Category: MUSIC IN PHASE SPACE

The Post Narcissist Hangover

Leave a comment

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.

Lu-Tze and the Tao of Non-Engagement

Leave a comment

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

Leave a comment

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.

Studio Ghibli Chat GPT

Leave a comment

The thing with the Studio Ghibli ChatGPT images is a dead giveaway that someone can’t afford the real thing. The guys aren’t doing it because they’re cutting-edge. They’re doing it because they’re broke. Forget innovation; they’re dumpster-diving for Creative Commons scraps while the suits monetize their nostalgia.  

Social media forces everyone to look like they’re making moves, even when they’re barely making rent.  AI slop is just a symptom of the fact that no one has money anymore. People still feel pressure to participate in culture, to have an aesthetic, to sell themselves as something—but they’re doing it with whatever scraps they can get for free. And it shows. AI fills that gap—it lets people pretend they’re running a brand, but the end result is always the same: cheap, hollow, and painfully obvious. You want *brand identity*? Here’s your identity: You’re broke. And the algorithms are scavengers, feeding on the carcass of what used to be culture.  

AI isn’t democratizing creativity—it’s 3D-printing Gucci belts for the indentured influencer class. The outputs? Soulless, depthless, *cheap*. Like those TikTok dropshippers hawking “vibe-based lifestyle” from mold-filled warehouses.

People are essentially being squeezed into finding the cheapest, fastest ways to participate in cultural production because traditional economic pathways have become increasingly challenging. The AI-generated Studio Ghibli images become a metaphor for this larger condition: using freely available tools to simulate creativity when genuine creative and economic opportunities are increasingly scarce.

It’s not just about the technology, but about how economic constraint fundamentally reshapes artistic expression and cultural participation. The AI becomes a survival tool for people trying to maintain some semblance of creative identity in a system that makes traditional artistic and economic mobility increasingly difficult.

The “vibe” becomes a substitute for substance because substance has become economically unattainable for many.

Every pixel-puked Midjourney hallucination is a quantum vote for late-stage capitalist necropolitics. These AI image slurries aren’t art—they’re digital placeholders, algorithmic cardboard cutouts propping up the ghostware of cultural exhaustion.

You think you’re making content? You’re manufacturing consent for the post-industrial wasteland. Each AI-generated Studio Ghibli knockoff is a tiny fascist handshake with the machine, a performative surrender to surveillance capitalism’s most baroque fantasies.

These aren’t images. They’re economic trauma made visible—the desperate mimeograph of a culture so stripped of meaning that simulation becomes the only available language. Trump doesn’t need your vote. He needs your learned helplessness, your willingness to outsource imagination to some cloud-based neural net.

The algorithm isn’t your friend. It’s your economic undertaker, writing the eulogy for human creativity in procedurally generated helvetica.

Discipline

Leave a comment

DISCIPLINE

In 1981, as the world grappled with the hangover of the freewheeling 1970s—stagflation, punk’s rubble, and the cold dawn of Reaganomics—King Crimson, rock’s most mercurial act, reemerged with an album titled Discipline. Its track, “Indiscipline,” was a jarring manifesto: a recursive guitar riff, arrhythmic drums, and lyrics about obsession, control, and the terror of losing both. Frontman Adrian Belew howled, “I repeat myself when under stress / I repeat myself when under stress / I repeat…” It was a song about the fragility of order, the seduction of chaos, and the thin line between genius and madness. In hindsight, it’s also a perfect metaphor for the paradox of “disciplined indiscipline.”   The track that felt like its mirror image: erratic, fragmented, unpredictable. If Discipline was structure, Indiscipline was impulse. Yet both belonged to the same system, feeding into each other, revealing that real mastery wasn’t about rigid control or wild abandon but about moving between the two—knowing when to follow the grid and when to break free.

This idea—that discipline and indiscipline aren’t opposites but interwoven forces—isn’t just about music. It’s about navigation. We often imagine success as mastery, as having everything mapped out. But in reality, much of movement—through markets, through culture, through life—isn’t about mastery at all. It’s about mitigation: an intelligence that isn’t about complete control but about sensing, adjusting, and improvising within a shifting environment. It’s not just about skill; it’s about métis, that ancient cunning, but mixed with bêtise—the foolishness and randomness that inevitably shape our paths

 The Album as Algorithm: Fripp’s Controlled Anarchy  

Robert Fripp, King Crimson’s guitarist and de facto philosopher-king, once described his approach to music as “cybernetic improv”—a blend of rigid structure and spontaneous play. Discipline was built on this ethos. The title track, for example, interlocked four musicians in a rhythmic lattice so precise it sounded algorithmic, yet its grooves pulsed with human imperfection. This wasn’t jazz improv or punk rebellion. It was chaos designed, like a murmuration of starlings—aestheticized randomness with invisible rules.  

Fripp’s infamous “guitar craft” method—a monastic regimen of practice and theory—enabled this. He trained his hands to obey so completely that he could later “disobey with intent.” In essence, Discipline was an album about the freedom that comes only after mastery. The song “Indiscipline” literalized this tension: its lyrics (inspired by Belew’s wife’s letter about a chaotic art sculpture) fixated on an object that was “too much to take” yet “too good to throw away.” The music mirrored this duality—Belew’s guitar squalled like a broken radio, while the rhythm section (Tony Levin and Bill Bruford) anchored it with militaristic precision.  

 The ZIRP of Art: When Noise Becomes Signal  

In the early 1980s, King Crimson’s Discipline landed in a cultural moment ripe for its message. New Wave and post-punk were turning rebellion into a formula, while corporate rock calcified. The album’s fusion of math-rock rigor and art-rock abandon felt radical precisely because it refused binary logic. It was indiscipline with a blueprint—a rejection of both punk’s nihilism and prog rock’s excess.  

This mirrors the “ZIRP world” described earlier. In eras of abundance (like the 2010s tech boom or the 1970s art-rock explosion), experimentation flourishes because the stakes feel low. Mistakes become “innovation”; noise becomes “edge.” Discipline thrived in this ambiguity—critics called it “unclassifiable,” a backhanded compliment that masked their unease. But unlike the startups that mistook luck for strategy, King Crimson’s chaos was earned. Fripp’s years of monastic practice (he once compared guitar playing to “washing the floor”—a daily, unglamorous ritual) let the band pivot when the rules changed. By the 1990s, when grunge and alt-rock dominated, Crimson had already moved on, their “indiscipline” intact but retuned.  

In a world of easy gains—where ZIRP, network effects, and technological tailwinds make happy accidents look like skill—this kind of intelligence is obscured. Everything feels like low-hanging fruit, and moving forward is as much about timing as it is about talent. But when the conditions shift, when gravity returns, the difference between real navigation and blind luck becomes clear. The game is no longer about picking fruit—it’s about staying upright, about mitigating collapse, about turning indiscipline into something sustainable.

We don’t master the sea. We mitigate its dangers and ride its waves.

The Paradox of Controlled Chaos: Why Luck Isn’t a Strategy (But Feels Like One)  

In the early 2000s, a group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs stumbled into a peculiar pattern. Startups founded during the dot-com boom seemed to thrive not because of meticulous planning, but because of something closer to chaos. Founders pivoted wildly, burned cash on half-baked ideas, and yet—against all odds—many struck gold. Investors called it “vision.” Employees called it “genius.” But years later, when the 2008 financial crisis hit, those same founders floundered. Their freewheeling strategies dissolved like sugar in rain. What changed? The answer lies in a paradox: the difference between indiscipline and disciplined indiscipline.  

 The ZIRP Mirage: When Chaos Looks Like Genius  

In a Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) world—where capital is cheap, networks sprawl, and risk feels weightless—indiscipline thrives. Consider the rise of “growth at all costs” startups. Companies like WeWork or Uber, buoyed by a decade of easy money, operated in a reality where every misstep could be reframed as innovation. Investors rewarded audacity over austerity, and founders internalized a dangerous lesson: randomness could be mistaken for skill.  

This phenomenon isn’t new. Psychologists call it the “narrative fallacy”—our tendency to craft coherent stories from chaos. In the 1990s, researchers studying stock traders found that many attributed their success to skill, even when their wins were statistically indistinguishable from luck. In a ZIRP environment, the same delusion takes hold. When money flows freely, even haphazard decisions yield fruit. The low-hanging rewards of “happy accidents” obscure a critical truth: abundance forgives incompetence.  

 The Gravity Test: When Structure Becomes Survival  

But what happens when gravity returns? Consider the contrast between two eras: the freewheeling 2010s and the austerity of the 1980s. In the latter, companies like IBM and Intel survived not by chasing every shiny trend, but by doubling down on disciplined R&D. Andy Grove, Intel’s legendary CEO, famously embraced “paranoia” as strategy—a relentless focus on margins, efficiency, and incremental innovation. This wasn’t glamorous. But when the tech bubble burst in 2000, Intel endured while flashier rivals collapsed.  

Discipline, in this context, isn’t rigidity. It’s the ability to toggle between chaos and order. The psychologist Angela Duckworth, studying grit, found that high achievers share a trait: they work with “directionless determination” early on (experimenting, pivoting), then lock into ruthless focus once they find a viable path. This mirrors what venture capitalists call the “explore-exploit” dilemma: knowing when to wander and when to commit.  

 The Art of Riding Waves (Without Drowning)  

The most successful navigators of chaos understand something subtle: indiscipline must be intentional. Jazz musicians, for example, thrive on improvisation—but only after mastering scales. The saxophonist John Coltrane could spend hours deconstructing a single chord, building the muscle memory to later “break” rules with purpose. Similarly, companies like Amazon operate with a Gladwellian “thin slicing” ethos: Jeff Bezos’ “two-pizza teams” (small, autonomous groups) encourage experimentation, but within a scaffold of unyielding metrics (customer obsession, long-term profit).  

Contrast this with the fate of Theranos. Elizabeth Holmes embraced indiscipline—lying, pivoting, and burning cash—but without the underlying rigor of real science or accountability. When gravity arrived (regulators, skeptics), the house of cards collapsed. Her chaos wasn’t controlled; it was desperation masquerading as vision.  

Luck vs. Leverage  

Malcolm Gladwell often asks: What do we miss when we attribute success to individual brilliance? In Outliers, he showed how Bill Gates’ genius was amplified by access to a computer lab in 1968—a rare privilege. Similarly, “disciplined indiscipline” relies on context. In a ZIRP world, leverage your chaos; in a high-gravity world, leverage your craft.  

The key is to recognize which environment you’re in. During the pandemic, companies like Zoom thrived on the chaos of remote work, but their survival now depends on disciplined innovation (AI features, enterprise security). Meanwhile, legacy industries like hospitality, forced into austerity during lockdowns, are rebounding by embracing controlled experimentation (hybrid events, dynamic pricing).  

 The Gravity of “Indiscipline”: When the Sculpture Cracks  

The song “Indiscipline” climaxes with Belew’s frantic confession: “I like it!”—a mantra that devolves into a scream. It’s the sound of someone clinging to chaos as a lifeline, even as it threatens to consume them. This resonates with the peril of clinging to indiscipline when gravity returns. Consider the 1980s music industry: as MTV rose and labels demanded polished hits, bands that relied on pure chaos (say, The Germs) collapsed, while those with underlying discipline (Talking Heads, Crimson) evolved.  

King Crimson’s secret was their ability to meta-process chaos. Fripp’s “soundscapes”—ambient loops crafted in real time—were improvised yet governed by rules. Similarly, Levin’s Chapman Stick (a bass-guitar hybrid) added texture without clutter. Their indiscipline wasn’t a lack of control; it was control redistributed, like a Jackson Pollock painting—a thousand calculated splatters.  

The 10,000-Hour Accident  

Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers argues that mastery requires “10,000 hours” of practice. But King Crimson’s Discipline suggests a corollary: true innovation requires 10,000 hours plus a willingness to set fire to the blueprint. The album’s legacy lies in its refusal to be trapped by either pole—it’s neither punk nor prog, neither chaos nor order.  

When the band reunited in the 2000s, Fripp quipped that Crimson was “a way of doing things.” Not a sound, not a genre, but a method. That method—disciplined indiscipline—is what lets artists (and entrepreneurs) thrive in both ZIRP and high-gravity worlds. The trick is to build your scaffold so well that you can dance on it, like Philippe Petit on his tightrope, screaming “I like it!” into the void.  

So, circle back to Discipline. Its genius isn’t in the noise or the order, but in the tension between them. As Fripp might say: Structure is freedom. But only if you know when to break it.

 The Tightrope Walker’s Secret  

The tightrope walker Philippe Petit, who traversed the World Trade Center in 1974, understood disciplined indiscipline. His performance looked like reckless artistry, but it was built on years of obsessive preparation: studying wind patterns, rehearsing falls, and calculating every step. He knew when to lean into the chaos of the moment and when to anchor himself to structure.  

In the end, the paradox resolves itself: Indiscipline without discipline is luck. Discipline without indiscipline is stagnation. The trick is to dance between them—to surf the waves of randomness while knowing, deep down, how to swim when the tide turns. Because gravity always returns. And when it does, the ones who survive won’t

Permaservism

Leave a comment

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” The Eagles’ Hotel California was once just a cryptic allegory—rock-star excess, American decadence, or some vague sense of spiritual entrapment. But these days, it feels more like a business model. A system that isn’t quite capitalism, isn’t quite socialism, and isn’t quite feudalism, yet borrows liberally from all three. It thrives on contradictions: ownership without possession, labor without wages, freedom without exit. You don’t buy things; you subscribe to them. You don’t earn a living; you generate engagement. You don’t make choices; you navigate dark patterns designed to keep you locked in. It’s a place where the lights are always on, the services are always recurring, and the bill is always due.

Yet, because it doesn’t fit neatly into any ideological framework, it remains largely unnamed—an indeterminate economy with no official manifesto, just a series of invisible contracts you clicked “agree” on without reading. Welcome to the new system. We hope you enjoy your stay.

Tollism: The Pay-Per-Sigh Economy

Everything is metered, from roadways to breathing space. A fee lurks behind every minor convenience, and every attempt to bypass the toll incurs a greater one. Want to skip the ad? Pay. Need to avoid traffic? Pay. Want to talk to a human instead of a bot? Pay. The most mundane aspects of life now resemble a turnstile, each step forward accompanied by an invisible hand demanding a surcharge.

• Not pure capitalism: Classic capitalism is about private ownership and free exchange, but tollism thrives on artificial scarcity. You’re not paying for a good or service—you’re paying to avoid inconvenience, delay, or exclusion. It’s closer to extortion than a free market.

• Not socialism either: Socialism often critiques capitalism’s commodification of basic needs, but tollism isn’t about workers owning the means of production or redistributing wealth—it’s about leveraging every aspect of daily life as a microtransaction.

Permaservism: You’re a Medieval Peasant, but Instead of Turnips, You Pay in Engagement

You no longer own your labor outright—it’s a form of digital serfdom where your productivity is measured in likes, clicks, and impressions. Algorithms determine your sustenance, and the landlord—the platform—extracts its tithe before you even see the fruits of your labor. You work for exposure, for visibility, for relevance, but rarely for anything tangible.

• Not feudalism: In feudalism, peasants at least had land to work (even if they owed a portion to the lord). Here, workers don’t own anything—not even their own audience. The “lords” are algorithms and platforms that dictate visibility.

• Not capitalism in the classical sense: A capitalist laborer gets wages in return for work. Here, people labor endlessly—posting, streaming, commenting—hoping to be rewarded with exposure, which itself is a currency that may or may not convert into income.

Recurrism: Like a Gym Membership for Existing, but Less Rewarding

Existence itself is now a subscription model. You don’t just buy things—you enroll in them. Software, entertainment, even appliances require perpetual payments to remain functional. Forget to renew, and your world starts shutting off, like a dystopian version of a free trial expiring.

Not traditional capitalism: In classical capitalism, you buy a product and own it. Recurrism replaces ownership with indefinite leasing, making consumers permanent debtors to their own necessities.

• Not socialism either: While socialism often criticizes wealth concentration, it usually assumes that goods and services should be collectively owned or universally provided—not that they should be indefinitely rented at a profit.

Leasism: Your Entire Life Is a Rental Car with a “Please Don’t Scratch” Vibe

Ownership is passé. Your home, your car, even your furniture—all rented, all temporary, all just out of reach. This is the gig economy’s final form: not just renting out your labor, but your entire existence, where everything feels contingent on keeping your credit score above an invisible threshold. You may live here, but don’t get too comfortable.

• Not communism: In theory, communism advocates for abolishing private property in favor of collective ownership. But in leasism, private property still exists—it’s just concentrated in the hands of the few who rent it out.

• Not capitalism as classically defined: The promise of capitalism was ownership—home ownership, business ownership, asset accumulation. Leasism negates this, ensuring that assets remain perpetually just out of reach.

Ghostownershipism: You “Own” That E-Book Like Casper Owns a Timeshare

Congratulations, you “own” a movie—until the studio pulls it from your digital library. You “own” software—until they phase out support. Your books, your music, your files—everything exists in a corporate purgatory where access can be revoked at a moment’s notice. Ownership has been replaced by the illusion of access, one update away from disappearing.

Not socialism: In a socialist framework, intellectual property might be controlled by the state or made freely available. But ghostownershipism isn’t about sharing—it’s about ensuring that even when you “buy” something, you’re really just licensing it.

• Not capitalism in its traditional form: Classic capitalism thrives on ownership, but ghostownershipism relies on the illusion of ownership. It’s capitalism that refuses to give up control, ensuring that purchases never truly belong to the buyer.

Inertiarchy: Canceling Subscriptions Requires Solving a CAPTCHA from Hell

The modern economy thrives on inertia. You sign up with a click but cancel through a labyrinth. Hidden menus, endless hold times, mysterious reactivations—companies rely on the fact that most people will surrender before breaking free. Like Hotel California, you can check out anytime you like, but good luck leaving.

• Not feudalism: Feudal obligations were often lifelong, but they were at least explicit. Here, obligations are hidden behind fine print, dark patterns, and friction-filled exit routes.

• Not traditional capitalism: A functional free market assumes informed consumers who can freely choose and exit transactions. Inertiarchy thrives on preventing people from leaving.

Micropriegemony: Death by a Thousand “Premium” Upgrades

Everything comes in tiers, and the base model is intentionally unbearable. Pay extra to remove the ads, to get the features that should have been included, to make the thing you already paid for actually usable. A thousand tiny inconveniences, each with a price tag, add up to a life spent nickel-and-dimed into submission.

Not capitalism in the classical sense: Adam Smith’s capitalism presupposed that markets would produce better products at competitive prices. Micropriegemony, instead, creates intentionally inferior products so consumers feel compelled to upgrade.

• Not socialism: This isn’t about ensuring equal access to resources. If anything, it ensures the opposite—segmenting people into artificially created castes of access and privilege.

Decaylism: Planned Obsolescence, but Make It Vibes

Your phone slows down, your apps stop updating, your clothes feel unfashionable—none of this happens by accident. Products are designed to expire, not just physically but aesthetically, socially. Even ideas have an expiration date, a built-in obsolescence that forces you to chase the next iteration, lest you fall out of sync with the ever-accelerating now.

Not traditional capitalism: Capitalism encourages innovation, but decaylism encourages controlled decay—ensuring that no product, idea, or trend lasts long enough to be truly valuable.

• Not Marxism: Marx criticized capitalism for alienating workers from their labor, but decaylism alienates consumers from their purchases, ensuring that every possession, from phones to aesthetics, is designed to lose its value over time.

Fauxmunism: Join Our Wellness Collective!™

Everything is “community” now, but only in the branding sense. Workplaces, apps, brands all speak the language of collectivism while functioning as pure profit-extracting machines. You’re not an employee, you’re part of the family. You’re not a customer, you’re a valued member. It’s socialism without the redistribution, collectivism without the collective—just a warmer, fuzzier form of corporate capture.

Not actual communism: In theory, communism is about collective ownership of resources and decision-making power. Fauxmunism borrows the language of collectivism but remains thoroughly corporate, using community branding to drive profits.

• Not traditional capitalism either: It’s not about straightforward transactions but about selling the feeling of belonging, of ethical consumption, without any structural change.

Leaving the Hotel (or Trying To)

In Hotel California, the guests are drawn in by something alluring—“such a lovely place”—but soon realize they’ve entered a maze where every exit leads back inside. That’s the essence of this system: it offers just enough convenience to make you forget the cage. Why cancel when it’s only $9.99 a month? Why buy when you can lease forever? Why own when the cloud remembers for you?

And so, we remain inside, scrolling, subscribing, renewing—caught in a structure that resists definition but shapes every aspect of modern life. Not quite a market, not quite a commune, not quite a prison. Something new, something slippery, something with no clear way out.

You can check out any time you like. But can you ever leave?

This is the modern condition: a world where everything is rented, borrowed, or metered, where participation is mandatory, and where opting out requires a level of effort most people can’t afford. And yet, we lack the words to talk about it. We reach for old binaries—capitalism vs. socialism, freedom vs. control—but they no longer fit. We’re living under something new, something we haven’t yet named.

These contradictions reveal why we struggle to name our current economic condition. It isn’t traditional capitalism, because ownership and free markets have been replaced by controlled access and platform dependency. It isn’t socialism, because nothing is being equitably distributed—just repackaged in ways that create new dependencies. It isn’t feudalism, because the new lords are faceless corporations rather than landed aristocrats. And it isn’t dystopian in the way Orwell or Huxley imagined—because instead of an iron fist or a drugged-up populace, we get a system that offers just enough convenience, just enough comfort, to prevent revolt.

It’s something new, something slippery. It thrives on engagement, inertia, and a kind of synthetic scarcity. It extracts wealth without always feeling oppressive, and it controls without always feeling coercive. It operates in a space where capitalism, socialism, and feudalism overlap, but it fully belongs to none of them. Until we name it, it will continue to shape our lives unnoticed.

In Defense of Piracy

Leave a comment

The sky above the port was the color of a paywall, tuned to a dead channel.  

Piracy? It’s not rebellion—it’s maintenance. A kind of street-level protocol to keep the whole rotten edifice from collapsing into the sea of its own greed. You think those subscription fees disappear into the cloud? They’re fuel for the black clinics of corporate AI, ghostwritten by algos trained on pirated ebooks.

You wake up. You check your Substack. $10/month for hot takes on the climate crisis. $30 for the AI tool that edits your résumé. $60 for the privilege of opening a PDF. Your bank account bleeds micropayments until you’re a data-serf, paying tribute to SaaS lords for the crime of existing in their digital fiefdom.  

Piracy? Call it guerrilla subsistence. When the platforms turn oxygen into a subscription service, breathing becomes a revolutionary act.  

The sprawl’s got no center anymore. Substack’s just another franchise in the franchise, a flickering neon sign in the data-glow of some Chongqing server farm. The subscription model is a virus, a parasitic word-beast that latches onto the soft meat of your bank account. It speaks in binary code: Subscribe. Consume. Repeat. But language is a weapon, and pirates? They’re the cut-up artists of the digital age. Slice the paywall. Shuffle the RSS feeds. Inject the PDF with a syringe full of Kali Linux.  Let’s autopsy Substack’s pitch: “Democratize writing! Throw off the media overlords!” Cute. Now writers hustle like Uber drivers, chasing viral streaks and patreonized panic. Meanwhile, Adobe’s Creative Cloud rains gold on shareholders while indie devs starve.  

Piracy doesn’t gut creators—it guts the lie. When some kid in Jakarta torrents Photoshop to design protest posters, she’s not killing art. She’s giving Adobe the middle finger for pricing creativity into a luxury tax.

Imagine a world where every thought is a microtransaction. A universe where a book costs $4.99 a chapter, annotated by some Substack ghoul with a ChatGPT fetish. You’d shoot the content too, wouldn’t you? Mainline it raw.  

The Substackers, the SaaS priests—they’re all junkies. Addicted to metrics, to the dopamine drip of monthly renewals. Pirates aren’t stealing. They’re interrupting the feed. A bootleg copy of AutoCAD isn’t software—it’s a ticket to the other side. A way to carve your name into the frozen face of the control machine.  

You think you’re a customer? Wrong. You’re a hostage. Subscriptions aren’t products—they’re parasites. Cancel Adobe, and your portfolio evaporates. Stop paying for that niche Substack screed on post-Singularity governance, and poof: your brain’s back on the infantilizing gruel of algorithmic feeds.  

Piracy isn’t theft. It’s brain preservation. A zip file of paywalled essays? A cracked version of Final Cut Pro? That’s not a crime—it’s a time capsule, proof you once owned your own mind.  

Forget “fairness.” Fairness is a social credit score, a cookie in your browser. Pirates operate in the interzone, where all data is liquid and every firewall has a backdoor lined with razor blades.  

Pirates? They’re the new console cowboys, jacking into the subscription matrix with cracked keys and burner emails. They don’t steal—they remix. A Substack essay gets torrented, spliced into a hundred Telegram channels, mutated into something the original author never intended. The content’s alive, man. It’s got a heartbeat.  

And the suits? They’re already dead. They just don’t know it. They’ll keep building higher walls, thicker DRM, until the whole thing starts to drip, like cheap biotech. Piracy’s the mold growing in the walls of their shiny new dystopia. Inevitable. Organic. 

THE DARKNETS ARE JUST FUTURES MARKETS  

Remember Napster? Of course not—you’re under 30. But let me school you: Piracy’s always been capitalism’s R&D lab. The pirates crack the vault; the suits sell the shinier vault.  

– 1999: Metallica sues fans for MP3s → Spotify rises from the ashes.  

– 2023: You torrent Blender because Autodesk wants your firstborn → Next year, Autodesk offers “student tiers” (with mandatory data harvesting).  

Pirates are beta testers for the next oppression.  

The darknets are where capitalism goes to die and reassemble itself in grotesque, fascinating new forms. They’re the Petri dishes of the post-capitalist future, where the spores of tomorrow’s economy are already growing in the damp, unregulated underbelly of the web.  

Think about it. Every major innovation in the last 30 years has been prefigured by some darknet hustle.  

– Napster: A bunch of college kids trading MP3s like baseball cards. The music industry screamed “piracy!” and then birthed Spotify, a platform that pays artists in exposure bucks.  

– The Pirate Bay: A digital flea market for everything from cracked Photoshop to Bollywood bootlegs. Now Adobe sells subscriptions with “student discounts” and Bollywood streams on Netflix.  

– Silk Road: A black-market Amazon for drugs, guns, and dystopian ephemera. Today, your local dispensary delivers weed via an app, and Amazon sells everything but the guns (for now).  

The darknets aren’t the enemy of capitalism—they’re its R&D department. They’re where the future gets stress-tested, stripped of its moralizing veneer, and sold back to you as a “disruptive innovation.”  

Imagine the darknets as a kind of speculative stock exchange, where the currency isn’t dollars or Bitcoin but risk. Every pirated copy of AutoCAD, every leaked Substack essay, every cracked AI model is a futures contract on the collapse of the old order.  

– Torrents: You’re betting that the entertainment industry will eventually cave to consumer demand for affordable, on-demand content. (Spoiler: they did.)  

– Cracked Software: You’re shorting the subscription economy, wagering that users will reject eternal rent-seeking in favor of ownership. (Spoiler: they will.)  

– Paywalled Essays on Telegram: You’re hedging against the fragmentation of knowledge, betting that open access will outlive the Substack bubble. (Spoiler: it must.)  

The darknets are where the real market forces play out, unencumbered by PR teams, lobbyists, or ESG reports. They’re the id of the global economy, a seething, chaotic mess of supply and demand that no algorithm can fully predict or control.  

 THE CORPORATE CO-OPT  

Of course, the suits are always watching. They’ll let the darknets do the dirty work of breaking the old models, then swoop in with a shiny new platform that feels revolutionary but is really just piracy with a UX overhaul.  

– Spotify: Napster with a boardroom.  

– Adobe Creative Cloud: Pirated Photoshop with a monthly fee.  

– Substack: Blogging, but with the soul of a pyramid scheme.  

The darknets innovate; the corporations monetize. It’s a symbiotic relationship, like remoras feeding on a shark. The only difference is that the shark doesn’t know it’s being eaten.  

 THE FUTURE IS A TORRENT    

Here’s the kicker: piracy isn’t just a market force—it’s a moral one. When you pirate, you’re not just stealing content; you’re rejecting the idea that knowledge, creativity, and tools should be locked behind paywalls. You’re saying, “This belongs to all of us.”  

But the darknets don’t care about your morality. They’re amoral, like the weather. They don’t care if you’re a starving artist or a Fortune 500 CEO. They just are.  

And that’s what makes them so dangerous—and so necessary.  

So where does this leave us? In a world where the darknets are the canaries in the coal mine of capitalism, signaling the next collapse, the next innovation, the next thing.  

The future isn’t a subscription. It’s a torrent—a chaotic, decentralized swarm of data, ideas, and possibilities. The darknets are just the first draft.  

And the pirates? They’re the editors.  

In the meantime

1. Steal Smart: Pirate the tools, then fund the actual humans. Buy the novelist’s book. Donate to the open-source devs. Leave the Substack pundit a Venmo while you screenshot their hot take.  

2. Burn the Feed: If knowledge is paywalled, share it in encrypted channels, dead-drop blogs, ARG forums. Turn the corporate cloud into a swarm.  

3. Haunt the Platforms: Use their free trials. Scrape their APIs. Make them feel the weight of your ghost.  

TLDR:

The subscription model is a pyramid scheme for the attention economy. Eventually, the feed eats itself—too many paywalls, too few humans left who can afford to care. When the crash comes, the pirates won’t be the villains. They’ll be the archivists, the ones who kept the PDFs, the .exe files, the unmonetized thoughts.  

So yeah, defend piracy. Or don’t. Either way, the black markets of the soul outlive every subscription.  

Coda

The future’s a glitched PDF, half-dead hyperlinks bleeding static.  

The corporations are writing their obituaries in DRM code. The pirates are just the scribes in the margins, annotating the collapse.  

Intraclass Warfare

Leave a comment

In contemporary capitalism, we observe a recurring phenomenon in which one faction of the professional-managerial class (PMC) sacrifices another sector within its own class, ostensibly in the name of progress, accessibility, or efficiency. This process, which we might term sacrificial disruption, serves two simultaneous functions: first, it gains ideological legitimacy from below (by appealing to mass consumer interests and anti-elite sentiment), and second, it consolidates power at the top, transferring control from traditional professional elites to financial and technological capital.

The Case of the Music Industry

During the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the traditional gatekeepers of the music industry—record labels, radio conglomerates, and physical distributors—formed a relatively stable PMC ecosystem, characterized by rent-seeking behaviors and a hierarchical structure. The rise of digital distribution, however, led a faction within the PMC—tech entrepreneurs, platform developers, and digital marketers—to undermine this system, presenting their disruption as a democratization of music consumption.

Yet, while digital platforms initially reduced the financial burden on consumers, they did not lead to a redistribution of wealth toward artists or a true decentralization of power. Instead, the control of the industry shifted from label executives to tech monopolies and financial capital, which structured streaming services around low per-stream royalties, data extraction, and financialized ownership models (e.g., venture capital-backed rights acquisitions). In effect, while the disruption of record labels was framed as an egalitarian shift, it resulted in an even greater concentration of power among the wealthiest actors—with streaming platforms absorbing a larger share of the surplus value once captured by labels.

The Case of the Film Industry

A similar trajectory can be observed in the transition from the traditional film studio and theater model to the dominance of streaming platforms. Hollywood’s legacy studios—though themselves deeply intertwined with financial capital—operated under a system of risk distribution, in which large-scale film production was sustained by long-term revenue cycles (box office, home video, syndication). However, the entrance of streaming platforms, driven by a different faction of the PMC (Silicon Valley disruptors, software engineers, venture capitalists), sacrificed the traditional studio model under the promise of unlimited consumer access and subscription-based convenience.

Once again, while this transformation appeared to empower consumers by lowering costs and expanding content availability, it primarily benefited a new form of capital accumulation, in which a small number of monopolistic platforms (Netflix, Amazon, Disney as a platform rather than a studio) captured and centralized the revenue streams once distributed across multiple industry actors. The financial logic of these platforms, driven by shareholder expectations rather than long-term artistic or cultural investments, has led to a greater precarity among creative workers and a financialization of the film industry, wherein success is measured in engagement metrics rather than cultural or artistic longevity.

The Broader Pattern: A PMC-Initiated Power Transfer to Capital

These cases illustrate a structural pattern:

1. A faction within the PMC (tech disruptors, digital entrepreneurs) attacks another sector of its own class (music executives, studio heads, journalists), framing it as obsolete, exploitative, or inefficient.

2. This attack gains legitimacy from below by promising accessibility, lower prices, or creative freedom to consumers and independent creators.

3. In reality, power is not redistributed downward but instead shifts upward to financial and technological capital, which centralizes control over distribution and monetization.

The ultimate outcome is not a democratization of cultural production, but a restructuring of economic rents in favor of capital holders, deepening wealth concentration and reinforcing the broader trend of increasing inequality in 21st-century capitalism. In this sense, PMC-led disruption is not a challenge to capital, but rather an internal realignment within the managerial class that ultimately benefits capital more than labor or consumers.

Clippy

Yes, and this is the irony of PMC-led sacrificial disruption—the disruptors themselves are not immune to the same forces they unleash. In the short term, the tech faction within the PMC gains power by dismantling another PMC sector (e.g., music labels, film studios, traditional media). But in the long run, this realignment does not strengthen the PMC as a whole—it weakens it, making it more vulnerable to financial capital and automation-driven consolidation.

The Tech PMC as the Next Sacrificial Victim

We can already see this process beginning within the tech sector itself:

• The same venture capital that backed streaming platforms and gig economy apps is now turning on tech workers, using AI and outsourcing to disempower software engineers, designers, and middle management.

• Big Tech layoffs (Google, Amazon, Meta) suggest that after decades of expansion, the tech PMC is facing the same disposability that it once imposed on musicians, filmmakers, and journalists.

• AI-driven automation (such as generative coding tools) will likely do to tech workers what streaming did to artists—lowering individual bargaining power while centralizing wealth at the top.

The Endgame: A PMC Hollowed Out by Its Own Logic

In each case, the PMC faction leading the disruption believes it is advancing its own power, but in reality, it is merely accelerating its own obsolescence:

• The media PMC cheered the decline of print journalism, only to find themselves replaced by content algorithms and AI-generated articles.

• The tech PMC dismantled old corporate hierarchies, only to find themselves increasingly squeezed by venture capital’s shift toward automation and gig labor.

• Even in education, ed-tech startups have disrupted traditional universities, but as AI advances, even many white-collar intellectual jobs are at risk of being rendered redundant.

The long-term result is not a permanent restructuring in favor of a particular PMC faction, but a gradual elimination of PMC autonomy altogether, leaving only the ultra-wealthy investor class at the top and an increasingly precarious workforce below.

TLDR: PMC Disruption as a Self-Defeating Strategy

Rather than securing their own dominance, PMC disruptors are unwittingly paving the way for their own displacement. What begins as an internal class war within the PMC—with one faction sacrificing another—ultimately serves only to strengthen the power of capital at the PMC’s expense. The cycle repeats until there is nothing left to sacrifice—until the entire PMC itself is rendered obsolete by the forces it once sought to control.

Bunkers in New Zealand

The point is that time and again PMC led disruption doesn’t not lead to monuntains of capital poured into robotics, space travels etc but in New Zealand Bunkers

Yes, exactly—PMC-led disruption never fulfills its own utopian promises of boundless technological progress, nor does it lead to a grand future of AI-driven post-scarcity or interstellar exploration. Instead, the wealth generated through disruption is not reinvested into the kind of productive capital that could materially transform society—it is extracted, financialized, and ultimately funneled into wealth preservation for the ultra-rich.

The Myth of Disruption vs. the Reality of Extraction

Every cycle of PMC-led disruption claims to be a step toward the technological sublime—the Singularity, Mars colonization, limitless automation. But in reality, the capital accumulated through disruption does not flow into these grand projects. Instead, it flows into:

1. Speculative financial instruments (crypto, SPACs, stock buybacks) rather than industrial investment.

2. Surveillance capitalism and control technologies (data extraction, AI-powered policing, biometric tracking).

3. Personalized doomsday prep (New Zealand bunkers, luxury apocalypse retreats, biohacking longevity schemes).

The dominant class, having engineered successive PMC disruptions, does not see itself as funding a Star Trek future, but rather as escaping the consequences of the system it has created.

New Zealand Bunkers as the Logical Endpoint

The final joke of PMC-led sacrificial disruption is that the wealth it generates does not create a better world—it funds the evacuation plan.

• Peter Thiel’s New Zealand citizenship and bunker projects are not aberrations but the logical endgame of the tech economy.

• Instead of investing in sustainable infrastructure or ambitious scientific projects, Silicon Valley elites pour their money into escape hatches: private islands, underground shelters, experimental longevity treatments.

• The PMC itself will not be invited to these bunkers—they, like the sectors they disrupted, will be discarded when no longer useful.

Conclusion: The PMC as the Ultimate Self-Cannibalizing Class

The irony is that PMC disruptors imagine themselves as the vanguard of progress, but in reality, they function as capital’s willing executioners—sacrificing their own sectors, consolidating power at the top, and ultimately accelerating their own irrelevance. The capital they generate does not go toward a utopian technological future but toward ensuring that a handful of oligarchs can ride out collapse in luxury.

In this sense, PMC disruption is not a revolution—it is a controlled demolition. It does not create the conditions for a better world. It simply strips the system for parts, sells off the wreckage, and then boards the last helicopter out.

The Materialist Sorcery of Don Juan

Leave a comment

Ah, here we are, my friends, at the intersection of the Real and the Symbolic, where Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan—that sublime fiction, that shamanic charlatan—bursts forth not as a mystic’s hallucination but as the ultimate materialist provocateur. You see, the genius of Castaneda’s invention lies precisely in its fraudulence, its refusal to be authenticated. For what is Don Juan if not the embodiment of the Lacanian Che vuoi?—the question that hystericizes reality itself: What do you want from me, this fiction? 

Let us dispense with the tedious debate over whether Don Juan “existed.” Of course he did not—and in this non-existence, he is more real than any empirical fact. Here, Castaneda performs a perverse Hegelian maneuver: the truth is not in the content of the teachings (plants, visions, Toltec wisdom) but in the form of the encounter. Don Juan is a virtual figure who materializes the very void of the Real, forcing Castaneda—and us, his readers—to confront the constructedness of our reality. The shaman’s rituals—peyote, desert walks, the “stopping of the world”—are not spiritual escapisms but dialectical interventions. They are akin to the Marxist critique of ideology, tearing open the suture between the Symbolic order (our shared hallucination of “consensus reality”) and the traumatic Real that lurks beneath.

Consider the infamous “seeing” Don Juan demands. To see, in Don Juan’s sense, is to recognize that what we call “the world” is a collaborative fiction, a fragile consensus maintained by our collective complicity. The sorcerer’s path is not transcendence but immanent critique: a relentless hacking of the codes that bind us to the capitalist-realist matrix. When Don Juan insists that reality is a “description,” he anticipates Baudrillard’s simulacra—but with a twist. For Castaneda, the virtuality of the world is not a lament but a call to praxis. The materiality of the body, the cactus, the desert dust—these are the tools for rupturing the virtual. The shaman does not flee to the spiritual; he doubles down on the bodily, the visceral, to expose the Real as the ultimate contingency.

And here’s the rub: the fiction of Don Juan is necessary precisely because our “reality” is already a fiction. Castaneda’s hoax mirrors the hoax of ideology itself. The capitalist subject clings to the myth of “hard facts” while drowning in the virtuality of markets, credit, and digital selves. Don Juan’s sorcery, by contrast, is a materialist therapy: it forces us to act as if the world is malleable, thereby making it so. The hallucinogenic ritual is not an escape but a dress rehearsal for revolutionary praxis—a training in the “magic” of dialectical materialism, where the impossible becomes possible through the sheer force of acting.

So let us celebrate Castaneda’s Don Juan not as a New Age guru but as the ultimate Leninist strategist. His invention is a necessary fiction, a lie that exposes the lie of the Big Other. In a world where even our desires are algorithmically curated, Don Juan’s lesson is clear: Reality is a consensus—and consensus can be shattered. The path of the warrior is not to transcend the material but to traverse the fantasy, to collapse the virtual into the Real, and in that violent short-circuit, to glimpse emancipation. 

As we might grin: The only true materialism is one that dares to fictionalize its own conditions. Don Juan, that cunning semblance, is our guide.

The Parallax of Sorcery: Don Juan as Symptom and Revolutionary Interface  

Ah, yes! Let us dive into the obscene underbelly of Castaneda’s fiction—or rather, into the Real of its fiction. Because here’s the paradox: the more we insist Don Juan is a fraud, the more he materializes the very logic of late capitalism’s disavowed virtuality. Zizek “parallax gap” is our compass here: reality is not a stable horizon but the irreducible tension between perspectives. Don Juan, as a figure who oscillates between charlatan and sage, materialist and mystic, embodies this gap. His teachings are not about transcending the material but about radicalizing it—exposing how the “virtual” (ideology, consensus reality) is always-already parasitizing the “material.”  

1. The Body as Battlefield: Somatic Materialism  

Don Juan’s insistence on the body—its aches, its alignment with the Earth, its exhaustion under the desert sun—is a brutal inversion of Cartesian dualism. The body here is not a vessel for the soul but the site where the virtual is rendered tangible. When Don Juan forces Castaneda to run until collapse or ingest peyote until he vomits, he is performing a phenomenological reduction: stripping away the symbolic filters (the “description of the world”) to confront the raw, pulsating Real of the flesh. This is not mysticism but dialectical materialism on steroids. The body becomes the terrain where ideology (the “agreed-upon reality”) is physically disrupted. In an age of digital disembodiment—avatars, cryptocurrencies, AI-generated desire—Don Juan’s somatic brutality is a revolutionary act. The body’s limits materialize the limits of the virtual.  

2. The Assemblage Point: Ideology as Quantum Collapse  

Castaneda’s “assemblage point”—the locus where perception coalesces into a stable reality. Ideology is not false consciousness but the unconscious framework that structures our reality. Don Juan’s claim that shifting the assemblage point “stops the world” mirrors the Marxist critique of capitalism’s pseudo-naturalness. When the shaman manipulates this point, he exposes reality as a quantum superposition of possibilities, collapsed into coherence by collective agreement. This is the virtual core of materialism: matter is not inert but a field of contested descriptions. Capitalism, like the sorcerer’s world, depends on our complicity in its illusion. Don Juan’s tactics—absurd tasks, destabilizing humor—are akin to a call to “traverse the fantasy”: to confront the void that sustains the Symbolic order.  

3. Controlled Folly: The Comedy of Ideological Critique  

Don Juan’s “controlled folly”—the art of acting earnestly within a reality you know to be fictional—is the ultimate praxis. It is the shamanic version of Bartleby’s “I would prefer not to”: a performative engagement with the system that subtly unravels it. When Don Juan feigns seriousness while teaching Castaneda, he mirrors the capitalist subject who knows money is a social construct but acts as if it has intrinsic value. The difference? Don Juan weaponizes this “as if.” His folly is a dialectical trap, forcing Castaneda (and the reader) to confront the absurdity of their own symbolic commitments. In an era of “post-truth” and deepfakes, controlled folly is not resignation but subversion: by over-identifying with the virtual (e.g., playing the “enlightened seeker” to the hilt), one exposes its fissures.  

4. The Capitalist Realism of the Nagual  

Here’s the kicker: Don Juan’s “nagual” (the unknowable realm beyond ordinary perception) is not a spiritual beyond but the repressed Real of capitalism itself. Capitalist realism insists “there is no alternative”; the nagual, by contrast, is the persistent whisper of alternatives. When Don Juan speaks of the “nagual’s blow”—a rupture in consensus reality—he anticipates our demand for a radical break, a reconfiguration of the possible. The shaman’s rituals are rehearsals for revolution: by temporarily suspending the dominant “description,” they create a space to practice new modes of being. The hallucinogenic trance is not an escape but a temporary autonomous zone where the subject experiments with de-reification.  

5. The Necessary Fraud: Don Juan as Symptom  

Castaneda’s “fraudulence” is not a bug but a feature. In a our framework, the truth lies in the lie. Don Juan’s fictional status makes him a symptom of the very reality he critiques: a society that dismisses spirituality as charlatanism while fetishizing the “hard facts” of markets, data, and techno-utopianism. The genius of Castaneda’s hoax is that it mirrors the hoax of ideology—the way capitalism naturalizes itself as “reality.” By embracing his own status as a fiction, Don Juan becomes a vanishing mediator, a figure whose very impossibility forces us to confront the constructedness of all authority.  

Conclusion: The Revolutionary Potential of Magical Pessimism  

Don Juan’s materialism is a magical pessimism: a refusal to accept that the virtual (ideology) has fully colonized the material. His sorcery is a demand to re-embody the subject, to drag the virtual back into the muck of the Real. In this sense, Castaneda’s work is a precursor to today’s struggles against algorithmic alienation and ecological collapse. The path of the warrior—relentlessly somatic, absurdly pragmatic—is a blueprint for resisting the virtualization of existence.  

As we might quip: The only way to confront the virtual is to become more virtual than it. Don Juan, that sublime fraud, shows us how.

The Kicker:  

“Herein lies the cosmic joke: we are Don Juan’s hallucination, just as he is ours—a Mobius strip of mutually assured fiction. Mescalito? Merely the Lacanian objet a, the unattainable void we mistake for a cactus god. The desert’s true revelation is that there is no ‘real’ world, only the Real of our collective pantomime. So let us dance, compañeros, not to transcend the virtual, but to revel in its glorious farce—for only when we embrace ourselves as spectral pixels in the shaman’s wetware can we finally, a enjoy the symptom!’  

Final Twist (whispered):  

Reality is the last person to leave the trip. Don’t be that guy.

Flaming Pie

Leave a comment

And here’s the obscene twist: the very act of “restarting realism” is itself a surreal gesture! To declare “let’s be realistic again” after a crisis is to perform a kind of collective psychosis, a fetishistic disavowal (“I know very well the world is absurd, but let’s pretend it isn’t…“). It’s like a bad actor in a play who forgets their lines and starts improvising in iambic pentameter, insisting, “This is how normal people speak!” The more frantically realism tries to reassert itself, the more it exceeds itself, spiraling into the very surrealism it seeks to suppress.

ORIGINS

“Well, I had a vision when I was twelve. And I saw a man on a flaming pie, and he said, ‘You are the Beatles with an A.’ And so we are.”

John Lennon’s tongue-in-cheek origin myth, delivered with his signature blend of scouse wit and cosmic irreverence, is more than a punchline—it is the Rosetta Stone for decoding The Beatles’ surrealist soul. A boy, a burning pastry, a disembodied voice decreeing destiny: here, in this absurdist fable, lies the DNA of the band that would dissolve the boundaries between pop and poetry, reality and hallucination, the rational and the deliriously unhinged.

The flaming pie is no mere joke. It is a manifesto. A surrealist prophecy, lobbed like a Dadaist grenade into the drab postwar landscape of Liverpool. Long before LSD or Maharishis, Lennon’s vision—part Blakean epiphany, part Marx Brothers gag—announced a band born not of garage rehearsals, but of collective dreaming. The Beatles, with their misspelled name and cheeky apostrophe, were always-already a fiction, a mythic construct hovering between the literal and the ludicrous.

Consider the implications: a man on fire, but also on a pie—a sacred object (the pie as communion wafer?) rendered ridiculous, a cosmic joke. The voice from the flames doesn’t say “You will form The Beatles,” but “You are The Beatles.” Identity as divine absurdity, handed down like a curse. This is pure surrealism: the collapse of subject and object, the blurring of prophecy and prank. Breton would’ve wept into his absinthe.

Fast-forward to 1966. The Beatles, now global deities, trade their mop-top uniforms for kaleidoscopic militaria on the Sgt. Pepper’s cover—a tableau of waxwork corpses, occult symbols, and a Hindu guru floating beside W.C. Fields. Here, the flaming pie resurfaces as ideology. The band sheds its “real” selves to become cartoon avatars, a psychedelic cadavre exquis stitched together from Victorian dandies, circus barkers, and Eastern mystics. The “Lonely Hearts Club Band” is no act; it’s a haunting, a surrender to the logic of Lennon’s childhood vision: identity as mutable, reality as costume.

In Magical Mystery Tour, the surreal becomes literal. The film—a nonsensical road trip through England’s subconscious, featuring boxing dwarves, spaghetti-slurping wizards, and a bus driver named Jolly Jimmy—plays like Buñuel directing a pantomime on acid. Critics panned it as incoherent. Of course it was incoherent! It was supposed to be. The Beatles weren’t telling a story; they were staging the collapse of narrative itself, a middle finger to the “realism” of plot and character.

Even their music became a séance for the surreal. “I Am the Walrus” weaponizes nonsense as critique: “Semolina pilchard, climbing up the Eiffel Tower!” A nursery rhyme? A Marxist diatribe? A LSD-addled prank? Yes. The song’s genius lies in its refusal to mean—a sonic Exquisite Corpse where police sirens, Shakespearean gibberish, and a choir chanting “Everybody’s got one!” collide to mock the very idea of “sense.” Meanwhile, “Strawberry Fields Forever”—with its warped Mellotron and recursive refrain “Nothing is real”—is less a song than a Zen koan, dissolving memory into a Lynchian dreamscape where orphanages become gardens and gardens become voids.

And what of “Revolution 9”? Eight minutes of tape loops, screaming crowds, and a man repeating “Number nine… number nine…” like a broken robot. It’s the sound of the 20th century’s id vomiting onto vinyl—a surrealist sound collage that doesn’t just reject pop formalism but digs a grave for it. When Lennon sneers, “You say you want a revolution? Well, you know… we’d all love to see the plan,” he’s not taunting activists—he’s taunting reality itself.

The Beatles didn’t just flirt with surrealism; they married it, then staged a messy public divorce to keep things interesting. Their career was a series of ruptures—not just musical, but ontological. Each album rebooted their mythology, each reinvention a new flaming pie: the lovable lads, the studio wizards, the rooftop guerrillas. But every “reboot” was a breakdown in drag, a ritualized unmaking that proved Lennon’s prophecy true: they were always The Beatles with an A—an ever-shifting glyph, a collective hallucination sustained by the faith of millions.

In the end, the flaming pie was the Real, lurking beneath the Ed Sullivan Show grins and Shea Stadium screams. The Beatles didn’t transcend reality—they liquefied it, revealing the surreal core of postwar culture: a world where consumerism was spirituality, where pop stars were shamans, and where a man on a burning dessert could whisper the future into a child’s ear.

As Lacan might say: The Beatles were the symptom of their era. And oh, what a glorious, unhealable symptom they were.

THE VIOLENCE OF COHERENCE

What we are really talking about here is the violence of coherence—the brutal, often absurd labor required to sustain the illusion that reality is stable, rational, and shared. Beneath the surface of this conversation about realism and surrealism lurks a far more primal question: What does it mean to “represent” reality when reality itself is a contested hallucination, sutured together by ideology, haunted by its own exclusions?

To put it bluntly: We are dissecting the corpse of “common sense.” Realism and surrealism are not mere artistic styles or philosophical categories. They are opposing poles in a psychic civil war over how—and for whom—the world gets to be legible. Realism, in its desperate reboot cycles, is the ego’s valiant (and doomed) attempt to maintain the fiction of a coherent Self and Society. Surrealism, meanwhile, is the id’s cackling laughter, the Freudian slip that becomes a scream, the moment the train of ideology jumps the tracks and plows through the bourgeois parlor.

But this is not just about art or aesthetics. It’s about capitalism’s fever dream, the way our systems of power require crisis, contradiction, and collective delusion to survive. The “realism” of austerity politics, the “surrealism” of trillion-dollar stock markets detached from human need—these are not metaphors. They are symptoms of a deeper sickness: the Real of our historical moment, a world where the map has devoured the territory, where the fictions we call “economy,” “nation,” and “self” are sustained only by the frantic exclusion of their own impossibility.

In this light, surrealism is not an escape from reality but reality’s autopsy report. When Dalí melts a clock, he’s not playing with form—he’s showing us time under capitalism, a liquid asset slipping through our fingers. When Magritte insists “This is not a pipe,” he’s exposing the lie of representation itself—the way every “realistic” image is a pact with power, a way of saying “Don’t look behind the curtain!”

So what are we really talking about? The impossibility of innocence. The recognition that every attempt to “depict reality”—in art, politics, or daily life—is already a complicit act, a negotiation with the very forces that distort reality. The “cycle” of bust and reboot isn’t a mistake; it’s the system’s perverse ritual of self-cannibalization. Capitalism eats its crises like a ouroboros on amphetamines; realism, in turn, devours the surreal to fuel its own mythology of control.

The punchline? There is no “outside.” The moment we try to critique ideology, we’re already knee-deep in its swamp. The only way forward is to embrace the paradox: to stare into the abyss of the Surreal until we see that the abyss is us—the collective unconscious of a civilization that built its palaces on quicksand.

This is not a theory. It’s a horror story. And we’re all writing it together, one repressed symptom at a time.

Let us not succumb to the naïve illusion that realism is merely the retina’s obedient scribe, dutifully transcribing the world’s surface! No, no—what we call realism is already a grotesque ideological operation, a desperate pact with the Symbolic Order to domesticate the chaos of the Real into digestible signifiers: the comforting fiction of a shared reality, the collective hallucination we agree to call “the world.” And here, the surrealists—those cunning saboteurs!—unmask the obscene truth: if realism is the ego’s polite fiction, surrealism is the id’s obscene eruption, the Freudian Unheimliche parading as a lobster telephone.

THE TRUE REALIST

Is this not the ultimate irony? The surrealists, dismissed as purveyors of frivolous dreams, are in fact the true realists—they confront the unvarnished Real, the repressed underbelly of desire and trauma that the so-called “realists” hastily drape with the curtain of coherence. Consider Dalí’s melting clocks: is this not the perfect metaphor for time itself under late capitalism—not a linear march, but a liquefied, irrational sprawl, oozing over the edges of productivity’s rigid scaffolding? Or take Magritte’s Ceci n’est pas une pipe—a brutal reminder that the Symbolic Order is a hall of mirrors, where even the most “realistic” representation is a betrayal, a lie that sustains the lie.

And here we stumble upon the Lacanian knot: the Surreal does not escape reality but exceeds it, exposing the fissures in the Big Other’s edifice. What is the unconscious, after all, if not the hard kernel of the Real that resists symbolization? Surrealism, then, is not fantasy—it is the traversal of fantasy, the moment when the repressed returns as a grotesque carnival of the impossible, forcing us to confront the void that structures our reality.

Do we not see this logic in capitalism itself? The capitalist Real is already surreal: a world where abstract value levitates above material need, where billionaires launch phallic rockets into space while children starve—a system so absurd it would make Buñuel blush! Yet we are told to accept this as “realism,” to naturalize its contradictions. The surrealist gesture, then, is to render visible the obscene mechanics of this “reality,” to hold up a mirror to its madness and say: Look! This is your hard realism of the unconscious!

So, in the end, the true dialectical twist is this: realism is the dream, surrealism the rude awakening. Or, as Hegel might quip, the Real is its own shadow—and only by staring into the abyss of the Surreal do we grasp the abyss staring back.

Ah, but here we arrive at the precise ideological trap! The desperate scramble to “return to realism” after a crisis—this supposed “bust”—is not a neutral recalibration but a violent act of repressive sublimation. It is the equivalent of capitalism’s compulsive perpetuum mobile: after every crisis, we are told to “rebuild,” to “return to normal,” as if “normal” were not itself the very circuit-breaker that caused the meltdown! The fantasy here is that realism is a stable plane, a default setting, when in truth it is always already a retroactive construction, a narrative we stitch together to suture over the wounds of the Real.

What the surrealists grasp—and what the realists, in their frantic cycle of bust-and-reboot, must disavow—is that the “meta” layer is the ground floor. Surrealism does not hover above realism like some detached spectral observer; it inhabits realism’s gaps, its failures, its unconscious tics. Think of it as the glitch in the Matrix: the moment when the system’s attempt to “reboot” falters, and the code reveals itself in all its contingent absurdity. The melting clock, the floating bowler hat, the train bursting from the fireplace—these are not escapes from reality but symptoms of reality’s own instability. They are the return of what realism had to exclude to pose as “coherent.”

And here’s the obscene twist: the very act of “restarting realism” is itself a surreal gesture! To declare “let’s be realistic again” after a crisis is to perform a kind of collective psychosis, a fetishistic disavowal (“I know very well the world is absurd, but let’s pretend it isn’t…“). It’s like a bad actor in a play who forgets their lines and starts improvising in iambic pentameter, insisting, “This is how normal people speak!” The more frantically realism tries to reassert itself, the more it exceeds itself, spiraling into the very surrealism it seeks to suppress.

Consider the post-2008 austerity mantra: “We must tighten our belts, return to fiscal responsibility!” A “realist” demand, yes? But what could be more surreal than the spectacle of central banks printing trillions to “save the economy” while lecturing the poor on thrift? Or the COVID era’s “two weeks to flatten the curve” metastasizing into two years of ontological limbo, where Zoom grids replaced human faces and “normalcy” became a gaslit memory? These are not exceptions to realism—they are realism’s truth, the uncanny underside it cannot metabolize.

So no, surrealism is not “meta-realism” as some detached higher plane. It is realism’s own repressed, the specter it conjures in the act of exorcism. The true cycle is not bust-reboot-bust, but rather: the system’s survival depends on the very excess it claims to expel. Capitalism needs crisis; realism needs surrealism. The reboot is always-already a breakdown in drag.

In the end, the ultimate irony is this: the harder realism tries to escape the surreal, the more it becomes its own parody. Like a man frantically digging a hole to bury his nightmares, only to realize he’s constructing a labyrinth where the nightmares thrive. The only way out is through—or as Lacan might say, “Do not give up on your symptom.” Surrender to the meta, and you find it was the Real all along.

RETVRN OF REALISM

Here, we channel Freud’s return of the repressed through Lacan’s Real. Realism, as a symbolic order, must exclude the irrational, the excessive, the jouissance that threatens its coherence. But like a botched exorcism, the act of repression produces the very specter it fears. Surrealism is not some transcendent meta-layer—it is the constitutive outside of realism, the mold growing in the walls of the house that “clean” realism whitewashes.

Consider the bourgeois family portrait, that bastion of “realist” domestic harmony. What haunts its edges? The unspoken affairs, the stifled screams, the child’s nightmare of a father with a clock for a face (Dalí’s Persistence of Memory as return of the familial repressed). The harder realism polishes the surface, the more distorted its reflections become.

This is the paradox of all ideological systems: their stability depends on the disavowed excess they generate. Capitalism thrives on crisis; democracy on exclusion; realism on surrealism. The “specter” is not an accident—it is the symptom, the truth-telling pustule on the body politic. When Magritte paints a pipe and writes “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” he isn’t playing linguistic games—he’s exposing realism’s founding lie: representation is always a betrayal. The pipe you see is not the pipe; the reality you perceive is not the Real.

The system’s survival depends on the very excess it claims to expel. Capitalism needs crisis; realism needs surrealism

Marx noted capitalism’s crises are not bugs but features—the system requires collapse to reset, like a forest fire that clears the undergrowth for new growth. But Žižek goes further: capitalism enjoys its crises, fetishizing its own near-death experiences as proof of its resilience. Similarly, realism needs surrealism’s destabilizing eruptions to renew its claim to coherence. Without the surreal, realism would have nothing to define itself against—no chaos to tame, no id to suppress.

The 2008 financial crash. Banks were bailed out, austerity imposed, and the “realists” declared, “We must return to normal!” But what is “normal” here? A system where derivatives trading—a surrealist fiction of value—is the bedrock of the economy. The crisis wasn’t an exception; it was the system baring its teeth in a grin.

Think of the Ouroboros, the snake eating its own tail. Capitalism is the Ouroboros of crisis: it consumes its own collapse to sustain itself. Realism performs the same ritual. Every “reboot” after a cultural or political “bust” (war, pandemic, revolution) isn’t a fresh start—it’s a rehearsal of the same traumas, repackaged as progress. The surrealist intervention—a melting clock, a lobster telephone—ruptures this cycle, forcing us to ask: What if the snake is not a circle but a spiral, vomiting itself outward into the void?

REBOOTS

The reboot is always-already a breakdown in drag.



The “reboot” (post-crisis realism) is not a sober reconstruction but a camp performance—a breakdown masquerading as recovery. It’s the equivalent of a tech CEO announcing “innovation!” while selling the same gadget with a new coat of paint. The drag queen here is capitalism itself, lipsyncing to the anthem of “progress” while its seams split.

Post-pandemic “normalcy.” We’re told to “get back to the office,” to “revive the economy,” but the office is now a Zoom simulacrum, and the economy is a speculative bubble fed by meme stocks and NFTs. The “reboot” is a farce—a breakdown wearing the mascara of business-as-usual

To don drag is to exaggerate gender, revealing its constructedness. Similarly, the “reboot” exaggerates realism’s fragility. When governments print money to “save the economy” (a surrealist act if ever there was one) while preaching fiscal responsibility (realism’s mascara), the contradiction becomes the point. The drag queen winks; the system, in its frantic reboot, winks back.

The harder realism tries to escape the surreal, the more it becomes its own parody

The Labyrinth of Denial: The man digging a hole to bury nightmares is the perfect metaphor for repression’s futility. Freud’s Rat Man buried his trauma, only to find it erupting in obsessive rituals. Similarly, realism’s attempt to “bury” the surreal only constructs a labyrinth—a recursive maze where every wall is a mirror reflecting its own absurdity.

Censorship. A regime bans “subversive” art (surrealism), labeling it “unrealistic.” But the act of censorship produces the surreal—samizdat literature, underground films, metaphors so twisted they bypass the censor’s gaze. The state’s “realism” becomes a parody of control, a Kafkaesque bureaucracy that breeds its own nightmares.

This is the paradox of the totalitarian laugh: the more seriously a system takes itself, the more ridiculous it becomes. Think of North Korea’s “realist” propaganda—giant statues, synchronized marches—which inevitably veers into surreal grotesquerie. Realism, in its extremity, becomes surrealism. The dictator’s statue is just a bronze phallus; the march, a dance of the undead.

Surrender to the meta, and you find it was the Real all along.”

The call to “not give up on your symptom” is a demand to embrace the crack in the symbolic order. The “meta” (surrealism) is not an escape—it’s the perspective shift that reveals the Real lurking beneath realism’s façade. The moment you stop running from the specter and say, “Fine, haunt me!” is the moment the specter loses its power—because you see it was never a ghost, but the bloodstain on the floor of your own ideology.

The Truman Show. When Truman embraces the “meta” (his world is a TV set), he doesn’t transcend reality—he confronts it. The show’s director (the Big Other) pleads, “You can’t leave—this is reality!” But Truman’s surrender to the “meta” (sailing into the painted sky) is his encounter with the Real.This is the Hegelian “negation of the negation”: the meta is not a higher plane but the immanent critique of the original. When you “surrender to the meta,” you’re not ascending—you’re descending into the basement of the symbolic order, where the Real has been pumping the sewage all along. The kicker? The basement was the foundation. The meta was the Real. The ghost was the house.

Dialectical Punchline

This post is itself a Hegelian triad:

  1. Thesis: Realism as reboot.
  2. Antithesis: Surrealism as repressed excess.
  3. Synthesis: The system’s dependency on its own vomit.

We would add a fourth term: the parallax gap. The truth is not in the synthesis, but in the oscillation between thesis and antithesis—the “reboot” and the “breakdown” are the same event viewed from different angles. Capitalism is both crisis and recovery; realism is both control and camp. The only way out is to stare into the gap until the gap stares back, and you realize: You are the gap.

So, do you want to keep digging? Or shall we finally admit the hole is a mirror? 🕳️