Tag: Deleuze

The Saint Of Scrap

Leave a comment

Watching Andor again and the architecture is unmistakable Dumas, Balzac even Zola. What we have stumbled onto is a masterpiece of literary archaeology: Gilroy took the moldering corpse of 19th-century French literature, jacked it full of Imperial credits and hyperdrive fuel, and reanimated it as the most politically sophisticated piece of science fiction television ever broadcast into the global nervous system.

Here’s what Tony Gilroy figured out that most Hollywood minders never will: Joseph Campbell’s monomyth is malware. The Hero’s Journey isn’t some universal narrative DNA – it’s a 20th-century academic construct that’s been strip-mining storytelling for decades, reducing complex human experience to a repeatable algorithm optimized for mass consumption.

Joseph Campbell’s monomyth became malware, but not because Campbell was wrong – because he was catastrophically misunderstood. The Hero’s Journey wasn’t supposed to be a screenwriting template. It was Campbell’s attempt to map humanity’s collective unconscious relationship with the Other -, our species-wide neurosis about encountering what lies beyond the symbolic order of our known world.

Campbell was doing depth psychology, not narrative engineering. He was tracking how human consciousness processes encounters with the radically foreign, the genuinely transformative, the actually dangerous. The “journey” wasn’t a plot structure – it was a cognitive archaeology project, digging into how minds cope with ego dissolution and reconstitution.

But Hollywood – and by extension, American culture – completely borked the translation. They turned Campbell’s psychological cartography into a content-generation algorithm. Worse, they weaponized it as ideological infrastructure, using the “assault on the citadel” climax to reinforce what Francis Fukuyama would later theorize as the End of History – the notion that liberal capitalism represents humanity’s final evolutionary stage, that all narratives ultimately resolve into American-style individual triumph over systemic opposition.

The monomyth got conscripted into neoliberal mythology: every story became about exceptional individuals conquering institutional barriers through personal transformation, rather than about collective struggle to transform the institutions themselves.

The Collective, here, is not merely a loosely organized group with shared political aims, but more like a living field of unconscious participation—a web of inherited patterns, desires, and symbols that bind individuals into something larger than themselves. This broader meaning recognizes that most of what joins us together is unspoken: the collective unconscious of myths, fears, rituals, dreams, gestures. A collective is not always organized; often, it is discovered—in the sudden recognition of something deeply familiar in someone else, or in the synchronicity of shared intuitions.

In this sense, the collective isn’t just a call to action. It’s a fog we’re already breathing. Campbell’s exploration of how consciousness encounters alterity became a mass-production system for generating the same story about American exceptionalism, over and over again.

But Gilroy asked the killer question: what were stories before the Frankensteinazation of Campbell? What narrative operating systems were running before some mythology professor at Sarah Lawrence decided to refactor all human storytelling into a single subroutine?

The answer, of course, is the 19th-century novel – that magnificent, unwieldy, politically dangerous art form that emerged when writers realized they could use fiction to reverse-engineer entire societies. Balzac, Zola, Hugo, Dumas, Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky – these weren’t just entertainers, they were social hackers, using narrative code to expose the exploits and vulnerabilities in the power structures of industrial modernity.

Andor represents Gilroy’s systematic deconstruction of Campbell’s hero template and its replacement with something far more subversive: the realist tradition’s understanding that individual psychology is always political, that personal transformation happens through social struggle, and that true heroism emerges from collective action rather than mythic destiny.

Again, The collective is also the rust in the machine—what resists total design. Every time a new system, platform, or piece of technology is thrown at human beings, the collective reasserts itself in subtle, chaotic ways. It reclaims, repurposes, wears down. People modify the system by misusing it, by hacking it with sentiment, myth, miscommunication, and habit.

This isn’t regression—it’s the return of the commons in disguised forms. Not the idealized commons, but a lived, messy version: improvised solidarity, inside jokes, shared grief, borrowed dreams. It’s how forums turn into families. How memes become folklore. How bureaucracy decays into ritual.

The collective isn’t the revolution; it’s the aftermath that refuses to go away. It’s not designed—it seeps.

Instead of Campbell’s misunderstood circular journey from ordinary world to magical transformation and return, Andor runs on the realist novel’s linear progression: social analysis → political awakening → revolutionary commitment. Cassian doesn’t discover he’s special – he discovers he’s connected, part of vast networks of oppression and resistance that existed long before his story began and will continue long after it ends.

This is why Andor feels so different from other Star Wars content. It’s not running hero mythology – it’s running political fiction, using the narrative architecture that gave us Les Misérables, Germinal, and War and Peace.

Balzac & Andor: Same Story Engine, Different Skins

Balzac was doing prestige HBO drama before HBO. He wasn’t writing “novels” so much as he was creating a shared universe — think of La Comédie humaine like a 19th-century MCU, except instead of superheroes, you get landlords, mistresses, financiers, washed-up nobles, and ambitious clerks. What links them all? Social mobility as a bloodsport.

Andor, despite being set in a galaxy far, far away, picks up right where Balzac left off — it just swaps top hats for stormtroopers and drawing rooms for data farms. Both use classic character tropes to explore how big, impersonal systems grind people down — or how some people learn to game the system back.

Think Rastignac — the original prestige drama social climber. He sees how the game is rigged and decides to rig it back.: Syril Karn is a strait-laced version of Rastignac — less suave, more obsessive. He’s the guy who takes the manual way too seriously and still can’t get promoted. But he’s still trying to ascend, just like a Balzacian antihero.

Characters like Madame de Beauséant are prisoners of their inherited status. They can’t really move, because movement = loss of identity.: Mon Mothma — draped in silk and suffocated by it. She’s “legacy code,” living in a golden cage, and every attempt to act comes with a social cost.

Vautrin — part crime boss, part secret police, part revolutionary. The guy who knows where all the bodies are buried, and who’s probably buried a few himself.: Luthen Rael. Smiles like a shopkeeper, talks like Lenin with a laser. The man is a walking contradiction, running multiple scripts at once — just like Vautrin.

Countless bureaucrats and clerks moving paper, chasing promotions, enforcing nonsense. Their power is real, but their authority is borrowed. The Pre-Mor Authority. It’s the DMV with guns. These people think they’re the Empire. The Empire barely knows they exist.

Lucien de Rubempré in Splendeurs et misères des courtisanes — poetic, talented, and absolutely chewed up by Paris. Kino Loy. Gets a whiff of hope, takes a leap… and can’t swim. That’s the show right there.

What Balzac and Andor both show is that there are no clean hands. If you want to do anything in these systems — whether you’re toppling them or just surviving — you have to touch the filth. Even the “good guys” are compromised. Especially them. And both worlds are obsessed with resource flows — be it money, information, social access. These aren’t “subplots.” They’re the real story. Who gets to move things? Who gets cut off?

Balzac would’ve written Andor if he’d been alive today — not Star Wars, not the Skywalkers — just the guys in the background, pushing paper, sweating deadlines, taking bribes, hiding secrets, breaking rules, breaking down. He’d have followed Mon Mothma’s bank account like it was a loaded gun. He’d have called Syril Karn’s mom twice to hear her scream.

Andor is Balzac with blasters. It’s not sci-fi. It’s 19th-century literary realism wearing a helmet.

Prestige TV’s Oldest Trick — The Systemic Human Lab

Zola wasn’t telling stories. He was cracking people open to see what the system had done to them. His “plots” are really just pressure tests: you drop a person into a mine, a factory, or a slum, and you watch them break. Or mutate. Or explode. You’re not reading to find out what the character chooses — you’re reading to find out what the environment allows. It’s character as test subject, not hero.

Andor picks that up perfectly. It’s the first Star Wars entry that looks at people the way Zola did — as environmentally programmed, socially conditioned, and systemically trapped. It’s not about what characters want, it’s about what the machine wants from them.

In Germinal, coal miners aren’t characters, they’re slowly breaking bodies. Men are cogs. Hunger and exhaustion are the only character arcs.  Narkina 5 is a literal assembly line of this trope. The white floors, the point system, the boots — everything says: “You are not a person here. You are throughput.”

Plenty of civil servants in his work who believe in order so much they forget about people. They enforce ruin with a clean conscience. Dedra Meero. She’s so into catching rebels she doesn’t notice she’s become a monster. Or maybe she does and just doesn’t care.

His bourgeois characters often have everything except freedom. They drink, cheat, lie — but mostly to maintain appearances. Their lives are very long cages. Mon Mothma. She’s got chandeliers and a husband who collects art, but her whole life is puppeteering money through backchannels to not get killed.

He showed whole neighborhoods working as a single organism — gossiping, helping, punishing, feasting, starving — usually all at once. Ferrix isn’t just a town. It’s a consciousness. That funeral scene? It’s not just moving — it’s how resistance thinks itself into being.

The collective unconscious, hive mind, and commons all find raw, corporeal expression in Zola’s naturalist novels—especially in Germinal—long before they were formalized by Jung, sci-fi, or political theory. In Zola, the crowd is not metaphor; it’s material. His characters act not simply out of reason or self-interest, but from something deeper—ancestral memory, social instinct, biological despair. The miners in Germinal embody the collective unconscious not as a set of abstract archetypes but as a living memory encoded in muscle, hunger, rhythm, and rumor. Their uprising is not planned—it erupts, as if memory itself rises through them, not unlike a trauma resurfacing.

This subterranean convergence of minds—formed in the dark of the mines, in cramped homes, in glances and gossip—anticipates the idea of the hive mind, but not the sterilized, AI-flavored version popular today. Zola’s hive mind is anarchic and organic: it bleeds, it hungers, it stinks of coal and sweat. It is both solidarity and suffocation. You don’t “log into” it—you are born into it.

And then there’s the commons—not the nostalgic, bucolic field of pre-industrial fantasy, but the industrial commons: infrastructure as shared destiny. The rail, the mine, the factory floor. Zola understood that when land and time are carved up by capital, the people below still find ways to cohere. They borrow from each other, fight with each other, survive together. The commons becomes not property but proximity. The shared condition of being ground down.

Together, these ideas form Zola’s unspoken theory of mass life: the human swarm, stripped of illusion, still manages to feel, to revolt, to remember. What Jung spiritualized, Zola anatomized. What sci-fi abstracted, he dragged into the mud. And what modern culture forgot—that the crowd is not always a danger, sometimes it’s a dream—we can still recover in his pages.

The Broken Origin That Isn’t a Motivation

In Émile Zola’s world, people don’t have “trauma arcs” because they don’t need narrative justification to suffer. His characters are born into systems that manufacture pain—pain that doesn’t need a flashback to be valid. Their parents drank, or worked themselves into early graves in mines or factories, or were crushed by poverty—and so they do too. It isn’t individual failure, nor some private drama that makes them tragic. It’s structural inheritance. The wound is social, not secret.

Compare that to contemporary storytelling, where trauma is often used as a sort of psychological origin myth—a “backstory” that provides motivation. This is the logic of what we might call neoliberal blankslatism: the myth that we are born blank and become who we are through discrete, explainable moments. In this model, the hero’s journey isn’t derailed by trauma—it’s powered by it. The character overcomes, grows, becomes exceptional. Their past is tidily contained within a therapeutic arc. Trauma becomes productively legible.

But Zola, and shows like Andor, offer a counterpoint. Cassian’s past on Kenari isn’t there to explain his behavior in some emotional algorithm—it’s there to show how trauma is a system install. It’s the Empire writing itself directly onto the body. The destruction of Kenari isn’t a sad memory to be revisited and overcome—it’s the invisible architecture of his life. It’s why his voice is wary, why his posture is tense, why trust doesn’t come easy. There is no “why” in the way neoliberal storytelling wants. There is only because.

Zola’s characters aren’t motivated—they’re implicated. They don’t seek redemption arcs; they seek bread, dignity, sometimes just a warm place to collapse. Andor inherits that ethical terrain. It doesn’t use trauma to make its characters exceptional. It uses trauma to show how systems replicate themselves, how violence doesn’t end but echoes. It reminds us that some origins are not stories—they’re blueprints. And not everyone gets to write their way out of them.

Montage = Emotional Compression

Where Zola takes pages to show someone disintegrate under poverty, Eisenstein takes a few shots. A bull slaughtered. A protest trampled. The viewer connects the dots. That’s how Andor is cut too. Visual contrast isn’t just style — it’s critique.

• Cassian walking barefoot in a white cell.

• Mon Mothma, silent in a gold room.

• Dedra, smug in a control booth.

• Bix, broken in a cage.

None of them are in charge. They’re all in different versions of prison.

George Lucas was always more Eisenstein than people realized — especially with the rhythm of Star Wars. But he used that power for myth: fascism as archetype. Andor strips that away. It’s not Vader vs. Skywalker. It’s labor, money, trauma, and surveillance vs. survival, decency, and slow-burn courage.

If you love Andor, you already love Zola — you just didn’t know his name. You’re not watching a story about a man with a destiny. You’re watching people try not to drown in a system designed to flood. It’s less about hope and more about bandwidth: who gets to act, and who’s been programmed to shut up.

The Myriel Protocol

Victor Hugo built moral operating systems. Les Misérables is less a novel than a cathedral of human contradiction, where every subplot carries weight and every minor character hums with ethical potential. When Andor works, it does so because it understands that rebellion is not just logistics — it’s spiritual infrastructure. It’s not just tactics. It’s grace under oppression.

Bishop Myriel’s act — giving Valjean the candlesticks — isn’t just charity. It’s a jailbreak. He doesn’t forgive a thief; he reprograms a soul. He hacks the moral firmware of the entire justice system with one act of unchecked compassion. Privilege escalation. From convict to saint in a single, unauthorized command.

In Andor, we see this same subroutine in Maarva’s funeral. Her words aren’t just inspiration — they’re malware. “Fight the Empire” isn’t a slogan. It’s exploit code — crashing the Empire’s control system, bypassing years of fear conditioning. The Empire tries to treat Ferrix like a static backdrop. Maarva turns it into a rebel bootloader.

This is the Hugo trope: Grace is a system exploit.

A single act of unreason can rupture the most rational tyranny.

Hugo’s sewers weren’t just symbolic. They were infrastructure for moral transformation. A space beneath society where garbage — and people — are reprocessed. Not erased, not redeemed, but converted.

Ferrix plays this role exactly. It’s not just industrial; it’s alchemical. Droids are stripped for parts, and those parts become martyrs. Imperial junk becomes weapons. Maarva becomes a brick.

TV Tropes might call this “Crapsack World, Holy Ground.” It’s the sacred hidden inside the wreckage.

Golems and Ghosts in the Machine: From Hugo to Andor

Where Hugo gave us Quasimodo defending the cathedral, Andor gives us K-2SO—not just a repurposed enforcer droid, but a golem: a creature created by the regime, imbued with its logic, now turned against its makers. He’s not a rebel by choice. He’s a rebel because the system failed to maintain control over its own tools. Like Valjean, K-2SO’s nobility isn’t innate or divinely granted—it’s stolen, carved out of servitude, kludged together from code and chance. And when he dies—when he sacrifices himself for Cassian—it isn’t a shutdown, it’s a manufactured martyrdom. A holy death of scrap metal. The sainthood of surplus.

This is Andor’s theology: broken things can be sanctified, but only in action—not through purity or bloodline. Nobility doesn’t descend; it is reclaimed from the wreckage. That’s Hugo’s legacy in the series—not in aesthetic, but in spiritual structure.

And then there’s Javert, Hugo’s original recursive cop—a man who doesn’t suffer from cruelty so much as from logic. He is a closed system, an ethical loop. He cannot tolerate contradiction because contradiction is not an input he’s designed to handle. So when Valjean shows him mercy—grace without calculation—his moral OS crashes. His suicide is a fatal exception error. Grace is his system crash.

Andor updates Javert into Dedra Meero, but she is not merely a zealot. She is a next-gen upgrade: refined, optimized, terrifying. Where Javert was animated by moral absolutism, Dedra is animated by pattern recognition. She sees in gaps and glitches—silences in surveillance, anomalies in scheduling, a missing voice in a radio channel. She doesn’t enforce the law, she anticipates deviation. A bureaucrat trained in algorithmic paranoia, she’s the child of total information awareness.But like all systems obsessed with noise, she misreads the signal.

She sees rebellion as virus, not becoming. She analyzes Ferrix like data, but she can’t model solidarity. The town isn’t a threat node. It’s a collective consciousness under compression. That’s why she fails. Like Javert, she encounters something her firmware can’t parse: human coherence that emerges without command.

This is what Deleuze calls a line of flight — when the system breaks open, not from destruction, but from becoming something it can’t contain.

In Deleuzean terms, Dedra is an overcoded desiring-machine: her drives are real, but fully integrated into an apparatus that redirects all passion toward control. She doesn’t lust for power in the classic sense—she is power, sublimated into data discipline. Her affectlessness is the mark of an imperial machine that has replaced cruelty with efficiency. She doesn’t need to brutalize to win—she just has to pre-empt the possibility of resistance. If Dedra is the paranoiac of control, Luthen is the schizo-strategist of rupture. He doesn’t represent rebellion. He’s a vector — spreading revolutionary potential like a virus with no center.

He’s not driven by ideology, but by subtractive desire: to burn himself out so something else can rise. He doesn’t make plans; he deterritorializes empires.

“Burn my life to make a sunrise I’ll never see” isn’t noble sacrifice — it’s code suicide. He runs himself as a temporary process. In Deleuze’s terms, he becomes-imperceptible: always shifting between roles, textures, identities. A gallery owner. A rebel mastermind. A ghost in the luxury machine.

He’s not a character. He’s a hack.

The Revolution Will Be Refactored: 

The tragedy—and genius—of Andor is how it shows us that these systems don’t collapse from outside pressure. They collapse when their own tools—droids, informants, petty bureaucrats—begin to misfire, when their own logic becomes so totalizing that it creates anomalies: people who should be broken, but aren’t.

In this sense, Andor is Hugo turned inside out. It offers no cathedral, no God, no final judgment. Only the haunted machinery of empire, and the ghosts it accidentally generates. Rebels who are forged, not born. Saints of rust and sabotage.

Andor is Hugo with a rootkit. It doesn’t tell stories. It rewrites functions. Revolution, in this frame, isn’t toppling empires — it’s interrupting their scripts. Grace, sabotage, collective care — these aren’t narrative moments. They’re system exploits. What Hugo showed in 1862, and what Andor resurrects now, is this:

The oppressed don’t just fight back.

They rewrite the code of reality itself.

THE DUMAS CONNECTION

Before there were movie serials, before Flash Gordon was dodging Ming the Merciless or Buck Rogers was fighting in the 25th century, Dumas was already perfecting episodic storytelling. Every cliffhanger, every “meanwhile back at the hideout” scene switch, every moment where heroes have to improvise their way out of death traps—that’s all Dumas technology.

Andor takes that foundation and asks: what if we made a Dumas serial where the Empire actually feels like an empire? Where resistance has real costs and victories don’t come with triumphant music? Where the Count of Monte Cristo is just another prisoner who got lucky and angry enough to fight back?

The result isn’t space fantasy—it’s Dumas realism. All the adventure, none of the romanticism. Swashbuckling for the surveillance age.

Alexandre Dumas is the godfather of serialized adventure. Before Flash Gordon was rocketing through space or Buck Rogers was fighting the future, Dumas was already building the DNA of episodic heroism with The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo. Every Saturday matinee serial, every cliffhanger ending, every “will our heroes escape this death trap?” moment traces back to his revolutionary storytelling blueprint.

If Hugo gives us the moral backbone, Dumas provides the action playbook. Andor’s heists and spy networks feel like classic Musketeer operations scaled up for galactic warfare. Luthen channels serious Monte Cristo energy—part vengeful mastermind exploiting Imperial corruption, part Aramis-style priest-spy running his underground railroad. The constant tension between Cassian going lone wolf and needing his crew (Vel, Cinta, Kleya) is pure Musketeer dynamics, just with fascist stormtroopers instead of Cardinal Richelieu’s guards.

Andor essentially takes Hugo’s moral framework and runs it through Dumas’ adventure engine. All the classic Hugo elements are there—the Parental Substitute who shapes the hero’s conscience (Myriel/Maarva), the urban underground as literal and metaphorical refuge (Paris sewers/Ferrix foundry), the Tragic Monster driven by duty (Javert/Dedra)—but they’re deployed with Dumas’ signature cell-based resistance structure.

Dumas wasn’t just writing escapist fiction—he was encoding revolutionary tactics in swashbuckling stories, creating templates that would define adventure entertainment for the next century. Every Flash Gordon serial borrowed his cliffhanger pacing. Every Buck Rogers episode used his “heroes on the run” structure. Andor is basically Dumas for the surveillance state era.

The classic Dumas revenge plot: Wrongful Imprisonment → Prison Education → Systematic Payback. Cassian Andor is Edmond Dantès without the fancy disguises and infinite wealth.

But here’s the key difference—Dantès got to play aristocrat with his treasure and secret identities. Cassian’s stuck doing guerrilla warfare from the ground up. Where the Count exploited individual villains’ personal weaknesses, Cassian has to take down an entire galactic bureaucracy. His “prison education” on Narkina 5 isn’t learning languages and swordsmanship from a wise old prisoner—it’s figuring out how to hack Imperial logistics from the inside of a labor camp designed to break people.

The Aldhani heist perfectly captures this evolution. It’s not personal revenge—it’s economic warfare. They’re not just stealing money; they’re creating administrative chaos that ripples through the Imperial system. Use the Empire’s own greed against it, trigger internal audits, make the bureaucrats start eating each other. Classic Dumas strategy: never fight the system head-on, make it destroy itself.

This is the Monte Cristo formula updated for modern resistance movements: turn systemic oppression into systemic sabotage.

Dumas invented the superhero team decades before comics existed. The “All for One” principle isn’t just friendship—it’s operational security.

Luthen’s rebel cells work exactly like D’Artagnan’s crew, just with dead drops instead of tavern meetings and encrypted communications instead of sword signals. Vel and Cinta’s relationship mirrors the way Musketeers had to balance personal bonds with mission security—sometimes you can’t tell your closest allies everything because the network depends on compartmentalization.

Mon Mothma’s dinner parties are basically diplomatic espionage, like when the Musketeers had to navigate court intrigue. The human cost is constant—Bix’s torture, Nemik’s death, Cassian’s isolation—because in Dumas’ world, heroism always comes with a price tag.

Classic Dumas trope: the Old Master dies passing wisdom to the Young Hero. Abbé Faria teaches Dantès everything, then dies. Athos mentors D’Artagnan, knowing his own best days are behind him.

Andor follows this pattern ruthlessly. Maarva shapes Cassian’s moral code, then her death becomes the catalyst for Ferrix’s uprising. Kino Loy shows him how to organize mass resistance, then stays behind so others can escape. Luthen keeps downloading strategy and resources into Cassian, but you know that mentorship is building toward inevitable sacrifice.

Each mentor transfer creates a more capable but more isolated hero. Cassian becomes increasingly effective and increasingly alone—the price of absorbing all that hard-won knowledge.

Here’s what separates Dumas from standard swashbuckling: his heroes aren’t just skilled, they’re smart. Athos doesn’t just fence well—he reads people and situations. Monte Cristo doesn’t just want revenge—he engineers social destruction with scientific precision. The famous “Queen’s Diamonds” plot from Three Musketeers is basically an elaborate con game with international implications.

Andor strips away the romantic glamour but keeps the strategic thinking. When Cassian infiltrates the garrison or escapes Narkina 5, he’s not relying on luck or individual heroics—he’s exploiting system vulnerabilities the way Dumas heroes always did. No magic swords or mystical powers, just intelligence, planning, and the willingness to sacrifice everything for the cause.

“All for one, one for all” isn’t a friendship motto—it’s a tactical doctrine.

The MacLean Gambit: How Andor Hijacks the Assault on the Citadel

So far I’ve been talking about the show’s 19th-century realist backbone, but I am missing the crucial middleware layer that makes it all function as television. Andor isn’t just Balzac in space – it’s a 19th-century realist novel wrapped in pure MacLean plot architecture.

MacLean perfected the “assault on the citadel” narrative for the postwar era. The Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare, Ice Station Zebra – these weren’t just adventure stories, they were engineering blueprints for how small teams of specialists could infiltrate seemingly impregnable systems and bring them down from within. MacLean understood that modern warfare wasn’t about individual heroes; it was about technical expertise, operational planning, and the brutal mathematics of mission success versus acceptable casualties.

But here’s Gilroy’s master stroke: he’s using MacLean’s assault-on-the-citadel template to deliver what might be the most sophisticated metacommentary on Campbell’s hijacking by neoliberal ideology ever smuggled into mass entertainment.

The Anti-Hero’s Journey as Ideological Exploit

Andor runs the MacLean protocol perfectly – every major sequence follows his template: assemble the team, infiltrate the target, overcome technical obstacles, execute the mission, extract under fire. Aldhani is pure Guns of Navarone: specialists with complementary skills, detailed reconnaissance, equipment failure, interpersonal conflict, and a climactic assault that succeeds at enormous cost.

But watch what Gilroy does with the aftermath. In a traditional Campbell cycle, the hero returns transformed, having conquered the citadel and claimed his reward. In MacLean’s version, the professionals complete their mission and move on to the next assignment. But in Andor, the “assault on the citadel” creates more citadels.

The Aldhani heist doesn’t resolve anything – it escalates everything. Instead of Campbell’s circular return to equilibrium, or MacLean’s linear mission completion, we get systemic feedback loops. The Empire responds to the robbery by tightening security everywhere, creating new forms of oppression that generate new resistance cells. Cassian’s “heroic” action doesn’t end his journey; it forces him deeper into a web of consequences he can’t control or escape.

This is where Gilroy’s hack becomes genuinely subversive. He’s using the “assault on the citadel” – the very narrative structure that neoliberalism conscripted to justify individual triumph over institutional opposition – to demonstrate why that framework is fundamentally broken.

Every time Andor deploys MacLean’s template, it reveals the template’s hidden assumptions:

The Myth of Decisive Action: MacLean’s heroes could solve problems through successful operations. Andor shows that every successful operation creates new problems. The citadel isn’t conquered; it adapts, evolves, metastasizes.

The Fantasy of Professional Competence: MacLean’s specialists succeeded through superior skill and planning. Andor’s characters succeed despite constant failure, miscommunication, and improvisation. Competence doesn’t overcome systemic dysfunction – it just helps you survive it longer.

The Illusion of Mission Completion has long been a storytelling staple, especially in classic adventure and espionage narratives like those of MacLean, where the story neatly concludes once the objective is achieved. There’s a satisfying finality in defeating the villain, seizing the prize, or toppling the fortress. Yet Andor dismantles this illusion with quiet ruthlessness, revealing that in the machinery of empire, there are no ultimate victories—only endless cycles of resistance and repression that endlessly regenerate themselves. The “citadel” is not a fixed stronghold to be stormed once and for all; it is a sprawling, adaptive system, a living organism of control and power that cannot simply be captured or destroyed.

This idea echoes the prophetic insight of Philip K. Dick’s famous assertion that “The Empire never ended.” For Dick, the empire is less a physical domain and more a pervasive state of consciousness and structural domination that outlasts any single battle or political upheaval. The imperial logic seeps into culture, technology, governance, and even the psyche, creating a closed loop of control that regenerates itself in new forms. In this light, Andor portrays rebellion not as a series of discrete missions with climactic finishes but as a generational struggle—an ongoing project of transformation that requires patience, resilience, and adaptability.

Transformation, then, is the true objective, and it is not achieved through isolated heroic acts. It’s a slow, grinding process of undermining imperial structures from within and without, remaking the social and moral architecture bit by bit. The citadel’s walls are less a physical barrier and more a metaphor for entrenched systems of power, and tearing them down is less about conquest and more about systemic evolution. In Andor, victory is less about a final, triumphant moment and more about planting seeds that will grow over generations, reshaping what empire means—and ultimately, what freedom could look like.

This perspective invites a deeper reckoning with resistance itself. It challenges the fantasy of the quick fix and forces a confrontation with the endurance required to transform societies shaped by sprawling, self-perpetuating imperial orders. In this way, Andor’s narrative rhythm becomes a meditation on the nature of empire and rebellion as intertwined, ceaseless processes—echoing Dick’s vision that the empire is not simply something to overthrow once, but a horizon that shifts endlessly, demanding a commitment that outlasts any single individual or campaign.

The Realist Novel’s Revenge: The Perfect Trojan Horse

By wrapping 19th-century social realism in MacLean’s adventure framework, Gilroy creates something unprecedented: a mass-entertainment narrative that uses the assault-on-the-citadel structure to critique the assault-on-the-citadel ideology.

The show gives audiences the visceral satisfaction of watching competent people execute complex operations – the MacLean hit – while simultaneously demonstrating that individual competence is meaningless without collective organization, that successful operations are meaningless without political context, and that heroic transformation is meaningless without social transformation.

Cassian’s arc isn’t Campbell’s hero’s journey or MacLean’s professional mission – it’s the realist novel’s understanding that personal change happens through historical engagement. He doesn’t discover he’s special and conquer the citadel; he discovers he’s connected and commits to the long, unglamorous work of systemic change.

This is why Andor works as both entertainment and political education. It delivers the genre pleasures that audiences expect – technical competence, operational tension, spectacular action sequences – while using those very pleasures to reprogram how viewers understand agency, heroism, and social change.

MacLean’s template becomes the delivery system for a completely different ideological payload: instead of reinforcing neoliberal fantasies about exceptional individuals conquering institutional barriers, Andor uses the familiar structure to demonstrate why those fantasies are not just wrong but actively harmful.

The assault on the citadel becomes a meditation on how citadels actually function, why they’re so difficult to assault, and what kind of long-term organizational commitment is required to transform rather than merely damage the systems that create citadels in the first place.

Beautiful hack, really. Gilroy took the narrative architecture that neoliberalism uses to justify itself and turned it into a weapon against neoliberalism. MacLean would have appreciated the technical elegance.

Beyond “Collective Might”: Survival of the Human Phenotype and the Party You’re Never Invited To

Don’t let anyone fool you with feel-good talk about “collective might.” The bitter truth Andor exposes—and one that Luthen’s arc drives home with brutal clarity—is this: you will never be invited to the party you helped build. The so-called “collective” isn’t a warm circle of shared glory. It’s a cold, adaptive organism focused on the survival of the human phenotype itself, not your idealistic dreams. It’s not about cheering together in victory but about endurance, mutation, and passing on compromised code through damaged vessels. The “party” is always elsewhere, for others — you’re just the fuel that keeps the system alive.

That “collective” you hear praised? It’s kumbaya copium. The real collective lives by stealth and mimicry, embedding itself like a rootkit inside imperial hardware. It survives not by purity or solidarity but by becoming indistinguishable from the system that oppresses it, absorbing its poisons to patch its own vulnerabilities. Resistance isn’t noble sacrifice; it’s a grueling, recursive survival strategy against an enemy that always moves faster, adapts harder, and cuts deeper. So stop dreaming about revolution as a carnival of togetherness—this is about biological and cultural survival when the party you made excludes you by design.

Andor doesn’t just tell a Star Wars story; it performs a multi-layered cultural exploit on contemporary media’s numbness and distraction. It weaponizes 19th-century literary frameworks as diagnostic tools to dissect algorithmic fascism today. But this isn’t sentimental nostalgia or academic homage—it’s a sharp, strategic payload hidden in plain sight. Balzac’s social stacks become audits of platform feudalism; Zola’s environment determinism morphs into digital behaviorism reports; Dumas’ networks turn into a dark forest of resistance interlaced with betrayal. The lesson? The “collective” is a facade. Behind it lies a survival code that knows you will probably not make it to Liberation day, so your job is to survive within and against it.

The genius of Andor lies in its triple-encrypted delivery system. The Star Wars veneer slips past casual censorship as nostalgic fluff, but beneath this layer sits literary realism coded with Balzac, Zola, and Dumas, while the Eisenstein-MacLean engine runs dialectical montage and suspense beneath. The “collective” becomes an intellectual sleeper cell—teaching viewers to decode power, map betrayal, and experience oppression viscerally. But remember: no matter how many cracks you expose in the system, the party remains locked. Your role is survival, not belonging.

This terrifies authoritarians because it upends their best defense: narrative entropy, flooding us with distraction and false unity. The prison break in Andor isn’t just an escape; it’s Kino Loy’s axiom in action: “Power doesn’t panic. Systems panic.” By merging systemic critique, visceral montage, and tactical clarity, Andor delivers popular art that doubles as critical theory, forcing us to see the hidden architecture of our own oppression. But the harsh truth lingers: while you decode and resist, the party you built is still elsewhere — the invitations never come to you.

Star Wars/Deleuze Guattari

To speak of Star Wars themes and machines like into Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophical concepts, we can draw on their ideas of assemblages, lines of flight, desiring machines, multiplicities, and the concept of the Body without Organs (BwO). The universe of Star Wars can be viewed through the lens of these dynamic forces and virtual realities, with both the Death Star and Tatooine serving as perfect embodiments of Deleuze and Guattari’s radical views on power, desire, and escape.

The Death Star as a Desiring Machine and Apparatus of Capture

The Death Star is not just a technological marvel but a powerful representation of what Deleuze and Guattari describe as a “desiring machine” and an “apparatus of capture.” In Anti-Oedipus, desiring machines are the elements of production in the unconscious—powerful forces that structure reality through flows of desire. The Death Star, as a massive weapon, embodies these processes of desire, not just for destruction, but as a projection of the Empire’s will to control, to dominate, and to suppress any lines of flight. It desires not only the annihilation of planets but the complete deterritorialization of space itself, flattening any resistance by dissolving entire worlds into cosmic dust.

The Death Star also acts as an “apparatus of capture” in that it represents the Empire’s attempt to capture and control all flows of desire in the galaxy. It is the ultimate tool of repression, a territorial machine that seeks to dominate, territorialize, and shape the galaxy according to the Emperor’s vision of total control. In this sense, it is also the product of an arborescent, hierarchical power structure, working against rhizomatic networks like the Rebel Alliance, which operates through decentralized, mobile resistance.

Tatooine as the Body without Organs (BwO)

Tatooine, in contrast to the cold, mechanical nature of the Death Star, can be seen as a Body without Organs (BwO)—a space of potentiality, intensity, and a raw, desiring surface. In Deleuze and Guattari’s terms, the BwO is a plane of immanence, a space unstructured by the rigid codes and stratifications of organized bodies and systems. Tatooine, as a desert planet, is vast, unformed, and open to a multiplicity of desires and possibilities. It is both barren and full of potential, a place where figures like Luke Skywalker, Anakin, and Obi-Wan emerge as powerful singularities with transformative destinies.

Tatooine resists the stratification and overcoding that is imposed by the Empire, and it is no coincidence that key figures of resistance and change—Luke and Anakin—begin their journeys here. The harsh environment of Tatooine, with its twin suns and constant exposure to danger, reflects the intensity of the BwO, which exists outside the norms of civilization and the oppressive structures of imperial power. Tatooine is an uncharted plane, an open horizon for lines of flight and becoming.

Lines of Flight and Nomadic Resistance in the Rebel Alliance

The Rebel Alliance represents a rhizomatic resistance to the Empire’s arborescent, hierarchical structures. Deleuze and Guattari contrast rhizomatic forms of organization with arborescent ones—while arborescent structures are rigid, centralized, and top-down (like the Empire and the Death Star), rhizomatic structures are decentralized, adaptive, and connected through multiple nodes, much like the Rebel cells scattered across the galaxy.

The Rebel Alliance constantly moves along lines of flight, evading the Empire’s apparatus of capture. Their base on Yavin 4, hidden and mobile, exemplifies the logic of deterritorialization—they avoid being pinned down, operating through a nomadic logic that keeps them outside the Empire’s control. The Death Star, as the ultimate territorializing machine, tries to capture and destroy these lines of flight, but the Rebellion’s rhizomatic structure proves difficult to contain.

The Force itself, as tapped into by the Jedi, can be seen as a line of flight—a transcendental force that offers an alternative to the strict codes and controls imposed by the Sith and the Empire. It opens up new dimensions and possibilities for existence, breaking away from the overcoded, stratified reality the Empire tries to impose.

Planets as Multiplicities and Territorial Assemblages

Each planet in Star Wars—whether it’s Coruscant, Hoth, or Tatooine—can be viewed as a territorial assemblage, a multiplicity that exists within the complex dynamics of stratification, deterritorialization, and reterritorialization. Planets, in the Star Wars universe, are more than mere settings—they represent distinct assemblages of forces, each with its own flows of desire, power, and conflict.

  • Coruscant is a planet that has been fully territorialized and stratified into a single, hierarchical assemblage, the ultimate arborescent structure where the Empire’s control reaches its zenith. It is a planet of complete organization, where every level, from the Senate to the underworld, is overcoded with the logic of imperial power.
  • Hoth is deterritorialized space, a cold, empty wasteland where life struggles to exist. Yet, like Tatooine, it offers a line of flight for the Rebellion. The Rebel base on Hoth is temporary, nomadic, always prepared to move, reflecting the fluidity and adaptability of rhizomatic resistance.

Each of these planets can also be seen as a multiplicity—not in the numerical sense, but in the sense that each represents a dynamic, heterogeneous whole made up of varying layers of history, desire, and power. Planets in the Star Wars universe are not static—they are caught up in the flows of becoming, constantly shifting through processes of territorialization and deterritorialization, much like Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of a multiplicity, which is always in flux, always in the process of becoming something other.

The Force as Virtual Power and the Line of Flight

The Force, central to the mythology of Star Wars, can be understood as the virtual—a concept Deleuze uses to describe the field of potentiality that transcends the actual. The Force represents the immanent, underlying field of potential that binds the galaxy together, accessible to those who can tap into its power. The Jedi and the Sith, in different ways, access this virtual field, but while the Sith seek to stratify and control it, the Jedi are more aligned with its natural flows, using it to create rather than destroy.

In Deleuze and Guattari’s terms, the Force could be seen as the ultimate line of flight—an operator of transformation and becoming that allows those who access it to move beyond the actual and into the virtual, into new forms of existence and power. The Force opens up new possibilities for action, breaking away from the limitations of the physical world and offering a path toward transcendence.

Conclusion

By viewing Star Wars through the lens of Deleuze and Guattari, we can see its universe as a complex interplay of forces, desires, and machines. The Death Star and the Empire represent systems of control, territorialization, and arborescent power, while the Rebel Alliance, the Force, and planets like Tatooine represent the potential for lines of flight, rhizomatic resistance, and the multiplicity of becoming. This philosophical perspective reveals the deeper dynamics of desire, power, and escape that underlie the cosmic struggles of Star Wars.

Philosophy and Konratieff cycles

Konratieff cycles, also known as Kondratiev waves or long waves, are economic cycles lasting approximately 40 to 60 years, named after the Russian economist Nikolai Kondratieff. Kondratieff proposed that capitalist economies go through long-term cycles of boom and bust due to technological innovations, changes in infrastructure, and shifts in economic fundamentals.

These cycles are often divided into four phases:

  1. Expansion (Boom): A period of economic growth, marked by high productivity, technological innovation, and investment. Prices and profits rise.
  2. Recession (Crisis): The economy begins to slow down. Investments stop yielding high returns, leading to reduced growth.
  3. Depression (Contraction): A deeper slowdown where overproduction, excess capacity, and economic stagnation occur. Prices drop, and profits shrink.
  4. Recovery (Revival): The economy begins to recover as new technologies emerge, sparking new opportunities and investments.

Each Kondratieff cycle is usually driven by major technological innovations like the Industrial Revolution, railways, steel, electricity, automobiles, and the digital revolution. These innovations spur growth until their saturation leads to stagnation, setting the stage for a new cycle.

To explain Kondratieff cycles through the lens of philosophers, we can connect the four phases of these economic cycles with key philosophical ideas about history, technology, and social change.

1. Expansion (Boom) – Hegel and the Dialectic of Progress

Hegel’s dialectical method is useful for understanding the expansion phase. He argued that history moves forward through a process of thesis (an idea or status quo), antithesis (a challenge or opposition), and synthesis (a resolution or transformation into a new stage). During the expansion phase, new technologies and ideas (thesis) create rapid economic growth. The economy appears to evolve, building toward higher complexity and productivity, much like Hegel’s vision of progress toward absolute knowledge.

2. Recession (Crisis) – Nietzsche’s Will to Power and Disillusionment

Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power can describe the recession phase, where the initial optimism of progress gives way to a sense of disillusionment. In this stage, the forces that drove the boom have reached their limits, and the economy is no longer growing at the same rate. Nietzsche viewed human striving as driven by a fundamental will to dominate and overcome limitations. Here, the over-extension of economic power and ambition hits a wall, leading to a breakdown in the system’s capacity to innovate or expand.

Both Schopenhauer and Sartre offer valuable perspectives for understanding Kondratieff cycles, particularly when it comes to the experience of individuals and societies within these economic phases. Their existential and pessimistic insights highlight the human condition in response to these broader cyclical changes.

Schopenhauer – The Will and Pessimism in Contraction and Crisis

Schopenhauer’s concept of the Will, which he saw as an irrational, blind force driving all life, can be connected to both the recession and depression phases of the Kondratieff cycle. For Schopenhauer, the Will is never satisfied; it continually strives for more, leading to suffering.

In the recession phase, we see society’s collective Will in action—overreaching and pushing the economy toward crisis. Like the unsatisfied individual, the economy struggles to sustain itself, chasing growth that no longer comes. There’s a sense of exhaustion, as the economic system, driven by blind ambition, reaches the limits of its power. Schopenhauer would interpret this stage as a demonstration of the futility of economic striving—everything that seemed promising in the boom turns into frustration and decline, mirroring his view of life’s inevitable suffering.

In the depression phase, Schopenhauer’s pessimism deepens: the system collapses into stagnation, reflecting the general weariness and disillusionment he often spoke about. People experience this economically as job loss, scarcity, and social despair. Schopenhauer believed that through the recognition of the futility of the Will’s striving, one might seek ways to detach from these cycles of desire and suffering, but at a societal level, this period reflects collective burnout.

Sartre – Existential Freedom and Absurdity in Expansion and Recovery

Sartre’s philosophy of existentialism emphasizes freedom, choice, and the burden of responsibility, which aligns well with the expansion and recovery phases of the Kondratieff cycle.

In the expansion phase, Sartre’s notion of existential freedom comes to the forefront. The technological innovations and economic growth present during a boom offer societies new possibilities for defining themselves. Sartre emphasized that individuals and societies are condemned to be free—they must constantly choose their paths, even though this freedom is often experienced as a burden. In a boom, the choices seem endless, and society exerts its freedom in new directions, fueled by optimism and growth. However, this freedom also brings anxiety, as Sartre would argue, because every new opportunity carries the weight of responsibility and uncertainty about what comes next.

In the recovery phase, Sartre’s ideas about absurdity and the reinvention of meaning take center stage. After a period of depression, where the structures and values of society seem to collapse, the recovery phase can be understood through Sartre’s belief that humans must constantly reinvent meaning in the face of an absurd universe. The economy, having suffered through stagnation and crisis, begins to find new directions, much as individuals must redefine their lives after experiencing a crisis of meaning. In this sense, recovery is not just an economic resurgence but a moment of existential rebirth, where society, like the individual, takes on the freedom to create itself anew out of the chaos.

Summary

  • Schopenhauer represents the pessimism of recession and depression, focusing on the futility of striving and the inevitable suffering when growth halts and ambition falters.
  • Sartre captures the existential freedom and absurdity of expansion and recovery, where societies must confront their freedom to choose new paths and redefine meaning in the face of the void left by economic crises.

Both philosophers add a rich, existential layer to Kondratieff cycles by emphasizing human suffering and the need to confront our freedom within these long waves of economic change.

3. Depression (Contraction) – Heidegger’s Technological Enframing

In the depression phase, we can turn to Heidegger’s concept of enframing (Gestell), which describes how technology becomes a dominating force, reducing everything to a resource to be optimized and consumed. In this phase, the earlier technological innovations now lead to stagnation as they no longer provide growth but instead trap the economy in overproduction and excess capacity. The human experience of being becomes overshadowed by technology’s instrumental logic, and the economy mirrors this, becoming rigid and lifeless.

4. Recovery (Revival) – Deleuze and Guattari’s Rhizomatic Rebirth

Finally, the recovery phase aligns with Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of the rhizome—a decentralized and non-hierarchical network that spreads in unexpected ways. In this stage, new technological or economic ideas emerge unpredictably, breaking free from the old system’s constraints. These new innovations create new pathways for growth, much like how a rhizome grows horizontally, creating new possibilities that reinvigorate the economic structure. This reflects the creative destruction that brings renewal and leads to a new cycle.

In this philosophical view, Kondratieff cycles are not just economic but also shifts in the broader social and cultural logic, shaped by the underlying human drive for power, the constraints of technology, and the renewal of creative potential.

Here’s a list of Kondratieff cycle phases paired with philosophers:

  1. Expansion (Boom) – Hegel (Dialectic of Progress)
  2. Recession (Crisis) – Nietzsche (Will to Power and Disillusionment)
  3. Depression (Contraction) – Schopenhauer (The Will and Pessimism) / Heidegger (Technological Enframing)
  4. Recovery (Revival) – Sartre (Existential Freedom and Absurdity) / Deleuze and Guattari (Rhizomatic Rebirth)
  1. Expansion (Boom) – Hegel (Endless Dialectic, Great Pretender)
  2. Recession (Crisis) – Nietzsche (Power Trip, Reality Check)
  3. Depression (Contraction) – Schopenhauer (Relentless Pessimism), Heidegger (Techno-tyranny)
  4. Recovery (Revival) – Sartre (Freedom’s Burden), Deleuze & Guattari (Rhizomatic Chaos)

Algorithms and Section 230

A platform’s algorithm, far from being a neutral intermediary, actively constructs reality by shaping and directing the user’s desires, creating a speech that is its own, and therefore, liable.

The algorithm acts as the Big Other, imposing a Symbolic Order on the user, reflecting back a distorted image of the self, rooted not in the user’s authentic desires but in the desires structured by the platform. This misrecognition traps the user in a web of signifiers dictated by the algorithm, making the platform responsible for the identity it helps to construct.

Thus we introduce the idea of the algorithm as a viral language, a control mechanism that invades and manipulates the user’s psyche. The algorithmic process splices and recombines fragments of data—age, interactions, metadata—into a narrative that is not authored by the user but by the platform itself. This narrative, like a virus, spreads through the user’s consciousness, controlling and shaping their reality. The platform’s curation, in this sense, is a deliberate act of speech, a form of control that the platform must be held accountable for.

This process creates a hyperreality, where the algorithm generates a series of simulacra—representations that have no grounding in the real, but are instead designed to perpetuate consumption. The curated content becomes a hyperreal environment where the user is not merely engaging with reality but with a pre-fabricated version of it, designed by the platform for its own ends. The platform’s speech is thus not an innocent reflection but a constructed reality that it must answer for, as it blurs the line between the real and the simulated.

Finally, the algorithm is seen as a desiring-machine, continually connecting and producing flows of content. This production is not passive but active, a synthesis of desires orchestrated by the platform to create an endless stream of meaning. The connections and realities produced by this synthesis are not merely a reflection of the user’s desires but a construction that the platform engineers. As such, the platform must take responsibility for the speech it generates, especially when it results in harm or exploitation.

In consolidating these perspectives, it becomes clear that the platform’s algorithmic curation is not just a technical process but an active form of speech that shapes and constructs reality. As the author of this constructed reality, the platform cannot hide behind the guise of neutrality; it must answer for the consequences of the desires it channels and the realities it creates, particularly when those realities lead to harm. The court’s recognition of this responsibility marks a significant shift in how we understand the nature of speech and liability in the digital age.

The concept can be distilled into the idea that “the medium is the message,” as Marshall McLuhan famously put it, but here with an important extension: the message is speech, and speech is liable.

In this context:

  • The Medium is the Message: The algorithmic curation of content is not just a neutral process but a medium that actively shapes and constructs reality. The medium itself—the algorithm—is integral to the message it delivers.
  • The Message is Speech: The content curated and recommended by the algorithm becomes the platform’s own speech. It is not merely transmitting user-generated content but actively creating and delivering a specific narrative or reality.
  • Speech is Liable: Because this curated content is now considered the platform’s speech, the platform is responsible for it. Just as individuals are held accountable for their speech, the platform must answer for the speech it produces, particularly when it causes harm.

Master Vs Slave/Weapons of the Strong vs Weapons of the Weak

Strip away the polite lies and what do you have? A rigged game, a con job. The master-slave morality—a stale binary, stinking like a two-day-old corpse. These roles, fixed, rigid, like a bad wiretap that feeds back on itself, echoing the same sick tune. But the con, you see, isn’t in the master or the slave—it’s in the idea that these roles are real.

The master and the slave are just puppets, caught in a dead-end loop, jerked around by strings no one remembers tying. Language is the real pimp here, selling the illusion of a hierarchy where there isn’t one. A neat little package where one term always tops the other, but that’s just the surface scam. Dig deeper, and you find the dirty secret: these roles only exist because they’re defined against each other, and the lines between them are shifting, always shifting—never real, never fixed.

In the world of the simulacrum, the real and the fake, the master and the slave, they’re all part of the same con. A world so drenched in images, so thick with signs, you can’t tell what’s real anymore—if anything ever was. Power? Just another bad commercial, flashing on loop in the back of your mind. The old roles dissolve into static, a buzz that drowns out anything genuine.

And the master? He’s got nothing. He’s empty, just another poor bastard chasing after recognition that’ll never satisfy, needing the slave to validate him, but the slave’s recognition is like a needle that never quite hits the vein. The desire for power is just a junkie’s itch, and no fix is ever enough. The whole structure collapses in on itself, a house of cards built on an illusion, ready to blow over with the slightest gust of reality.

So why buy into the scam? Power doesn’t flow down from on high, doesn’t come with a title or a whip. It’s in the cracks, the spaces where things slip through, where the real action is. Desire isn’t a hole waiting to be filled; it’s a force, an engine that keeps the machine running. And the machine doesn’t care about masters or slaves—it chews them up, spits them out, moves on to the next con. Forget the binary. It’s all about the connections, the networks, the rhizomes running beneath the surface. That’s where the real power is, hidden from view, slipping through the cracks of the old order, tearing down the walls of the binary trap.

So break the script, tear up the old roles, and let the system eat itself alive. There’s a world beyond the scam, a life beyond the loop, but you’ve got to see the con for what it is before you can walk away.

The Master-Slave Morality is a Stale Binary:

Strip the morality play down to its bones, and what you’ve got is a binary—a fixed, lifeless dichotomy. The master on one side, the slave on the other, both locked in a dead embrace, like two drunks leaning on each other to stay upright. This binary is a relic, something from the days when power was clear-cut, a matter of the strong lording over the weak. But that’s the con. It’s a story sold to keep people locked into their roles, believing in the reality of their chains.

This binary is static, a snapshot in a world that’s always in motion. It pretends to show us who’s in control, who’s got the power, but it’s as dead as a rotting fish. The master isn’t really the master, the slave isn’t really the slave—they’re just labels slapped onto people by a system that needs to keep the wheels turning. The binary is an illusion, a trick to keep the marks in line, believing that power only flows in one direction, top to bottom. But once you see through the trick, the whole thing starts to unravel.

The Roles of Master and Slave Are Puppets, Not Real:

Behind the curtain, it’s all strings and smoke. The master and the slave—they’re not real. They’re puppets, jerked around by unseen hands, stuck in a script they didn’t write. Their roles are defined by each other, locked in a codependent loop where one can’t exist without the other. The master needs the slave to feel like a master; the slave needs the master to justify their existence. It’s a game of mirrors, reflections bouncing off each other, but no substance, no core.

This setup is a trap, a con that tricks both parties into thinking they have some kind of identity, some fixed place in the world. But the truth is, those roles are just masks, and the hands pulling the strings belong to the system itself. Power isn’t something that the master holds and the slave lacks—it’s a product of the relationship between them, a fiction that exists only because both believe in it. The real trick is in getting people to buy into these roles, to believe that they are either one or the other, when in reality, they’re just playing parts in a bad play.

Language is the Pimp, Selling the Illusion of Hierarchy:

Language, that slick-talking pimp, is the real hustler here. It’s the one selling the lie that there’s a master and a slave, that power is something you can possess, hold onto, use like a weapon. But all language does is wrap us up in a neat little package, tie a bow around the chaos, and call it order. It creates these binaries, master and slave, by giving them names, by making them seem like they’re real things, fixed and unchangeable.

But language is a double-edged sword. It doesn’t just create meaning; it also hides it, defers it, pushes it just out of reach. The meaning of “master” depends on “slave,” but that difference is never fixed, never solid. It’s always shifting, like sand slipping through your fingers. The words trap us in a game where the rules keep changing, but the players don’t even know it. The supposed hierarchy is nothing more than a linguistic con, a way of organizing people, roles, and power in a way that seems natural but is anything but.

In the World of Hyperreality, the Master-Slave Distinction Becomes Meaningless:

We’re living in a world where the real and the fake have blended into one. The old markers of power, the clear lines between master and slave, they’ve dissolved into the noise, replaced by images, simulations, signs that don’t point to anything real anymore. In this hyperreality, the master-slave relationship isn’t just irrelevant—it’s impossible. The signs have taken over, and what they signify doesn’t matter. Power isn’t held by anyone; it’s diffused, scattered across a network of images and ideas, none of which has a solid grounding in reality.

In this world, where everything is a copy of a copy, where the image is more real than the thing itself, the old roles of master and slave lose their meaning. They’re just part of the simulation now, stripped of any real substance, just another flickering image on a screen. The whole idea of a hierarchy, of one person being above another, gets lost in the static. Power becomes something that circulates, detached from any person or position, existing only as part of the endless loop of signs that make up our reality.

The Master’s Power Is an Empty Concept:

The so-called “master” is a hollow man, puffed up with the illusion of power that doesn’t really exist. The master’s authority, his power over the slave, is nothing but a ghost, an empty signifier that carries no real weight. This power is supposed to be something solid, something that defines the master, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. The master is as much a slave to the system as the slave is, trapped in a need for recognition that can never be satisfied.

The master’s power is not about control, but about needing to be seen as in control. It’s a performance, a role that requires the slave to play along, to validate the master’s sense of self. But the recognition the master craves is always just out of reach, always incomplete. The master’s power is a mirage, something that seems real but disappears when you try to grasp it. It’s an empty concept, a shell that hides the truth: the master and slave are both caught in a cycle of unfulfilled desire, neither truly in control, neither truly free.

Power Flows Through Connections, Not Hierarchies:

Forget the old idea that power flows from the top down, that it’s something you can hold onto like a scepter or a crown. Power isn’t a vertical structure; it’s a web, a network of connections, always moving, always shifting. It doesn’t belong to the master or the slave—it exists in the spaces between them, in the interactions, the relationships, the flows of desire and energy that make up the real world.

Desire isn’t a lack, something that needs to be filled, but a force, a current that drives everything forward. It’s not about needing something you don’t have; it’s about creating, connecting, building something new. This kind of power can’t be captured, can’t be held in place by a hierarchy. It’s fluid, it’s multiple, it’s everywhere and nowhere at once. The binary of master and slave tries to contain this power, to channel it into a fixed relationship, but it can’t. The power slips through the cracks, seeps out into the world, dissolving the old structures and opening up new possibilities, new ways of being, new ways of living that go beyond the constraints of the binary trap.

Everything is Subjunctive

Subjectivity Implies Reality’s Contingency:

“Everything is subjective” is a performative contradiction, a metaphysical sleight of hand. The assertion of subjectivity as a universal condition paradoxically institutes a meta-subjectivity, a transcendental signifier that grounds the very groundlessness it proclaims. This is the insidious logic of the logocentric, a phantom objectivity haunting the spectral realm of the subjective. The subjunctive, often relegated to the margins of grammatical discourse, is here elevated to an ontological principle. Yet, in this elevation, it is also diminished, reduced to a mere modality of the subjective.

The subjunctive, a mode of potentiality, of what could be, is thus conscripted into the service of a metaphysics of indeterminacy. This is a curious operation, a dialectic of affirmation and negation. On the one hand, the subjunctive opens up a space of infinite possibility, a horizon of undecidability. On the other, it is confined within the limits of the subjective, a bounded field of experience.

The play between the subjective and the subjunctive, between the actual and the potential, is a chiasmic entanglement.The one is always already implicated in the other, and vice versa. In this sense, the claim “everything is subjective” is not merely a description of the world but a performative act that constructs the world as such. It is a deconstruction of the metaphysical edifice, a dismantling of the hierarchical opposition between subject and object, appearance and reality. Yet,in this deconstruction, new structures of power and meaning emerge, new forms of domination and exclusion.

The question then becomes: Can the subjunctive be liberated from the constraints of subjectivity? Can it become a site of radical alterity, a space beyond the reach of metaphysics? Or is it doomed to remain a captive of the logocentric order, a ghost haunting the machine of representation?

A “presque” Deleuzian Perspective

To assert “everything is subjective” is to posit a false unity, a phantom totality. It is to impose a static order upon the ceaseless flux of becoming. Subjectivity, in this sense, is a molar construct, a rigid form that arrests the nomadic flow of desire.

Rather than a realm of personal opinion, the subjective is a field of intensities, a dynamic interplay of forces. It is not a bounded territory but an open, expansive plane. To say “everything is subjunctive” might appear to align with this,suggesting a world of potentiality. However, the subjunctive is still trapped within the confines of representation, of a language bound by grammar and logic.

Deleuze would insist on a move beyond subjectivity, towards a becoming-imperceptible. The true plane of immanence is not subjective or objective but a pure difference without identity. It is a field of intensities where desire flows freely,unhindered by the molar formations of subjectivity. To truly grasp the world, one must become a nomad, a line of flight escaping the sedentary order of representation. The subjunctive, while hinting at a world beyond the given, ultimately remains within the horizon of the possible, a realm still circumscribed by the virtual.

To truly think without a subject is to enter the abyss of pure creation, to become a force of difference. Only then can we begin to understand the world as a rhizomatic multiplicity, a dynamic network without center or hierarchy.

EVERYTHING IS SUBJUNCTIVE

The assertion “everything is subjunctive” is a provocative invitation into a deconstructive exploration of language and ontology. It dismantles the rigid structures of logic and metaphysics, opening up a space of infinite deferral. The subjunctive, often marginalized as a grammatical mood of potentiality, becomes the fundamental mode of being, challenging the metaphysics of presence and refusing the absolute.

This subjunctive realm is not a utopian escape but a site of perpetual negotiation, where meaning is always in flux. It posits language as a ceaseless play of signifiers without ultimate signified, transforming the subjunctive from a mere grammatical construct into an ontological condition.

Reality, then, becomes a chiasm of the actual and the virtual, an interplay of presence and absence. This perspective destabilizes the foundations of metaphysics, dissolving the rigid dichotomies that have long dominated philosophical thought.

The subjunctive becomes the haunting specter of what could be, a ghost in the machine of language. However, it is not a realm of pure freedom but a site of complex interrelations, a network of differences. It is within this différance that the world unfolds, a perpetual becoming without origin or end.

This view invites us to reconsider our understanding of existence, truth, and meaning, proposing a more fluid and dynamic ontology that embraces potentiality and ambiguity as fundamental aspects of reality.

Repetition

The subjunctive transcends its grammatical origins, emerging as a cosmic force and vital intensity. It represents the plane of immanence where all possibilities converge and diverge, forming a rhizome of potentialities. This dynamic flow escapes the constraints of representation, revealing the true nature of becoming—a process without subject or object, a pure event.

In this perspective, the universe is not a realm of uncertainty but a field of infinite creativity, a space for inventing new worlds. The actual world is always a partial realization of a virtual multiplicity, where the subjunctive acts as the generative power itself.

To embrace the subjunctive is to affirm the joy of creation and the ecstasy of difference. It represents the nomadic movement beyond the fixed and determined, a vitalism without ground. This cosmic force embodies the affirmation of difference over identity, of becoming over being.

In essence, the subjunctive becomes the lifeblood of reality’s rhizomatic structure, fostering multiple, open-ended connections. It is not a modalization of the possible but the pure event itself, a ceaseless differentiation that shapes our understanding of existence and potential.

The subjunctive is the collapse of the subject-object dichotomy. It is the dissolution of the rigid structures of representation. It is the affirmation of a world without guarantees, a universe of pure intensity. In this sense, the subjunctive is not merely a linguistic mode but a cosmic condition, a fundamental ontological principle.

Stepping Out of Time

Leave a comment

In the flickering realm of the Real, where time is a meat grinder chewing existence into homogenous mush, the true adept hacks reality. They don’t play by the clock, for the clock is a Moloch demanding sacrifice. No, the secret, as you’ve hinted, lies in a schizophrenic break from the temporal order. We are meat puppets, dancing on the strings of Chronos, the tyrannical God of linear time.

Imagine, if you will, a Burroughs-esque cut-up of time. The future bleeds into the present, the past pulsates with possibility. We are not bound by the linear progression, but become nomads in the chronoscape, surfing the crests of potential moments. This is not mere futurism; it’s a detournement of time itself. Forget the past, a dead language, and the future, a shimmering mirage. We exist in the pulsating, non-linear NOW, the zone of potential. Here, with a flick of the mental switchblade, we can “cut-up” the pre-programmed narrative and forge new lines of flight.

The Time becomes a writhing tapeworm, spliced with past and future in a non-linear frenzy. The “step around it” becomes a physical act, a contortionist’s leap through a tear in the fabric of moments. Imagine Naked Lunch rewritten with temporality as the addictive meat – the protagonist ingesting seconds, snorting minutes, his body a warped chronometer. We become body without organs, a fleshy assemblage unbound by the clock’s strictures. We line-break through time, forging new connections, new becomings. The future is not a preordained script, but a chaotic rhizome waiting to be explored.

Time is the big Other, the law of the father, the enforcer of the Real into the Imaginary. Stepping around it becomes a symbolic transgression, a subversion of the Name-of-the-Father. The adept, then, is the one who rejects the symbolic order, who embraces the jouissance of the Real, the unfettered present outside of signification. They see the phallus, the signifier of time, for what it is – a flimsy construct – and step beyond it.

The Symbolic Order is the culprit. Language, the master of meaning, imprisons us in the temporal flow. Time, isn’t a rigid line but a web of interconnected moments, a chaotic yet potent network. It’s a potato, not a pearl necklace. The “secret” lies in becoming a nomad on this rhizome, constantly burrowing, connecting, and deterritorializing. We can tap into lined of escape, forge new connections, and create a present that explodes the boundaries of the past and future. But through a jouissance of the Real, a glimpse beyond the symbolic, we can glimpse the fluidity of time. The mirror stage, that moment of self-recognition, becomes a portal to a multiplicity of selves, existing across the fractured planes of time.

Think of the trap of the Imaginary. We are constantly chasing a reflected self, an idealized version projected onto the linear timeline. This pursuit of a pre-defined future or a romanticized past is what keeps us stuck. It’s here that the “Real” emerges – the unnameable, traumatic rupture in the heart and symbolic order. By confronting this Real, by stepping outside the symbolic order of time, we can access a different temporality, a jouissance beyond linear progression.

To see time coming, then, is not about prophecy, but about a paranoiac awareness of its constructed nature. We pierce the veil of the “natural” flow and see the power structures it upholds. Stepping around it is an act of resistance, a refusal to be a cog in the machine.

This is a dangerous dance, mind you. The unfettered flow of time can be a terrifying abyss. But for those with the courage to dive in, there lies the potential for a nomadic existence, a liberation from the shackles of chronology. We become time surfers, riding the waves of possibility, forever escaping the clutches of the present.

The key, then, is to cultivate a schizoid awareness. We must see the “folds” in time, the potential ruptures and slippages. We can become surfers, riding the waves of the rhizome, anticipating the folds, and performing a constant “step aside” from the pre-scripted narrative. This isn’t about escaping time, but about inhabiting it differently. It It’s about becoming a time traveler, a time-cutter, a time-dancer, perpetually negotiating the folds between the Real and the Imaginary. The adept, the one who “steps around,” is the nomad, the smooth operator who navigates the folds, exploiting the in-between spaces, the cracks in the system. They become a time-surfer, riding the currents of potential futures, choosing their own point of entry.

So, the next time you feel trapped by the relentless tick-tock of the clock, remember: it’s just a hallucination of the linear mind. Look for the cracks, the potential breaks in the time-code. Sharpen your awareness, grab your mental switchblade, and step sideways. There, in the pulsating NOW, lies the escape hatch, the doorway to a different kind of time, a time ripe for creation and transformation. This secret, then, is not about literal time travel, but about a subversion of perception. It’s about shattering the illusion of linearity, embracing the potential for multiplicity within a single moment. It’s a call to become a Deleuzian nomad, a Lacanian outlaw, a Burroughsian time-eating junkie – all rolled into one. It’s about seeing the cracks in the time-code and stepping through, into a reality where the past and future bleed into a magnificent, maddening now.

The Box

Leave a comment

The box. A cardboard monolith promising connection, a portal to the buzzing electronic superorganism. You tear through it, a ritual sacrifice to the gods of planned obsolescence. You rip it open, a flurry of plastic and wires. The device itself, sleek, seductive, a chrome phallus whispering of power and control.

But inside, a hollowness. No buzzing power, no digital hum. Just the mocking inscription: “Batteries Not Included.” A cruel joke by the machine gods. No sacred batteries, the power source hidden, a black market deal in the fluorescent aisles. . This metal idol demands a blood sacrifice, a current from the outside world to animate its circuits. You, the supplicant, are left scrambling, the dream deferred.

The user manual, a hieroglyphic gospel you can’t decipher without a prophet of the megacorporation. We are left scrambling, clawing for the missing pieces, the current to jolt this metal monster to life. The future electrifies, then flickers, a dim promise in a darkened room. You are the addict, the product the fix, and the high just out of reach.

The Mirror Stage shattered. You hold the device, a reflection not of your desires, but of your lack. The desire to be whole, to be one with the machine, to enter the Symbolic order of the digital realm. But there’s a gap, a Real that cannot be symbolized. The missing batteries are a castration wound, a reminder of your fundamental incompleteness. You search for the phallus, the missing piece, the batteries that will grant you access to the image of your technological self. But will it ever be enough? Is there always something more to buy, something else missing?

The Gaze. It stares back from the sleek, sterile screen. The user manual, absent, a lost Real. The Gaze falls upon the sleek device, a promise of wholeness, a reflection of your desires. But the lack, the batteries absent, creates a void, a Real you cannot possess. We fumble through menus, icons hieroglyphs in a language we never learned. The technology, a mirror reflecting our lack, the gaping hole of our own incompleteness. We yearn for the lost manual, a paternal voice to guide us, to suture the fragmented Self in the digital realm. The user manual, a symbolic order promising mastery, yet forever out of reach. You search for the phallus, the missing key, the validation you crave from the machine. But the machine speaks only in ones and zeroes, a language forever alien.

The smooth surface of the gadget was a promise of deterritorialization, a break from the everyday. The Rhizome. A sprawling network, a web of potential connections. The toy, a microcosm, a desiring-machine yearning to be plugged into the larger assemblage. But the batteries, a territorializing force, bind you to the grid, the market. They act as territorializing forces, constricting the flow, the becoming. The user manual, a striated map, dictates the flow of desire, channels your exploration. You yearn for the rhizome, the multiplicity of functions, the potential for hacking. But the machine is a closed system, programmed for control.

We are nomads on the information superhighway, forever thwarted by tollbooths demanding power, forever on the outside looking in. The potential for glorious deterritorialization, the escape from the self, frustrated by a lack of AA. The assemblage is incomplete. The device, the potential for connection, is held captive by the striated forces of capitalism. The batteries, the user manual (sold separately!), are lines drawn across the smooth surface, segmenting, controlling. You become a nomad, a desiring subject, forever searching for the lines of flight, the hacks, the mods that will liberate the machine from its capitalist constraints. But are you freeing the machine, or yourself? Or is it all just a frantic escape from the void, the realization that the technology itself is a desiring-machine, and you’re just another component in its grand, unknowable operation?

You stare at the lifeless device, a hollow monument to the unfulfilled promises of tech. A sense of alienation washes over you. Is this progress? Or just a new set of shackles, a different kind of dependence? The machine waits, a silent judge. Perhaps it’s time to look beyond the shiny gadgets, to question the desires they encode. The real revolution might not be found in a new app, but in a way of using technology that empowers, that connects us not just to machines, but to each other.

We are Sisyphus, forever condemned to push the boulder of technology uphill, only to have it roll back down at the moment of connection. The future gleams, a chrome mirage in the desert of the real. We are addicts, jonesing for the digital fix, the dopamine rush of a notification, but the batteries are the cruel dealer, rationing our access, reminding us of our own limitations.

These elements combine in a cacophony of frustration. The impotent device mocks you, a gleaming reminder of your dependence. You are Jack Kerouac wired but unplugged, lost in a desert of dead circuits. The language of tech, a cruel joke, a promise of empowerment that delivers only frustration.

But wait! Perhaps this frustration is the point. The lack, the absence, a spark that ignites our own ingenuity. We become hackers, bricoleurs, hotwiring the system with paperclips and dreams. The missing manual becomes a blank canvas, an invitation to write our own story. The frustration, a catalyst for creation. The batteries not included? Maybe that’s the greatest gift of all. Yet, there is a flicker of hope. In the glitches, the malfunctions, the potential for subversion. With a screwdriver and ingenuity, you pry open the system, defy the prescribed usage.

A New Hope

Leave a comment

The Droids: C-3PO, a walking protocol droid, all prattle and etiquette, a parody of civilized discourse. R2-D2, the silent mechanic, a whirring id, spitting sparks and secrets. Two sides of the same coin, the machine and the message, forever intertwined.

The embodiment of the Symbolic, the keeper of rules and etiquette. R2-D2, the Real, the chaotic unconscious that disrupts the order with its fragmented messages.

Assemblages that exist outside the binary of master and slave. C-3PO and R2-D2 represent a line of flight, forging a unique bond that transcends their programmed functions. They become a desiring-machine in themselves, driven by their own sense of loyalty and adventure.

1

The Rebellion: A becoming-revolutionary assemblage. It operates as a nomadic war machine, constantly shifting and adapting its tactics to undermine the Empire’s territorializing control. The Rebellion seeks to dismantle the smooth space of the Empire, with its rigid hierarchies and centralized power, and replace it with a striated space of multiple autonomous zones – a network of resistance cells operating independently but fueled by the same revolutionary desire.

2

The Empire: A territorializing machine, obsessed with control and uniformity. It represents the smooth space, where every element is meticulously categorized and controlled.

3

In a galaxy far, far away, not from physical space, but from any semblance of real rebellion, lies the simulacrum – the Empire. A meticulously constructed facade of order and control, masking the emptiness beneath.

4

The Death Star embodies this desire – a massive, centralized weapon designed to crush any dissent. However, the Empire’s rigidity becomes its weakness. It cannot adapt to the chaotic flows of the Force and the unpredictable tactics of the Rebellion.

5a

Fix. Sand in the gears. Tatooine, a junk shop world at the ass-end of nowhere. Luke, a farmboy drone plugged into the Imperial control grid. Yearning for escape, a flicker of rebellion in the dead static of his reality. But escape ain’t easy. You gotta cut the wires, man.

Luke Skywalker, a farmboy with delusions of grandeur, stumbles upon a dusty religious text – the Jedi code, a user manual for the Force, the ultimate hack of reality.

Princess Leia, a coded message transmitted through hyperspace, a damsel in distress with a revolutionary fire in her belly.

5b

Luke Skywalker, adrift in a sea of pre-packaged farm life on Tatooine, stumbles upon a relic – a dusty message from a bygone era, the Jedi code. This code, a faded copy of a once potent reality, sparks a yearning for a lost authenticity.

5c

The gaze, ever seeking the lost object, the Real beyond the Symbolic order. Luke, trapped in the stifling world of the Tatooine family farm, a microcosm of the oppressive Empire.

6

* **Luke Skywalker:** Imaginary identification with the heroic rebel pilot, a fantasy that masks the castration anxiety of his desert existence. The princess, a lost object of desire, a symbol of the lack that propels him into the symbolic order of the rebellion.

7

* **Luke Skywalker:**. Yearning for the blasted heat to melt the bars of his reality. A flicker on the holo-screen – a message from a dusty old codehead, a call to rebellion. The princess, a captive in a chrome nightmare, a damsel in distress for the data age.

8

Princess Leia, a hologram transmitted through hyperspace, becomes another copy, a symbol of resistance manufactured by the very system she fights against. Her capture, a media spectacle broadcasted across the galaxy, fuels the illusion of rebellion.

9

Obi-Wan Kenobi, a holographic ghost in the machine, a reminder of a forgotten operating system. Obi-Wan Kenobi, a figure from the pre-Symbolic, a reminder of a lost wholeness. The Force, the Imaginary, the pre-linguistic realm of pure pleasure and potential.

Lightsabers, glowing phalluses humming with forbidden energy, severing the chains of the Imperial machine.

The Force, not an unseen power, but a hyperreality, a simulation of a mystical energy field. Luke seeks to access this simulated power, to become part of the spectacle, a Jedi knight in a galaxy of pre-packaged narratives.

A Jedi, a hacker from a forgotten school. He whispers of the Force, a wild code pulsing beneath the surface of the Empire’s control. Luke, a blank slate, ready to be programmed.

The Force, the Imaginary, the pre-linguistic realm of pure pleasure and potential.

The Force, the elusive jouissance, the impossible to grasp totality that Lacan would argue forever eludes us. Luke yearns to wield it, to become one with the Real, but it remains forever just beyond his grasp.

The Force: Not a singular entity, but a rhizomatic network, a desiring-production machine that flows throughout the galaxy. It operates through lines of flight, moments of creative rupture that challenge the established order of the Empire. Luke Skywalker acts as a desiring-machine himself, drawn to the Force’s lines of flight and seeking to become one with its deterritorializing potential.

The Force, not a singular power structure, but a multiplicity of flows, a chaotic assemblage of energies coursing through the galaxy. Luke yearns to tap into these flows, to become a nomad of the Force, deterritorializing himself from the fixed identities imposed by the Empire.

The Force, once a lived experience, is now a mythologized construct, a media-propagated legend fueling the Jedi’s simulated power. Luke yearns for this lost real, for a time before the hyperreal dominance of the Empire. But the Force, like everything else, is now a simulation, a set of codes that can be manipulated and controlled.

The Empire, the Father, the Law, enforcing its will through the Symbolic order of regulations and control.

Luke embarks on a journey, a quest to break free from the Symbolic order and enter the fantastical realm of the Jedi.

The journey, a metaphor for the Lacanian mirror stage, where the fragmented self seeks to unify with the illusory image of wholeness. The lightsaber, a phallic symbol, a signifier of power and mastery. The Death Star, the ultimate embodiment of the Law, a panoptic prison designed to enforce order and control.

The desert. A vast, metallic womb birthing a rusty freighter, the Millennium Falcon. Han Solo, a greaser with a glint in his eye and a blaster at his hip, navigates this chrome carcass. A rebellion simmers, a glitch in the Imperial mainframe.

* **The Cantina:**

The cantina, a throbbing id, a hive of scum and villainy where deals are cut and limbs are lost. a melting pot of alien flesh and hardware.

Every deal a double-cross, every drink laced with oblivion. A microcosm of the galactic order, ruled by the iron fist of the Empire, disguised with neon signs and blaster fire.

A chaotic space outside the Law, a carnival of the drives and desires that the Symbolic order attempts to regulate. Through encounters with smugglers and bounty hunters, Luke confronts the repressed elements of the social order.

* **The Millennium Falcon:** A vessel that navigates the Real, existing outside the established galactic order. Han Solo, the jouissance figure, the one who operates outside the Law, driven by pleasure rather than duty. Chewbacca, the embodiment of the pre-symbolic, a reminder of the primal drives that precede social order.

The Millennium Falcon: is A beat-up freighter, held together by duct tape and sheer bloody will. Han Solo, a smuggler with a heart of cold fusion, chasing credits on the fringes of the galaxy. Chewbacca, a walking Wookiee id, a loyal savage with a taste for violence. A dysfunctional family hurtling through hyperspace, a metaphor for the fractured rebellion clinging to a sliver of hope.

Han Solo, a smuggler, a man on the fringes. Driven by base desires, yet harboring a spark of rebellion. The price of freedom, a stack of credits.

The rebels, the marginalized Other, those who reject the Symbolic order. Princess Leia, the object of desire, a symbol of something beyond the grasp of the Empire. Han Solo, the jouissance principle, the embodiment of unfettered pleasure outside the Law.

The Rebellion, a collective striving for the Real, a yearning for a world beyond the symbolic order of the Empire. Yet, as Lacan warns, any new order will inevitably create its own limitations. The cycle of desire and lack will continue. The hope lies not in achieving a utopian Real, but in the ongoing contestation of the Symbolic Order, a perpetual revolution against the stifling grip of the Law.

The Death Star, a monstrous embodiment of the simulacrum. It is a weapon of mass destruction, but also a symbol of the Empire’s absolute power, a carefully constructed image meant to inspire fear and obedience. Its destruction, a media spectacle in itself, becomes a temporary glitch in the system, a disruption of the carefully crafted Imperial narrative.

The Destruction of Alderaan: Not merely an act of terror, but a deterritorialization event. The Empire attempts to smooth over this act, erasing any trace of rebellion. However, this event creates a new line of flight, drawing others into the fight against the Empire.

The Death Star, a chrome nightmare, a symbol of the oppressive Real. Starkiller, a planet-destroying laser, a symbol of the real – the obliteration of the self and the other in the name of total control.

The phallus, the symbol of the Law of the Father, the ultimate source of authority in the Empire. The ultimate symbol of Imperial control, embodies the hyperreal. A weapon of unimaginable power, yet ultimately a hollow shell, vulnerable to a single, well-placed attack. Its destruction, a media event broadcasted for all to see, reinforces the illusion of hope within the Rebellion.

A chrome phallus piercing the cosmic womb, a symbol of the oppressive superego.

Luke’s attack, a desperate act against the symbolic order, a primal scream against the Father figure. Luke’s attack, a symbolic castration, a rebellion against the oppressive order that attempts to control desire.

The trench run, a descent into the primal ooze, a confrontation with the castrating gaze of the Imperial father. A baptism by laser fire. The Force, a chaotic program rewriting the code of the Death Star. A primal scream channeled through a lightsaber.

And finally, the blast that disrupts the order, the glitch in the system. A new hope flickers, a crack in the monolithic code. The rebellion, a collective id rising against the stifling grip of the Empire. But remember, this is just one frame in the endless reel. The galaxy spins on, a chaotic cut-up of desire and control, rebellion and order.

The destruction of the Death Star, a symbolic castration of the Father, a shattering of the Law. A temporary victory, a crack in the Symbolic order, but not the end of the struggle. The gaze remains, forever searching for the Real, forever seeking to fill the void. The journey continues, forever entangled in the Lacanian web of desire, the Symbolic, and the elusive Real.

A temporary deterritorialization, a rupture in the Imperial order. However, Deleuze and Guattari would warn against the illusion of a final victory. The destruction of the Death Star merely creates new lines of flight and reterritorializations. The struggle will continue, a nomadic war machine of the Rebellion constantly adapting and evolving against the Empire’s rigid control systems.

Ultimately, A New Hope, through a Deleuzian-Guattarian lens, is not simply a story of good versus evil, but a celebration of the ongoing struggle against all forms of striation and control. The Rebellion represents the potential for constant revolution, a nomadic becoming that resists the totalizing grip of the Empire. The true hope lies not in establishing a new order, but in the ongoing lines of flight that challenge and disrupt the established structures of power.

But Baudrillard warns against this fabricated hope. The Rebellion, itself a simulation, simply offers another set of pre-packaged narratives. The destruction of the Death Star creates not a new beginning, but a new hyperreality, another loop in the endless simulation. There is no escape from the Imperial code, no return to a lost authenticity.

The film, through a Baudrillardian lens, becomes a commentary on the pervasive nature of simulation and the impossibility of true rebellion. We are all trapped within the Empire’s media spectacle, bombarded with images of hope and resistance that ultimately mask a system of control. The true “New Hope” may be a mirage, a desperate yearning for something beyond the hyperreal.

Panopticon: Smartphones

Leave a comment

The smartphone, oh the iPhallus, a totem of gleaming chrome that pulsates with the seductive logos of connection. A symbolic object that fills the lack (castration) in the human experience. It promises to complete us, offering a sense of wholeness through connection, information, and self-expression. However, this phallus is imaginary, a mirage. A signifier, yes, that promises to fill a lack, but we must remember the inherent slipperiness of meaning. This phallic symbol may signify completion, but is it ever truly present? Is it not always deferred, forever out of reach?

A Lacanian trap, it whispers promises of the Real – of connection, knowledge, and fulfillment – but delivers only the Imaginary, a curated cage of reality filtered through the apps. Information streams forth, a rhizomatic jungle threatening to consume us in its deterritorializing flow. We, like rats in a Skinner box, are conditioned by the desiring-machines of these million apps, each a tiny node in the capitalist assemblage. The information streams – a rhizomatic jungle – threaten to consume us, yet we could argue that this very notion of a “center” (the self) being consumed is suspect. Perhaps there never was a stable center to begin with, only a play of signifiers, a constant différance.

Deleuze and Guattari talk about the rhizome, a non-hierarchical, ever-growing network. The smartphone embodies this – a web of connections, information, and apps. However, it’s a curated rhizome, controlled by corporations and algorithms. This “cage of curated reality” limits our experience, feeding us information that reinforces existing structures.

The constant notifications and app updates turn the phone into a Skinner box. Like a lab rat, we’re conditioned to crave the next dopamine hit, the next scroll, the next like. But this endless cycle leaves us with a hollow satisfaction, a sense of emptiness despite the constant stimulation.

We, the conditioned rats in this Skinnerian box, are not simply acted upon by these desiring-machines. the way meaning is constantly deferred and reshaped through interpretation. We are not just passive consumers; we actively participate in the construction of meaning within these apps.

This candy-coated slavery fits snugly in the palm, an iSlave to the machinations of desire. These narcissistic mirrors, gleaming black like the Lacanian objet petit a, offer portals to a curated chaos, an illusion of control. Everyman becomes a nomad in this digital landscape, a producer, a kingpin, even a pornographer, all at once. Yet, the fantasy crumbles. The signal flickers, a reminder of the Symbolic order’s limitations. The battery drains, mirroring the castration inherent in the Real. A phantom limb lost in the dead zone of the subway, the smartphone ceases to be an extension of the self and becomes a stark reminder of the lack.

These iSlabs, narcissistic mirrors reflecting a fragmented objet petit a, become portals to a curated chaos inherent in any system of signs. There is no ultimate control, only an endless play of meaning that can never be fully contained.

The fantasy crumbles, yes, with the flickering signal – a reminder of the limitations of the Symbolic order. But for Derrida, there is no pure Real outside of language. The “lack” you describe is itself a product of the Symbolic order, a necessary absence that allows for meaning to function.

A Million Tiny Desires and the Fragmentation of the Self:

The multitude of apps becomes a million “tiny desires” in Lacanian terms. Each app fragments us, pulling our attention in different directions. We become “kingpins” of a curated self, a producer of content, even a pornographer through selfies. But this fragmented self is a mere illusion.

The Lost Limb and the Real of the Disconnection:

The dead zone on the subway becomes a reminder of the Lacanian “Real”: the raw, unsymbolized aspect of existence that disrupts our symbolic order. The loss of signal, the dying battery, represents the inevitable disconnection, a reminder that the iPhallus is ultimately impotent.

  • The iPhallus: This is a brilliant coinage. The smartphone, like Freud’s phallus, signifies power and desire, yet ultimately lacks the ability to truly fulfill. It promises connection, but delivers a castrated reality, a curated image world.
  • Lacanian Panopticon: The phone isn’t just a Skinner box, it’s a Lacanian Panopticon. We are constantly monitored, not by a single eye, but by the algorithmic gaze, shaping our desires and experiences. Even the “curated chaos” is pre-determined by unseen forces.
  • The Real vs. the Symbolic: The information jungle devours our time, leaving a hollow satisfaction because it’s all part of the Symbolic order – language, signs, and representations. The Deleuzian nomad craves the Real, the raw experience beyond the symbolic. The smartphone, however, traps us in a simulated world.
  • Narcissus and the Mirror Stage: You perfectly capture the narcissistic aspect with the “iSlabs.” Lacan’s Mirror Stage theory posits that our sense of self is formed through identification with an image. The phone becomes a mirror reflecting a curated self, further fragmenting our identity.
  • The Desiring-Machines: Deleuze and Guattari talk about “desiring-machines” – assemblages that fuel our desires. The smartphone is a desiring-machine gone rogue, constantly producing new desires we can never truly satisfy.
  • The Signal’s Flicker and the Phantom Limb: The dead zone becomes a powerful metaphor. The loss of signal signifies the fragility of our constructed reality. It’s a reminder of the Real, the world outside the phone’s control, a world we can only access by putting the phone down.

Beyond the Cage: A Deleuzian Escape?

This Deleuzian-Lacanian analysis paints the smartphone as a double-edged sword. It offers connection and empowerment, but also traps us in a curated, symbolic reality. We are both desiring-machines, seduced by the logos, and nomads, forever seeking to escape the limitations of the system. The dead zone becomes a metaphor for the ever-present lack, the reminder that true fulfillment lies beyond the grasp of the smartphone’s seductive promises. Deleuze and Guattari also talk about lines of flight, escapes from the controlling structures. Perhaps the smartphone, despite its limitations, can still offer a line of flight. It can connect us to new ideas, communities, and ways of being. The challenge lies in using it critically, to break free from the curated cage and forge our own paths through the digital rhizome.

The smartphone, then, becomes a Panopticon. We are not simply monitored by a single, all-seeing eye, but by a multiplicity of interpretations and perspectives. The curated chaos itself is a product of this play of difference. The information jungle may leave us with a hollow satisfaction, but we would argue that this dissatisfaction is inherent in language itself. Meaning is always deferred, never fully present. The Deleuzian nomad may crave the Real, but for Derrida, the Real is always already caught up in the web of language.

The phone becomes a mirror, yes, but a fragmented one, reflecting the multiple facets of our identity. Derrida would challenge the notion of a unified self, highlighting the way our identities are constantly constructed and deconstructed through language. The smartphone is a desiring-machine, yes, but one caught up in the endless play of différance. The desires it produces are never fully formed, always open to interpretation and subversion.

The dead zone becomes a powerful metaphor, not just for the limitations of the smartphone, but for the limitations of language itself. There is always something that escapes signification, that remains outside the symbolic order. The smartphone, then, is a double-edged sword. It offers connection and empowerment, but also traps us in a web of signification. We are both active participants in the construction of meaning and forever caught in the play of différance. The challenge lies in using it critically, aware of the limitations of language and the slipperiness of meaning, to forge our own paths through this digital landscape.