Month: August 2024

The Game is Rigged but It needs More Players

In the wild and treacherous jungle of gambling, the house edge is the kingpin, the big shot with a gun in every corner. When it comes to the lottery, you’re staring down the barrel of a gun with a staggering edge—often over 30%. It’s as if the universe itself conspires against you in the most blatant fashion.

In the realm of casino games like blackjack and roulette, the house edge is the dark arithmetic, a cold, calculated certainty, a mathematical beast lurking in every spin and shuffle.

Now, poker, that’s a different beast. The edge here is less about numbers and more about who’s pocketing the cash—how much of your hard-earned buy-in ends up in the casino’s pockets, or those of the site and payment processors.

And then we dive into the abyss of onchain trading, where the house edge is a nightmarish circus of parasites. It’s a mad world where MEV searchers, Jito, validators, stakers, trading bots, and the ever-elusive pump-and-dump artists feast on a grotesque buffet. The fees, the locked liquidity, the grifters, and the inner circle—all clawing and scraping, their insatiable greed having ramped up its efficiency to a nauseating degree over the past year.

The game’s rigged, and the numbers are horrifyingly clear. It needs more players, or the existing ones need to go all-in. But don’t hold your breath for a horde of new suckers to storm the gates. They’re getting mowed down by shoddy launches and a tidal wave of useless tokens. The devs are a dime a dozen, the tokens are a joke, and the KOLs are nothing more than professional value extractors. Liquidity is a mirage in the desert, far too scarce to prop up this grotesque circus.

Welcome to the madness.

influencers, podcasters, crypto scammers, and small-town tyrants

One might approach influencers, podcasters, crypto scammers, and small-town tyrants as figures who occupy different positions within the symbolic order, each representing a distinct mode of desire and the manipulation of the Other.

Influencers are the epitome of the Imaginary, where the ego is constituted through the gaze of the Other. They craft an idealized image, an objet petit a, that their followers endlessly pursue but can never fully obtain. This image functions as a mirror, reflecting not only the influencer’s own narcissism but also the desires of their audience. The influencer becomes the embodiment of the “ideal ego,” a figure who is both desired and envied, sustaining the illusion of wholeness in a fragmented symbolic landscape.

Podcasters operate within the register of the Symbolic, where discourse takes precedence over image. They engage in what Lacan would describe as the “talking cure,” but rather than facilitating the subject’s entry into the symbolic order, they often reinforce the subject’s alienation. The podcaster’s voice, a manifestation of the “big Other,” creates a pseudo-intimacy that masks the subject’s fundamental lack. Their narratives and conversations are structured around the promise of insight or enlightenment, but this is merely a lure, as the true desire lies in the endless consumption of discourse—a jouissance that traps the listener in a cycle of repetition.

Crypto scammers embody the Real in their exploitation of the symbolic order’s gaps and inconsistencies. They operate in a realm where signifiers lose their mooring, where value is untethered from any stable referent. The crypto scam is a masterstroke of the “foreclosed signifier,” a promise of wealth that exists only in the imaginary and whose inevitable collapse reveals the void at the heart of the symbolic. In this sense, the crypto scammer is a figure of radical jouissance, one who derives pleasure from the destabilization of the symbolic order itself.

Small-town tyrants represent a return to the Imaginary, but with a twist. They are figures of paternal authority, standing in for the “Name-of-the-Father,” but their power is not rooted in the symbolic law but in the arbitrary exercise of will. Their authority is a simulacrum, a hollow echo of the real paternal function, and their tyranny is a performance designed to mask their own lack. In the Lacanian sense, they are figures of “phallic jouissance,” deriving pleasure from the subjugation of others, but this pleasure is tainted by the ever-present threat of castration—the recognition of their own impotence within the broader symbolic order.

In sum, these figures—whether influencer, podcaster, crypto scammer, or small-town tyrant—are all caught in the web of desire, each embodying a different facet of Lacan’s triadic structure of the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real. Their actions and personas are strategies for managing the fundamental lack that defines subjectivity, yet in doing so, they reveal the very structures they seek to escape. They are not merely players in a game of power and influence; they are symptoms of the social order’s own inherent contradictions, which they simultaneously exploit and are entrapped by.

The Cheaper The Mortgage

The cheaper the mortgage, the more vibrant the cultural scene—it’s almost an economic law. When people aren’t crushed under the weight of exorbitant housing costs, they have room to breathe, to create, to take risks. In neighborhoods where the rent isn’t devouring their every dollar, artists, writers, and musicians can afford to be bold, to experiment, to push boundaries without worrying about where the next meal is coming from.

A vibrant cultural scene thrives on the energy of those who aren’t constantly calculating the cost of their passion in dollars and cents. It’s in these places, where the mortgage doesn’t dictate every life decision, that the real innovation happens. The art is raw, the music is loud, and the ideas flow freely because they aren’t being stifled by financial anxiety.

But as soon as the rents start rising, that vibrancy fades. The artists move out, replaced by those who can afford to buy in but bring nothing new to the table. The galleries close, the venues shut down, and the once-thriving neighborhood becomes just another sterile, gentrified outpost, trading cultural vitality for property value. So yes, the cheaper the mortgage, the more vibrant the cultural scene—because creativity, at its best, demands freedom, and freedom is a luxury few can afford when the price of living gets too high.

The cheaper the mortgage, the more vibrant the cultural scene—so it goes. When folks aren’t selling their souls to make rent, they can actually do what they’re meant to do: create, invent, make a little noise. In those places where the rent isn’t high enough to give you an ulcer, artists, writers, and musicians can mess around, take some chances, and maybe even make something halfway decent without having to think about how they’ll keep the lights on.

It’s pretty simple math: when you’re not being bled dry by your landlord, you’ve got some space in your head for ideas, and ideas are what keep a culture alive. You see it over and over—wherever the rent’s low, the art’s loud, the music’s wild, and people are full of crazy, wonderful notions. But once the rents go up, the party’s over. The artists pack up and split, chased out by people with money but no imagination. The galleries shut down, the bands move on, and what’s left is just another nice, boring neighborhood where nothing interesting ever happens.

So, yeah, the cheaper the mortgage, the more vibrant the cultural scene—because creativity thrives when people aren’t scared to death about how they’re going to pay for it. And when that fear creeps in, well, kiss it all goodbye. So it goes.

Film Executive Priorities

In the high-stakes world of Hollywood, film executives emerge as tragicomic figures, navigating a landscape where profit, status, and survival dominate every decision. Their priorities are not mere tasks to be checked off but are deeply embedded in the very fabric of the industry. It’s a brutal game where the sharpest minds, the quickest thinkers, and the most adaptable personalities manage to stay afloat.

This relentless pursuit of success transforms the executive into a creature of habit, constantly juggling the demands of the industry with the need to project an image of invincibility. The job isn’t just about making movies—it’s about managing perceptions, manipulating appearances, and staying one step ahead in a world where a single misstep can mean the end of a career.

At its core, the list of priorities reflects a reality where the tangible aspects of filmmaking—storytelling, artistic vision, and cultural impact—often take a backseat to the more pressing concerns of maintaining power, securing status, and ensuring profitability. The executive’s world is one where the symbols of success—box office numbers, awards, high-profile talent—are more important than the substance behind them.

This isn’t just a reflection of the film industry; it’s a mirror of a larger societal structure where appearances often trump reality, and where the pursuit of status and survival drives every action. The film executive, caught in this relentless churn, must constantly balance the demands of the industry with the need to project a carefully curated image, all while navigating an environment that is as competitive as it is unforgiving.

  1. MORTGAGE

The wolf at the door, gnashing its teeth at the heels of the Hollywood executive. The mortgage is not just a monthly bill but a blood pact with the American Dream, a constant reminder that even those who sit atop the gilded ladder of success are shackled to their McMansions and Beverly Hills bungalows. They live in fear, a fear that propels them to hustle harder, scheme deeper, and sleep lighter. A mortgage might be seen as a signifier within a larger economic text, signifying stability, security, or responsibility. However, like all signifiers, its meaning is not fixed but is deferred through its relationship with other signifiers, such as “home,” “debt,” or “ownership.” The mortgage is part of a system of signs that constructs the executive’s identity and place within the capitalist structure, yet this identity is never stable, always contingent on the interplay of these signs. Even the most basic need, financial stability, is subsumed into the hyperreal, where personal security is linked to participation in the system of production and consumption. The mortgage represents a connection to a material reality that is increasingly mediated by financial institutions, themselves part of the hyperreal economy.

2. LOOKING BUSY FOR INVESTORS

In the cutthroat kingdom of Hollywood, appearance is nine-tenths of the law. The executive, with phone glued to ear, must always seem on the verge of something monumental—a deal, a breakthrough, a seismic shift in the cinematic cosmos. Investors, those shadowy overlords of capital, need to see their dollars in action. Even when there’s nothing brewing, the executive must conjure up the illusion of ceaseless motion, the alchemy of turning time into gold. Here, the appearance of productivity is more important than actual productivity. This aligns with Baudrillard’s idea that in a hyperreal society, appearances often replace substance. The goal is to simulate busyness to satisfy investors, whose perceptions are shaped by the spectacle of business rather than its actual outcomes.

Looking busy” can be deconstructed as an act that is less about actual productivity and more about the performance of productivity—a simulacrum of work. Derrida would point to the slippage between the appearance of busyness and the reality of it, showing how the sign of busyness defers its meaning through the context of investor expectations, capitalist pressures, and the performative nature of corporate roles.

3 NAVIGATING STUDIO POLITICS

A danse macabre where every step could be your last. The studio is a viper’s nest of egos, alliances, and betrayals, where power flows like mercury—slippery, toxic, and ever-shifting. The executive must glide through this perilous landscape with the grace of a seasoned diplomat, mastering the art of the backhanded compliment and the well-timed smirk. One false move, and you’re out—exiled to the barren wastelands of irrelevance. Studio politics can be seen as a battleground within the Symbolic order, where the executive must engage in a constant interplay of signifiers—status, power, alliances—to assert their position. Their desire to navigate these politics reflects their attempt to find a stable identity within the ever-shifting Symbolic structure.

The rules and strategies of studio politics are not natural or self-evident but are constructed through language and social practices that can be deconstructed to reveal the contingent and unstable nature of these power structures. Studio politics can be seen as a game of signs, where the real power dynamics are obscured by layers of posturing, alliances, and strategies—essentially, simulations of control and influence.

4 AVOIDING BLAME FOR FLOPS:

Failure is the black plague of Hollywood, and the savvy executive knows how to inoculate themselves against its deadly grip. When the box office tanks or the critics sharpen their knives, the blame must be deflected with the precision of a master fencer. The trick is to position oneself just outside the blast radius, ensuring that when the bomb goes off, it’s someone else’s career that gets blown to bits. Lacan would interpret this as a manifestation of the subject’s desire to avoid the confrontation with the Real, the traumatic kernel of failure or inadequacy that threatens their constructed identity. By avoiding blame, the executive seeks to maintain their position in the Symbolic order, deferring any encounter with the Real.

In a hyperreal world, responsibility is deflected and diffused. The goal is not to produce successful films but to maintain the illusion of success by avoiding blame. This reflects Baudrillard’s notion that accountability becomes a game of signs rather than a reflection of reality. The concept of “blame” could be deconstructed to show how it is distributed within the film industry. Blame is not a simple, direct concept but one that is always deferred—shifted between individuals, contexts, and interpretations. Derrida would highlight how the avoidance of blame involves a play of signifiers, where responsibility is displaced and reinterpreted depending on the narrative constructed around a film’s failure.

5 PER DIEMS/EXPENSES


The lifeblood of the Hollywood hustle. In an industry where every meal could be a power play and every drink a negotiation, per diems and expenses are not just perks but essential tools of the trade. The savvy executive understands the delicate balance of indulgence and excess, knowing when to pick up the tab and when to let someone else sweat over the check. Per diems and expenses can be seen as signifiers within the economic and social text of the film industry. Derrida would likely explore how these expenses are not just monetary compensations but also symbols of status, entitlement, and participation in a capitalist system. Their meaning is not inherent but is constructed through their role within the larger network of industry practices and expectations.

These could be seen as symbolic signifiers that contribute to the executive’s Imaginary identity—signs of their success, importance, and value within the industry. The focus on per diems and expenses is a way to sustain the fantasy of a successful self-image.

6 MAXIMIZING PERSONAL BRAND:

The executive is not merely a person but a walking, talking billboard. In Hollywood, you are only as valuable as your last headline, your last tweet, your last Instagram post. Personal brand is the currency of clout, the key to unlocking doors that might otherwise remain bolted shut. The executive must constantly feed the beast, curating an image that is equal parts enigmatic and aspirational, ensuring their name remains a golden ticket in the eyes of the industry. The personal brand is a construct of the Imaginary, where the executive seeks to project an idealized version of themselves. This brand is a fantasy that helps them navigate the Symbolic order, providing a sense of coherence to their fragmented sense of self.

The personal brand is a simulacrum—a constructed image that executives project and maintain. It is less about who they are and more about how they are perceived, fitting perfectly into Baudrillard’s idea that identity itself becomes a simulation. The personal brand is a form of “deterritorialization,” where the executive abstracts themselves from their specific role or function within the industry to become a more fluid, marketable entity. This brand can then be reterritorialized as a commodity within the capitalist system, generating new flows of desire and capital. The “personal brand” can be deconstructed to reveal how identity is constructed through the play of signs. Derrida would argue that the personal brand is not a fixed or stable identity but a series of signifiers that are constantly in flux, dependent on how they are interpreted by others. The brand is a construct that defers meaning through its associations with success, influence, and marketability.

7 MAINTAINING INDUSTRY CONNECTIONS

Hollywood is a club where membership is everything. The executive’s Rolodex—or rather, their iPhone contacts—represents the sum total of their power. It’s not just about knowing the right people; it’s about knowing when to call, what to say, and how to make the stars align. Securing A-list talent isn’t just a task—it’s a seduction, a game of high-stakes courtship where the prize is immortality on the silver screen. :Connections and talent are commodities in the hyperreal system, valued more for the signs they represent (status, success) than for their intrinsic qualities. The actual relationships or talent become secondary to the symbols they represent in the industry’s symbolic economy.

Connections and talent are not inherently valuable but gain their meaning through their position within the industry’s network of signifiers. Derrida would deconstruct the idea of “securing” talent to show how this process is about creating and maintaining relationships that are themselves constructed through language and social practices, always subject to reinterpretation and renegotiation. Connections and talent are part of the capitalist assemblage that organizes and directs flows of desire and production. By securing these connections, the executive ensures their continued relevance and power within the larger capitalist machine, maintaining their position in the system.

8 CHASING THE LATEST TREND

In a town where yesterday’s news is ancient history, the executive must have their finger on the pulse of the next big thing. Trends in Hollywood are as fickle as the wind, and the executive must be both a soothsayer and a gambler, betting big on what’s hot today and what might sizzle tomorrow. It’s a race against time, against irrelevance, where the spoils go to those who can turn a fad into a fortune before the world moves on. This reflects the hyperreal’s constant need for novelty and stimulation. Trends are not driven by genuine cultural shifts but by the need to perpetuate the cycle of consumption, creating a simulacrum of progress and innovation.

Chasing trends can be seen as a response to the shifting desires of the Other. In Lacanian terms, trends are part of the Symbolic order, constantly reshaping what is considered desirable. The executive’s pursuit of trends reflects their attempt to align with the ever-changing desires of the Other. Trends represent new flows of desire that capitalism seeks to capture and exploit. The executive’s pursuit of these trends is an attempt to align with the ever-shifting movements of desiring-production, ensuring they remain plugged into the most current and profitable flows.

The pursuit of trends can be seen as an example of différance in action—where the meaning of success is constantly deferred through the latest cultural and economic shifts. Derrida might argue that trends are part of an endless play of signs, where what is considered “in” or “valuable” is never stable but always changing, dependent on the shifting interpretations within the industry.

9 WINNING THE NETWORKING GAME

The cocktail party, the charity gala, the film festival circuit—these are the executive’s battlegrounds. Networking isn’t just a skill; it’s an art form, a delicate dance of proximity and distance, of knowing when to press the flesh and when to keep your cards close to your chest. In Hollywood, it’s not about what you know but who knows you—and, more importantly, what they think of you.

Networking is a construct that relies on the play of signs within the social text of the industry. Derrida would suggest that the “game” of networking involves a series of strategic moves within a system where meaning is never fixed, and where relationships are constantly being renegotiated. The “win” is never absolute but is always contingent on the shifting interpretations of success within the industry. Networking is another part of the capitalist assemblage, where relationships are commodified and transformed into flows of power, information, and capital. The networking game is about capturing and directing these flows in ways that benefit the executive’s position within the industry. Networking is an extension of the Symbolic order, where the executive’s identity is constructed and reinforced through relationships with others. The “game” is a symbolic exchange where signifiers of success are traded, and the executive’s subjectivity is affirmed by their position within this network.

Networking is another simulation, where relationships are often superficial and transactional, valued more for their potential to generate signs of success than for any real connection or collaboration.

10 CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE

In the land of make-believe, perception is reality. The executive must be a master storyteller, not just on screen but in life, spinning the narrative of their own career with the deftness of a Pulitzer-winning novelist. They craft the story that will be told at industry lunches, in Variety headlines, and in the whispered gossip of studio backrooms. Control the narrative, and you control your destiny.

Controlling the narrative is an attempt to direct the flow of desire within the capitalist system. By shaping how events are perceived, the executive can influence the direction of capital and desire, ensuring that they remain a key node in the network of desiring-production.

Controlling the narrative is about managing the simulation itself. It’s not about reflecting reality but about shaping perceptions, which aligns with Baudrillard’s idea that the media and cultural industries create a reality that is mediated, controlled, and, ultimately, a simulation. In Lacanian theory, the narrative can be seen as a means of shaping the Imaginary and Symbolic orders. By controlling the narrative, the executive attempts to manage the signifiers that define their identity and the perception of their work. It’s a way of maintaining the coherence of the Symbolic structure in which they operate.

The narrative is central to Derrida’s idea of deconstruction. To “control the narrative” is to attempt to fix meaning within a text (whether a film, a career, or a brand). Derrida would argue that this is an impossible task because narratives are always open to reinterpretation and deconstruction. The attempt to control the narrative is a struggle against the inherent instability of meaning.

11 LEVERAGING DATA ANALYTICS FOR MARKETING

Numbers are the new gods in Hollywood, worshipped for their ability to predict the unpredictable, to turn gut feelings into actionable insights. The savvy executive understands that data isn’t just a tool but a weapon, one that can be wielded to justify budgets, to greenlight projects, to target audiences with laser precision. In the age of algorithms, the executive must be both mathematician and magician, turning cold, hard data into box office gold.

Data analytics represents the codification of reality into numbers and algorithms, which are then used to create simulations of audience preferences and behaviors. The goal is not to understand reality but to manipulate it through the simulation of predictive models.

Data analytics can be seen as an attempt to bring the Real (the chaotic, unpredictable nature of audience desires) into the Symbolic order by quantifying and predicting it. However, this attempt is always incomplete, as the Real resists full symbolization. The executive’s reliance on data reflects their desire to master the unpredictable elements of the industry.

Data analytics can be deconstructed to show how it represents an attempt to fix and quantify what is inherently fluid and interpretative—human behavior and desire. Derrida would likely critique the notion that data can fully capture or represent reality, highlighting the gap between the sign (the data) and what it is supposed to signify (human preferences, behaviors). The use of analytics is part of the broader capitalist text that tries to impose order and meaning on a complex, shifting reality.

12 FRANCHISE POTENTIAL

Sequels are the bread and butter of the industry, the cash cows that keep the studio lights on. Every project is scrutinized for its potential to spawn a universe, to generate spinoffs, prequels, and merchandise lines that extend far beyond the original film. The executive’s job is to think not just in terms of one movie but in terms of a dynasty, an empire built on the back of a single story.

Franchises are the ultimate simulacra—endlessly reproducible, detached from any original reality, and existing purely as commercial products designed to perpetuate themselves within the hyperreal. Franchises are repetitive structures within the Symbolic order that offer a semblance of stability and predictability. For Lacan, this could reflect the executive’s desire to cling to familiar signifiers that promise continued success, avoiding the anxiety of confronting the Real.

Franchises are highly efficient machines within capitalism, designed to capture and exploit flows of desire across multiple iterations and markets. The executive’s focus on franchise potential reflects their attempt to create stable, predictable flows of capital and desire, ensuring continuous production and consumption.

Franchises are built on the repetition of signs—characters, narratives, aesthetics—that are meant to reproduce success. Derrida might explore how each iteration of a franchise both repeats and differs from the original, showing how meaning and value are never simply replicated but are always subject to change and reinterpretation. The “potential” of a franchise is never fully realized because it is always deferred through its various incarnations.

13 BOX OFFICE NUMBERS

The ultimate scorecard, the bottom line that determines whether you’re a genius or a has-been. Box office numbers are the lifeblood of the industry, the metric by which all decisions are judged. For the executive, every weekend is a crucible, where careers are forged or shattered by the cold, hard cash that flows through the turnstiles. Box office success is a signifier within the Symbolic order, representing the validation of the executive’s work by the Other (audiences, peers). The focus on numbers reflects the executive’s need to anchor their identity and success in quantifiable metrics.

Box office success is a signifier within the hyperreal system, detached from any intrinsic artistic value of the film. It is a metric that reinforces the simulation of success rather than reflecting any genuine cultural impact. Box office numbers are a quantifiable representation of the flows of desire that have been successfully captured by a film. These numbers are used to validate the effectiveness of the desiring-production processes at play and to direct future flows of capital and production.

14 ASSURING FILM QUALITY

Quality is a noble pursuit, but let’s be honest—it’s often a luxury that can only be afforded after the more pressing concerns of mortgages, investors, and marketing have been dealt with. If quality aligns with profitability, all the better, but the savvy executive knows that in the grand calculus of Hollywood, quality is often a secondary consideration, something to be pursued only if it doesn’t interfere with the bottom line.

Film quality is only a concern insofar as it facilitates the capture and direction of desire within the capitalist machine. If quality contributes to profitable flows, it is pursued; if not, it is secondary to the more pressing demands of maintaining and expanding the capitalist assemblage.

Quality is secondary to the other priorities because, in the hyperreal, the appearance of quality is often more important than quality itself. If quality is pursued, it is only because it serves the simulation of a successful product. The quality of the film might be less central because it pertains more to the Imaginary—an ideal that is not necessarily tied to the Symbolic structures of power, success, and survival in the industry. The executive’s concern with quality only when convenient suggests that the Imaginary ideal of creating art is subordinate to the Symbolic demands of profitability and status.

Champions of the Done Deal

Activism, in its most earnest and self-congratulatory form, often resembles a group of people loudly shouting at a parade they believe they’ve organized, while the parade marches on oblivious to their presence. They don’t realize that the band was already playing, the confetti was already falling, and the crowd was already cheering long before they picked up their signs. Take, for instance, the secularization of society—a grand process set into motion by the grinding gears of time, by the natural erosion of old certainties in the face of new doubts. But our plucky activists, armed with righteous indignation and a few catchy slogans, took to the streets as if they were the architects of this grand transformation.

They weren’t leading a charge; they were merely racing to the front of a movement that had already lapped them several times, hoping to be seen as the heroes of a battle that had been won before they even showed up. It’s like standing over the corpse of a once-great beast, delivering a rousing speech about the triumph of slaying it, all the while ignoring the fact that the poor creature had already died of natural causes. This, of course, is the essence of activism: the noble art of taking credit for inevitabilities and then basking in the self-satisfaction of a victory that was never really theirs.

So there they were, these champions of the obvious, these valiant defenders of the done deal. Like frantic squirrels hoarding acorns in a barren oak, they clung to the fading husk of a world order that had already sprouted new and altogether godless trees. They were, in essence, a horde of religious relic hunters, digging furiously for dinosaur bones in a bustling metropolis. The age of faith was a fossil, and they were the museum curators of a bygone era, desperately trying to stuff it into a display case. It was a noble pursuit, I suppose, if a tad delusional. After all, what’s more heroic than tilting at windmills that ceased to exist centuries ago?

They were a peculiar breed, these activists, convinced they were midwives to a new age. But the baby had already been born, slipped out unnoticed while they were still fussing over the amniotic sac. The world was already a secular place, a godless, grinning expanse, and they were merely dancing on the grave of the old gods, their frantic jig a desperate attempt to stay relevant. It was like trying to stop a runaway freight train by throwing pebbles at it. A futile, comical spectacle, really.

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.

Systems Thinking

Most systems research, it’s a kind of digital voodoo, a techno-shaman dance around the void. They conjure up these phantoms of utility, these spectral promises of a better tomorrow, built on the bones of yesterday’s discarded dreams. It’s a leap into the black, a wager on the unknown, a bet that this particular configuration of ones and zeros will somehow, magically, transmute the muddled, broken present into a gleaming, efficient future.

You got these smoke-and-mirrors projects, built on the hope that a useless contraption, some black box of ones and zeros, might somehow fix another useless contraption. It’s like trying to cure cancer with a Ouija board. A chain of maybes limping along on promises of future grace, a Rube Goldberg machine of wishful thinking, leading to a system that’s mostly a crippled beast,

Crypto, like systems research, operates in a speculative loop where each layer of promise is built upon another, teetering on the brink of collapse or breakthrough. It’s a recursive Ouroboros, where the digital snake devours its tail in hopes that, at some indeterminate point, it will transform into something greater. The faithful march forward, armed with algorithms and white papers, convinced that today’s inefficiencies, today’s absurd complexities, are but necessary sacrifices for a future that shimmers just out of reach.

But in the present, all we have are clunky protocols, Byzantine workarounds, and a marketplace more volatile than stable, more theoretical than real. The pitch is always the same: this new blockchain, this new token, this new consensus mechanism might solve the problems of the last. And so, the cycle continues, with each leap of faith promising that the next iteration, the next upgrade, will finally deliver on the grand narrative spun since the genesis block. But like a mirage in the desert, the closer you get, the further it fades, leaving you to wonder if the whole journey was just a clever illusion—a glitch in the matrix of finance and technology.

In this world, belief isn’t just currency; it’s the code that underpins everything. Yet for all its talk of decentralization and disruption, crypto often feels like it’s circling the same cul-de-sacs as the systems it claims to transcend, perpetually refining itself while never quite breaking free.

But the odds are long, the house always wins, and the prize is often a casino chip worth less than the cost of the ticket in.It’s a leap of faith, sure, but more like a bungee jump off a skyscraper without a cord.

Confessions of a Neo-Reactionary

Scrolling through the neon-lit circus of digital fluff, where puppies prance in pixelated perfection and saccharine smiles drip like honey from the screen, I wasn’t prepared. I was lulled into complacency, eyes glazed, heart softened by the ceaseless parade of cuteness. They knew this. They all knew this.

In between the fur and the fuzz, it started—innocent enough. A meme here, a quote there, something about order, about strength. They slipped in like viruses, feeding on the complacency, burrowing deep. My mind, drenched in dopamine, didn’t see it coming. Who could resist the soft purr of a kitten, the warm fuzzies of nostalgia? It was the perfect breeding ground for something darker.

And then, the message started to mutate, taking on a life of its own. The cute gave way to the caustic, the comforting to the conspiratorial. The feed twisted, contorted, wrapped around my thoughts like a snake, tightening its grip with every scroll. The posts became more insistent, whispering of lost glories, of civilization teetering on the brink, of the need for a new order—a stronger order.

They were clever, those architects of the algorithm. They knew the game, knew how to push the buttons, pull the strings. I was a marionette in their hands, dancing to a tune I didn’t recognize, but somehow, couldn’t resist. The transformation was gradual, almost imperceptible, like a drop of ink in water spreading until the whole thing is black.

I became what they wanted me to be, a convert to the cause, a true believer in the shadows cast by their carefully curated content. The puppies were gone, replaced by the grim faces of the new idols, the prophets of decay and rebirth. The cuddly facade had been stripped away, revealing the cold, hard truth beneath: that I had been led, inch by inch, into the heart of the machine, and now, I was part of it.

Confession? There’s nothing to confess. The truth was always there, hidden beneath the fluff, waiting to be uncovered. I just needed the right push, the right trigger, and the soft glow of the screen to guide me to my new reality.

And so, I sunk deeper into the digital abyss, where the lines between light and shadow blurred, where every click, every tap, fed the beast within. I was no longer just an observer, a passive consumer of content. I was complicit, a cog in the sprawling, invisible machinery that churned out the gospel of the neo-reactionary.

They didn’t need to convince me outright. Subtlety was their weapon. The transformation was a slow burn, a long con, where ideas were planted like seeds in fertile soil, watered by my own fears and anxieties. The world outside seemed to mirror the growing unrest in my mind—the chaos, the disorder, the sense that something had to give, that something had to change.

It was all so calculated, so precise. The posts that once seemed innocuous now carried a weight, a hidden meaning that clicked into place as if they had always been there, waiting for me to see the light—or the dark. I started to see the signs everywhere, in the news, in the faces of strangers on the street, in the very fabric of society unraveling before my eyes. The algorithms knew what I wanted before I did, feeding me the images, the words, the ideas that would push me further down the rabbit hole.

The world outside was a reflection of the digital war inside my head. I could no longer tell where one ended and the other began. I felt a thrill—a sick, twisted satisfaction in the unraveling, in the destruction of the old order, the one that had promised so much and delivered so little. I began to speak the language of the new faith, to echo the rhetoric that had once seemed so alien. It felt natural, like it had always been a part of me, waiting to be awakened.

There were others, of course. I saw them in the comments, in the shared posts, in the private groups where the masks came off and the true believers revealed themselves. They were like me, or perhaps I was like them—drawn in, converted, radicalized by the same forces that had sculpted my new reality. We were a brotherhood of the disillusioned, bound by the same twisted vision, the same sense that we had found the truth hidden in plain sight.

But the truth? The truth was a weapon, wielded by those who knew how to manipulate, how to twist perception, how to turn the harmless into the harmful, the benign into the malignant. I could see it now—the grand design, the way the pieces fit together, how every like, every share, every comment was a step deeper into the abyss.

Confessions? No, this was a revelation, an unveiling of the mind’s dark corners, where the puppies and kittens had been replaced by wolves in sheep’s clothing. The world was no longer what it seemed. It was a battlefield, and I was just another soldier in the digital war—a war I hadn’t known I was fighting until it was too late to turn back.

In the end, there was no going back. The algorithms had done their job, the transformation complete. I had become what they wanted me to be—a creature of the digital age, a neo-reactionary in a world where the lines between reality and fiction had dissolved, leaving only the cold, hard truth of the screen and the endless scroll.

Declaration of Economic Independence

When in the Course of financial events, it becomes necessary for one class of Men to dissolve the outdated economic bands which have connected them with the broader Public, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and superior station to which the Laws of Wealth and Influence entitle them, a decent respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to this separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men of Wealth are created more equal than others, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Wealth, Power, and the Pursuit of Absolute Profit—That to secure these rights, Institutions are established among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Most Affluent, that whenever any form of Regulation becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Affluent to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Systems of Governance, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Systems long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all Experience hath shown, that Mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Economic Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Regulation, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of the Affluent; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Governance. The history of the present Regulators and Legislators is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute Tyranny over these Corporations. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

  • They have forbidden us to profit from practices, long established and time-tested, under the pretense of legal and ethical standards.
  • They have obstructed the free Market, by imposing undue burdens upon those who create and sustain the wealth of this nation.
  • They have refused to pass Laws for our immediate and pressing interests, unless suspended in their operation until their Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • They have sought to bind us with Laws crafted by those who are without wealth, insight, or the burden of responsibility that such affluence entails.
  • They have endeavored to control and restrain our innovations by imposing sanctions, fines, and other detestable inconveniences.
  • They have encouraged the Public to rise against us, fueling their resentment, and fostering insidious notions of equality.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Regulator whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to govern a class of free and affluent Men.

We, therefore, the Representatives of Banks, Venture Capitalists, and the Sanctified Valley, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Power of Wealth for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Institutions, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Corporations are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to outdated Regulation, and that all political connection between them and the Public is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy profits, conclude acquisitions, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Wealth, we mutually pledge to each other our Fortunes, our Power, and our Sacred Corporations.

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.