, toward the heart of the darkness. With each step, the thudding grows louder, clearer, and though he knows it is a sound he should fear, he cannot resist. The rhythm seems to call to him, to guide him through the fog, deeper into the unknown.

The fog lifts just enough for him to see something in the distance—a shape, a figure, standing alone in the blackness. It is tall, thin, its edges blurred as if it exists somewhere between worlds. Gaspard’s heart beats faster, his breath quickening. The laughter is gone now, replaced by a profound stillness that makes the thudding in his chest seem all the more ominous.

He moves closer, his footsteps muted on the shifting ground. The figure stands there, unmoving, waiting. Gaspard feels an overwhelming sense of recognition, though he cannot place it. The figure is familiar, but it is also alien, like something half-remembered from a forgotten dream.

As he reaches out, his fingers brushing the air before him, the figure turns, its face still shrouded in shadow. There is a moment of stillness, an infinite pause, before the figure speaks.

“Do you remember?” it asks, its voice a soft, unsettling whisper, like the wind through dead leaves.

Gaspard’s heart races. He opens his mouth to speak, but no words come. The figure takes a step closer, its presence somehow both comforting and terrifying, and in that step, Gaspard feels something ancient stir within him—a memory, a feeling, a truth that he cannot yet understand.

“I was waiting,” the figure continues, its voice growing softer, yet somehow more insistent. “I have always been waiting.”

The darkness presses in again, and the thudding grows louder, until it is all that Gaspard can hear, until it fills every corner of his mind. The figure steps forward once more, and Gaspard feels the pull, the inexorable tug of fate drawing him closer, drawing him into the heart of the silence.

And just as his fingers brush against the figure’s arm, the world begins to tremble. The darkness undulates around him, as if it were alive, breathing, shifting. Gaspard feels himself falling, plummeting into the void, pulled deeper into the unknown.

He opens his eyes, but there is no light, no sound. There is only the pulse of the dark, the thudding that echoes in his chest, in his mind, in his very soul.

And then, the silence returns.

But this time, it is not an absence. It is a presence—vast, eternal, and complete. Gaspard knows, then, that he is no longer alone in the darkness.

He is the darkness now.

And somewhere, far in the distance, a bell tolls.

<>

Gaspard stands at the edge of the abyss, his mind teetering on the edge of clarity and madness. The silence, now a palpable force, stretches in every direction. The thudding pulse that had once filled the air continues to reverberate in his chest, but now it is his own heartbeat, as if his body has become one with the rhythm of the dark. His fingers twitch with a phantom energy, remembering the touch of the figure that vanished as soon as he reached out to it. He feels its presence still, lurking just beyond the threshold of his understanding.

The fog that swirls around him thickens again, coiling like smoke, and from within it, the faintest whisper calls his name. It is the same voice, soft and insistent, like the rustle of dry leaves, like the murmur of forgotten secrets.

“Gaspard,” it says, “you are not yet free.”

His breath catches in his throat. The words settle into his bones, heavy and inescapable. He tries to move, to retreat, but the ground beneath him is no longer firm. It shifts with every step, as though the very earth is rebelling against him, pulling him deeper into its grasp. The air is thick now, saturated with something ancient and primal, as if the dark itself is alive, aware, and watching him.

He takes another step, but this time, the thudding is joined by a new sound—a low, creaking noise, like the groan of an old door opening in the darkness. The air stirs, heavy with a presence that is not the figure, but something larger, something older. The fog parts slightly, and Gaspard glimpses a shadow—a shape too vast to comprehend, a form that seems to ripple in and out of existence.

It is the Scarbo. Not in any physical shape he can understand, but in the deepest recesses of his mind, where the laws of reality break down. The dwarf-like creature that haunts the world of dreams and nightmares, the creature who moves between spaces, slipping through time as though it were water. He feels its fingers brushing against his thoughts, flicking through his memories like pages of a book, searching, always searching, for something he cannot name.

He closes his eyes, trying to block it out, but the creature is inside him now. It is everywhere. The shadows twist around him, forming into monstrous shapes that disappear as quickly as they emerge. The rhythmic pulse quickens, faster, more insistent, until it is no longer a heartbeat—it is the sound of something else, something that has no beginning and no end.

The figure from before—the one who spoke of waiting—returns, now standing just in front of him. Its face is still obscured by shadow, but Gaspard can feel its gaze, burning into him from all sides. “You think you can escape,” the voice murmurs, cold and mocking. “But the Scarbo is not a thing you can escape. It is what you are.”

Gaspard shudders, his body trembling under the weight of the words. He knows now that the creature is not just a nightmare; it is a part of him, a manifestation of his deepest fears, his own dark impulses made flesh. It is the thing he has been running from, the thing that has haunted him through the endless corridors of his subconscious.

“No,” Gaspard whispers, though his voice feels weak, distant. “I’m not like it.”

The figure steps forward, its presence overwhelming, filling the space with a chill that cuts through him like a knife. “You are,” it repeats, its voice now a cacophony of whispers, all speaking at once, all urging him toward something he does not understand.

The thudding is deafening now, reverberating through every fiber of his being. It is the sound of something breaking, something unraveling. The world around him begins to tremble, the fog splitting open like a wound, and the Scarbo, no longer a figure in the mist but a force, a presence, surges forward.

Gaspard’s vision blurs, the shapes shifting in ways that defy logic. The city is gone now, replaced by the shapeless, formless expanse of the void. He can no longer feel his body, no longer feel the ground beneath his feet. There is only the Scarbo, and the endless echo of its laughter, like a thousand voices crying out in the dark.

For a moment, he feels as though he is no longer Gaspard at all, but something else—something nameless, something endless, caught in the ever-turning wheel of this nightmare, this dream. The boundaries between self and other dissolve, and he is both the pursuer and the pursued, both the dreamer and the dreamed.

But then, as if by some miracle, a sudden calm washes over him. The thudding fades, and with it, the sense of overwhelming dread. The figure steps back, its presence receding like a fading star, its whispers dying into silence.

Gaspard stands alone once more, but the silence is no longer oppressive. It is a peace, a stillness that holds no fear, no anger. The laughter is gone, and the Scarbo has retreated into the recesses of his mind, where it will wait—perhaps forever, perhaps just until the next time Gaspard dares to close his eyes.

In the distance, there is the faintest glimmer of light, like the first crack of dawn. Gaspard steps toward it, feeling the ground solidify beneath him, his senses slowly returning to their normal state. He does not know where he is going, or whether he will ever truly escape this place, but for now, there is only the light ahead and the silence that envelops him like a cloak.

He walks on, one step at a time, toward the uncertain future. The Scarbo may still be there, lurking in the shadows, but for now, he has won a small, quiet victory.

And in the distance, the faintest bell tolls, its sound soft and distant, as if calling him back. But he does not turn. Not yet.

<>

Gaspard continues his walk through the void, the faint light ahead gradually brightening, though it is not the kind of light that promises salvation. It is the eerie, spectral glow of a place in-between—a world of transition, where endings and beginnings blur into one indistinguishable mass. As he moves forward, the familiar pulse in his chest begins to return, slower now, like a distant echo, but still there. He can feel the weight of the thudding, not as a threat, but as a reminder—a rhythm that binds him to this place, a pulse that is both his own and something far older, far deeper.

The light ahead flickers again, then steadies into a pale illumination, and Gaspard’s mind, still clouded by the shadows of his journey, begins to piece things together. The laughter has faded, but its remnants remain, a distant hum beneath everything. The Scarbo is gone, but its presence lingers in the corners of his thoughts like a forgotten nightmare, never truly banished.

It is then that the first inklings dawn—an awareness, a realization. He is not outside the dream, not beyond it. He is inside it, wrapped in its folds. He has always been inside it.

The path before him stretches on, winding toward an indistinct horizon, but it is not the end of his journey that he fears now.

A new sound pierces the stillness—a bell. Not distant this time, but clear and near, its tone resonating deep within his chest. It is not a tolling bell, marking the passage of time, but something else: a summons, an invitation to confront what he has fled for so long.

Gaspard stands still, listening to the toll. It is not an ominous sound but a beckoning, soft yet insistent. The truth calls to him, a soft whisper in the void, and for the first time, he is not afraid. The bell is a promise, not of an end, but of a beginning.

He takes a step forward.

The ground beneath him shifts again, but this time, it is not unsteady. The light ahead grows warmer, gentler, no longer a stark, unnatural glow but a soft, inviting illumination. It is as though the world is turning toward him, not in judgment, but in acceptance. He feels his heartbeat synchronize with the rhythm of the bell, the sound growing louder, richer, as though the very universe is breathing with him.

And then, he understands.

Gaspard steps forward again, this time without hesitation. The light beckons him, but it is not the light of a place that he must leave behind. It is the light of a place that he must enter, fully and without fear, a place where the boundaries between self and other blur into nothingness. He moves through the soft glow, no longer uncertain, no longer unsure. The bell tolls once more, and he is not afraid.

For the first time in what feels like eternity, Gaspard smiles.

He is no longer running.

And as the last notes of the bell fade into the silence, he knows that this is not the end of his journey. It is the beginning of a new one.

The light fades into a soft, warm glow, and Gaspard moves forward, knowing that whatever waits for him in the next moment, he will face it as he is—whole, complete, and no longer afraid.

The bell tolls one last time.

And then, there is silence.