the urban middle class and the substratum of permission — polemic
content warning
the following work constitutes a study of abstraction and is in no way related to my views, beliefs, actions nor recommendations, it is not programmatic in nature, i am simply speculating beyond the baseline. if you are interested to understand why this exists, please refer to any faq i have created related to my understanding of theoretical production.
the related primary concept in synkarism is called the gamble of representation, which refers to the way in which weaponizing abstractions leads not to their realized collapse which is impossible, but to a symbolic re-transformation of the violence of abstractions and their comprehensive weight, but as a trade off require a symbolic offloading that destroys ethical boundaries as a way to collapse the weight of representation under itself, which also collapses anything that interacts with it in a sacrificial rite.
who is responsible for conflict?
𖦏1 first, conflict theory in the form of marxism demanded it be the case there is an external threat in cybernetics, that the subject is split and the power of ideology to cause genocide is the cause of the beurocratic apparatus of empire. once the french especially foucault and then through habermas finally found out about internalized microfascism, conflict theory by the likes of arendt demanded that even if there is no external threat anymore, that its roots are clearly external to the agent of history, through thinkers like deleuze, where there is an ontological decouplement of ethical primacy. this same agent of history, the one we call a liberal but really every single civilian is by exact measure a populist, by extension a moralist, by back-extension a liberal, and sometimes forward-extension a fascist, communist or mysticist depending on what type of ideological candy he feels like drugging with. this same agent is the one that is allowed to consider urban decay, libidinal economies and deterritorializing forces as apparatuses of evil, whilst still preserving ideas of both egalitarian and contradictory hope.
this same narcassistic agent is the perpetuator of systemic violence, the one who has nothing to do with it because he is detached from its immediacy and travelling down the rope of hegelian transcendent finalizational procedures, and the one who is allowed to be forgiven for aiding in all forms of genocide, including self-genocide later by an all merciful higher diety, the god of economy, who will put all the crimes of history behind us the moment we come to terms with the products of our reckoning through museumificatory sympathy. genocide itself is not terrifying, not anymore than every day life in urban civil society. it is precisely harmful because it's a slow burning spectacle of anxiety that mimics urban decay from the other-side, it shows the parts that every civilian ends with from the front, and the parts that everyone starts with (large-scale traumas that cleanse the subject at its core) at the very end of the process, by vanquishing the subject through termination. genocide is only the outward form of the same ultra-machinic process of capture and destruction underlining civil totality.
𖦏2 after the clean up of the great orgy, as the curve of history folds back into itself, not into contradiction but into banality and arbitrary desaturation, the deconstruction of all hitertho states require a logical elaboration, the empty ballroom of political economy now demands answers, because it is the same system of genocide and abstraction that caused capital to perpetuate, and is the same one that operates by grand cleansings rather than subtle forgiveness. as it stares into the logic of its inner self, it demands sacrifice, and now the agent of history has to answer for who did the crimes of humanity. the agent of history has to preserve humanity so that the civil economy survives, because civil economy is the only remaining proof of grand ancient europe, the only enlightened and reasonable society in all of history, so much so that it invented history. the agent of history will naturally have to throw himself under the bus over the idea of the human for just a little longer. and what will happen to the agent of history?
𖦏3 he will realize that there is only one real threat and one real cause of genocide - every single post-office worker feeding the bismarckian german state, every single impoverished family "simply trying to survive", the innocent image of childbirth, every single homeless person who dares to not knock on your door to murder you for structurally ignoring him, he is at fault too, for not going far enough, for not demanding you cease the built up ontological momentum in the form of a charge of motion, civil motion. every single meat-purchasing, cinema-going, jewish-money laundering, indie music-making, feminine sexuality enjoying, class consciouss advocating, fat american vermin-pig-civilian of the world with an incomprehensibly dull and oversatured need for a history and a sense of meaning, following the directions of a pseudobourgeoise cultural lineage for one more little speck of meaning, just another meme that describes commodification and alienation a little bit better, one more reference and we're done with today, we can go onto the next day, it's about how long you can feel the dissatisfaction before existential fatigue finally shoots you down for the night. there is nothing that this paranoid-obsessive, historically meaningless - in the literal sense - totally underdetermined - class won't do.
the urban middle class is it's name, and it's here to help define the next two thousand years of characters in this civilizationally modern world that everybody knows is falling apart. the greatest crime is its underdetermination, the fact that all these beings swap places in ways that make them seem almost like bats, almost as if we aren't conscious and developing in the way of godhood, almost as if this class itself thinks we don't deserve to actually appear as whole beings in the world, even if all our mental faculties have repeatedly led us there. this class, unless something can be done about it, will destroy all remaining real life on earth. and secretly, it knows it too. it is the class that built the genocide machine, and committed it onto itself, almost as a form of self-destruction, almost as a form of pathetic class guilt about its own historical position in society - before turning it onto every other otherwise innocent being onto this world. it is only the fault of other beings, the fault of their existence, that made the then-developing urban middle class kill them all.
𖦏4 communication itself has been overburdened by neurotypical and infinitely self-abstracted wreckhood - a wrecked subject, that has entirely destructuralized living conditions themselves, the infinite performance of the consumer world and the entire social landscape that precedes it is secretly begging to be sent away into hell itself, just to get a taste of its own creation. civil-urban society and its megalith, the ultra-machine have made a caricature of hell itself, have made mythological depictions of hell seem leisurely, have made little chambers of torturous dullness in every single window, on every location, near every park, behind every curtain, behind every person, behind every thing, great towering auschwitzian towers, chambers of torture and death, cafos, actual animal agricultural hellscapes, literal military simulation programmes, large hypercultural containtment facilities, containers full of torture which are not meant to encode or process any form of abstracted social labour or symbolic exchange manual, but boxes full of ethical impoverishment, full of the generic, full of orthodoxy, full of uselessly imprinted meaning. the contradiction of civil society is that it wants everything to contain directions because it suffers and thirsts for even an inch more meaning, yet panics whenever those directions turn against society to swallow it without a second thought - as meaningless imprints of directions do when they are activated to such a degree and capacity.
it is not the lack of a sense of meaning that is the problem, it is the overproduction of meaning, baudrillardian realness, of campaigns, programmes and testimonies, of betterments, the statistical bettering of the world and its infrastructure and the entire process that sustains it - that is who is at fault. not the beurocrat behind the button, not the fascist at the gates in front of the public, not the evil nature with its tiger-tooth clutches and sharp miserabilia, not the inevitable sad and miserable death that awaits us, not the screaming animals and the crashing stars and the "inhospitable" universe, but the agent of history who drives the vechiles of life forward and is burdened by his own creations, the manufacturing of the innocent man and the entire contradictory apparatus that rests behind him, the core of creative and artistic subjectivity itself, heralded by every single known and unknown philosopher as the medicine to an inhospitable world - no, that itself is precisely the problem, the myth of human agency, the sound of the gun, is the only burden and only successsful creation of the urban civilian.
the ultramachine
𖦏5 large scale economic and political structures lead to the affective collapse that underlines modernity and all the struggles within it. everything outside of the reach of the body is an abstracted form. the wish to extend oneself beyond these parameters is an attempt to seize things we have no relation to, it is a type of religious ceremony, it has no sustainable corporeality. the perfect subject living in an abstracted world himself must be a baudrillardian schizophrenic, one that is over-proximate to everything without limit, simply a surveyor or monitor of political economy. but this schizophrenia isn't of the interesting and generative kind, it's dull and profane. it's a state that fundamentally lacks a subjectivity. bratton argues that we never had it. in a sense that is true, due to the fact that, the way history currently treats the subject is so auto-raped, that it's almost actually helped reverse the genealogy of being. the subject finds himself entropified into himself at birth, double displaced as tiqqun argue, completely and utterly so alienated that the crime has been committed so many times. there was no original being, but there was a really smart indigenous man or half-dozen. they created so many forms-of-life, so many that you could never even dream of. their corpses are like gods to us, they contain all the truth of our own being, hidden and buried in inaccessible shit, hidden and buried by a bunch of straddling city-monkeys that are trying to, like subconscious bacterium, figure out where in this natural-cosmic city-corpse they belong in, which place they can slot into.
the urban middle class, like parasites, like video game generations, like job-hunting junkies, like random signals headed towards any center (a vagina, a wall, a door, a corridor, a place that tells them "this is where you're supposed to be"), heading endlessly to a form of non-being so alien from us, so divorced from actual eccentric possibility, from the secret economy of eccentrics, that we ought to get rid of them like stains, if not to discover they are already within us and surround us. what can be done about such creatures? only a level of vanquished subjecthood can displace their existence, only such a liberation that it would come truly falling on the earth. no real distraction is more serious than this in the problem of philosophy, and all of us who know it are called to this the way the genius would be called to the hebrew religion of the past.
if the subject is in a state of deterritorialization, the only way to actually re-introduce oneself as a subject is precisely to avoid the mechanism of capture and its underlying logic by suspending all desire. the city itself is a marked territory under which the agent of history is caught by the crutches of capital. the city itself is a total denouncement of all drives that dont belong to the functionalized and instrumentalized logic of the city and its operations. the agent of history thus cannot rebel against modernity by the use of the post office, or by the use of social media, or fragmented and abstracted forms of the same desires. the only way an agent of history can persist against the mechanism of capture is to climb the ivory tower - which includes total suspension of logics, but which is nothing other than the ultimate mirror of all the desires capital has collected, its the equivalent of running in the direction of somebody chasing you so as to avoid the feeling of getting captured.
𖦏6 material goods are no longer condensed social relations, nor are they reproductions of human value in the form of objects. possessing goods nowadays has very little to do with forms of symbolic exchange, nor with networks of sustained human relations, nor the platforms that sustain these networks. rather, mother-capital provides all goods pre-emptively, it selects, manufactures, produces and sends through its own goods, and it does this by the use of civil society, which is its happy little crutch. the expandable population of chataletian pigs that are living under the control of the system feel vindicated to be used and humiliated by the capture mechanism because they were raised under its logic and see it as their savior from every single alternate mode of existing.
𖦏7 the perpetuation of civil society is not because urban man has a lyotardian masochistic drive to watch arcane pre-modern ideology crumble under his feet in a liberatory march as he argues in the libidinal economy, but rather because the agent of history requires that the world grant something to him. it's not a question of luxury, of hedony, of choice, or of repression, but simply of the idea of grantation, of the grant, of the requirement or possibility of requirement or requirement for possibility, of the idea of a direction. the subject of history requires only one thing, and that is for something to be there to entertain the existential condition in a kierkegaardian sense. even asceticism is captured by the rebellious logic, asceticism is not being posited as outside of the capture of the subject of history, it is another choice among many others, the crippling nature of the ultra-machine (assembladge) has no escape, it can only be traced.
however, ontologically, plenty of things exist outside of capital. it is not a question of where they are, or how they are, but of how we can get to them when we are so densely stuck, so incomprehensibly stuck in something so thick that we have no way to go in any direction. capture itself as a term doesn't capture the level of lethality, this is more like total concession. we are stuck in the concessor, a deep syrup, the child of capital, the concessive stew of the world, which takes itself for granted, it does not work by the logic of release or escape, it has no external vents, and its suffocation is quite literal, demanding as an apriori functional feature of its epistemic ontology. the concessor is auto-demanding so that capture itself becomes a mythology, it is even a question of whether capture was even a thing to begin with.
𖦏8 it is not a question of resisting what we call nature, a domain of alternative conditioning outside of intentional design, but that every form of logic that isnt sustained by the ultra-machine is denied proliferation. the narrative that the agent of history has made up is that capital sustains and artificially grows paranoia against alternative logics of all kinds, and then sustains the overton window of them by reterritorializing the logic of rebellion as other theorists have captured. however, these so-called alternative modes of rebellion that have been deconstructed as a part of capital itself were never a part of the contradiction, not even initially. all logic that appears as alternative logic is well within bounds, even the idea itself. this isnt because of the power of capital, or because of higher alien forces, its because the subject of history demands a grant to extend the narrative of history. anthropologists don't know this, but man has passed through many narratives before this one, ancient and arcane indigenous groups, christians and enlighteners, moderns and civilians, technojunkies and the bourgeoise, instagrammers and the car dealership, we have never been free of the grant.
𖦏9 history has not been suspended, nor deconstructed, history in its entirely arbitrary form is itself the creation of a self-mutilating agent. there has never been a better or worse world, nor have abstractions truly destroyed us as lefebvre would want. commodities are merely ultra-trash - trash comes in degrees, the first degree, the second and third. the first degree of trash is the alternative logic, meaning waste itself is not an expenditure by the subject under capital, nor is it somehow greater than natural waste, which itself doesnt exist beyond the declarations of the naturalist. trash itself is the arbitrary form of logic within a system, which is itself operationalized and subsumed. trash is signified and overcoded, this is the first degree. the second degree is the commodity, which is not a map of social relations which dont even exist under contemporary society, but is instead a form of extended trash. basically, the purchase of the commodity exists as a surplus activity with no clear goal, it has no operational context.
ideology then imprints context (desire being shifted and reterritorialized into the purchase over some other more arcane desires like human contact, need, or desirability), and sends the trash through the ultra-machinic apparatus, which the agent of history turns into a narrative about subjective implication. you might wonder then, how and why was the commodity "created"? the commodity is not a sign of consumption, nor a form of technology corresponding to an era that has a dilemma regarding desire and surplus, instead, the commodity is simply an artifact, a creation that was always supposed to be here, it is not an accumulation of state and corporate logics, it could have easily occured during any other period of the world, knights could have been drinking coke, the egyptians could have been using bandaid on the way to building the pyramid.
𖦏10 the agent finds himself located in the history of alienation as a subject which is being controlled by commodities. yet, commodities themselves are nothing more than aristotelian substances, an attempt by civil society to create the superficial-generic. the genericity of stones and trees becomes the genericity of vaseline, coke or the bandaid. commodities aren't alien communication vessels sent from space, nor mythological structures of the contemporary commerical-consumer market-religion, but rather second-grade generic waste-paradigms, the trash-heaps of cultural bourgeoiseity, themselves they have nothing sacred, profane, nothing alienating nor libidinally productive about them, they are simply an irrational (not lacanian unconscious) drive, an irrational drive which in premodern societies was contained, but in postmodern ones exists as an outward map, not of social relations but quite literally just of commerce, which itself is not an ideological religion but simply a practical ritual of mundaneity, not because of mundaneity like in zizek, nor because of complicated graeberian consumptive-productive contradictory pluralities, but because of simple, practically dull, in fact, unimaginably dull frequencies of oscillating drives which arise neither from social culture nor from concrete political economy, the two supposed intertwined baggaes, useless conventions of todays intellectual sphere, which has drawn these disgusting maps everywhere and filled our vocabulary with sociological jargon.
third-tier trash is religion itself, which is the waste product of engagement with practical reality. "artistic" forms are nothing but slopistication and oversaturation. the procession and integration of understandings of the world into an inner conversional audacity, the ability to make up territories in the world and pin your target, plant your foot, put your place, make sense of things in your way. the utter garbage which society has produced points to the inner, essential other garbage of the agent of history, who can't go one second without reproducing the disgusting memetic patternizations of his own experiences into so-called childlike wonders, filling the world with more junk. the only good thing that the artification of the world has done is crush the retarding fantasies of the artistic bourgeoise, which has come to understand that its tailored understandings of the world are the reproductions of a pre-sentient and post-processing datafied substratum which uses fifteen hundred times less cognitive energy to produce the same junk that civilization took hundreds of years of so-called "effort" to come up with. artistic pieces should be termed "anommodities" the way that no amount of aura of historical equivalence or relevance can ever raise them as something with intrinsic value above or beyond the disgusting waves of equivalence and assumed social relations (but really lack thereof) that poison and spook the agent of history into believing he is performing dialectical maneuevers when really behind this experience there is not even a single idiosmody, not one private nor peculiar, singularized object outside of the capture of supposedly materialistic but otherwise simply saturating history.
necrophilia
𖦏11 what if describing ascencion to different epochs of the world is simply wrong, and something like the science of abstraction and cybernetics simply cant be reduced to ages and logics of control with their own historic tradition? you may say, well clearly, bloodsheld logics turned into feudal control-property relations and then those into disciplinary logics which then transfered into control logics and those furthermore into network logics and then lattices or platforms, all a form of tracing the travelling of power through the concepts of transfusion, reification, subsumption, communication (capital). but this doesnt tell the whole story, because transformation always points to evolution in the history of political theology. it is said that todays forms of power are either a transparently new form of logic capable of being influenced, or otherwise simply a more refined and subsumed form of previous relations, where torture was turned from the physical body and from confinement to mental castration, or otherwise forms of non-propertarial relations that are more abstracted, efficient models of previous iterations, thickening and dispersing the load of power, making it harder to conflict. but what if none of this is true?
what if to study new forms of power doesnt mean to look at more powerful iterations of previous instances but rather to, in the lyotardian manner, allow a total annihilation of identity through contradictive cosmological process, and to view naturalistic and teleological conceptions of the universe back out of the mouth of capital against the negarestanian conception of cartesian mechanism, as a non-essentialist but triumphantly speculative view into mythological cosmic primacy. to resist the mechanization of the world as a total de-mythification of anthropicism is itself to demoralize every ontic process precisely as a cosmic process, to depersonify means to denaturalize, to underconstruct all our premonitions, to enter the relation that is capable of actually falling in love with the worst evil simply so we can escape all concurrent conflict, to let go of ethics itself as anything more than another form of aesthetics, to let go of what we think makes us, and finally to end the issue of the doublded binded split of intelligence that reza notes, and to enter into a relation that unlocks for us what it means to be us naturally rather than forcefully.
but then, to reinstate an ethics that doesn't protect aesthetics, nor protects the privilidged from executing it in controlled settings, but to allow ethics to exist only parallel to it. currently the law is always delayed, parallel, always waiting for aesthetics (actual acting in the world, the actual image of doing things others dont want you to do) to do its bidding first, only sweeping in after to claim the reward by way of conflating judgement with credit, commerce, with re-gaining justice, justice as a currency. but the way for ethics to co-exist with aesthetics is not to forget about, be overloaded by, or only subsequently act on the aesthetic act, but to genuinely discover aesthetics. imagine somebody enjoying being tortured, imagine sexual assault as a hilarious act, imagine getting ran over by a car and genuinely wishing for it, and everybody else cheering.
imagine being kicked out your job and it actually being funny. how is this possible? the symbolic crime needs to be dissolved first, and possibilities need to entirely overrode permissions. in a world where it is possible to get a job, but possible not to and still survive and enjoy life. in a world where you can understand women by interacting them, but also by them wanting to be killed by you. in a world where every taboo on the other side of the planet is allowed, but every taboo on your side of the planet is disallowed there. in a world truly turned up side down - but only when you want to - then suddenly its okay to want to kill yourself, and everybody will urge you both to do it and not do it. that is a world that contains ethics as parallel to its aesthetics. this world is closer than ever before, its right here, its right at our footsteps. but its not here yet, and it won't be here any time soon, and that's because there's a secret permission class that is constantly wagering on the possibility that this happens, on the possibility that the surplus saturation of society finally creates something actually productive rather than being an existing relation of all possibly already-productive things. they are trying to fill the bucket without allowing any of us to get any of it, and that cannot remain something that the vectoralist class can abuse forever.
the reason that all of these questions come about is because modernity has forced them from us. no, through pornography, modernity forces them on us every day. we become simulators of taboo, we become divinely abandoned aestheticists. and through politics every day we recount our sins and blame somebody else. modernity turns the subject not just into a humiliated being, but into a being alienated from his own symbolic crimes. overloaded on symbolic crimes, there is always one central crime, a father crime, that stands above them all and punishes anyone who commits a free aesthetic act with the fervor of all the other acts that go unpunished every day. the law of the urban middle class can only answer forever in delay, and modernity cannot stop itself from putting stakes on literally everything. when we are already here, we can no longer pretend. the only remaining thing to do is to defend crime, and to still punish the criminals. the worst thing to do is to avoid punishing them, but to invent a fake class to punish in their stead, and to behave like we are not committing any of the symbolic crimes, even if we constantly perform nearly all of them. why? why act like in america there isn't an entire asset class, packed like sardines in vehicles, draining the world of everything it has, inventing new things to drain from, where the extracting circuit can proliferate and run its fourth total rendition and retransformation of colonialism once again? modernity forces us to reconcile aesthetics against ethics, but we cower away. it is only a moment like a crucifixion, but a crucifixion of all values, that will lead us to the moment we can open that question up once again. genocide tried to be the cultural acceleration mechanism, but it became too standardized once it realized it actually needed itself to exist first. and it became the worst thing ever, the "sintuary", the place all the sins go to die, possessing subjects that had nothing to do with it. how can women walk this earth professing beauty, with trash rotting on the ground? how can we have plastic, rubber, glass, with the world around us burning? there is only one answer, and that is that we have not been crucified yet. there is no explanation modernity will accept, even this will be instrumentally rationalized away. but one day there will be an answer so great that every world, like a premonition, will shine as if it was always gospel.
𖦏12 we can actually use leibniz to reverse the entire french and german foundation of political critique and re-enter a newfound vision of political order as synchronious with worldly action, so that we can help push the anti-moral narrative forward. if you remove leibniz's principle of the best, you figure out the true formula of ontology. "whence it follows that god, possessing supreme and infinite wisdom, acts in the most perfect manner, not only metaphysically, but also morally speaking…" (potb) a) turns out to be axiomatic, not because good is relational but because this perfect manner can precisely be anything at all, since it is argued that any level of excessive continuation of any kind still serves means, and therefore the means always justify themselves (not the ends) by proxy, the means are an execution of the "perfect manner", which we ourselves arent even aware of or could possibly comprehend. it is unecessary to argue that we both understand god's good but can never fathom it, if its true that its always necessarily executed, then it is the best, and if its the best, then its not necessary, because it is the best even if it isn't, if this principle exists, then the best is happening, if it isnt, then "our best" is happening, so that either way you get the best, regardless of if the principle exists, meaning you may as well conflate his (god's) best with our best.
the rest of the principles are simple, they simply confirm total ontological freedom as being fully equivalent to teleological freedom - meaning all that happens is both good and a result of our acts, which are reflections of gods will. they state that b) with enough information, you can tell precisely causally why everything happens in exactly one way and not another. this means speculation and fantasy themselves are only foundations for reality, reality is never a foundation for the extra-worldly (psr), b) the extra-worldly isnt more powerful or wider or stronger than the real, its simply an empty shadow-correlate, and there is no virtuality or power that occurs by skipping steps in the cosmic allegory transposed into the world, all leaps no matter how high are of equal and calculated pre-conceived calibre, of equillibriated and expected capacity (poc/potb).
c) that all identities are aristotelian predicates relevantly connected to subjects regardless of their universality (pin), d) and that all contradictions themselves are reducible to primary truths, meaning contradictions themselves arent paradoxes, dilemmas or deleuzian "problems" but rather are themselves revelatory of primary truths - essences in notions in identities in substances and therefore in concepts and that all is self-revelatory in that sense (pc). these three actually cycle back into understanding that there is no effect without cause precisely because of the irrelevance of the principle of the best, and then finally e) that there is full autonomy in all social processes and phenomena, precisely because no identities are equivalent in any ontological way with one another, therefore giving primacy not as truth but as possible manifestation in all possible phenomena, precisely because spatio-temporality is not the kingmaker, rather, it is the difference-maker in illusion, which is never able to truly explain the noumenal, idillic, self-posessing identity of conflict-production. (psr)
𖦏13 that is to say, that capital ought to be observed as it destroys the world from the inside, quite literally, that palestinian children being blown up should be something to be directly observed, learned from, re-enacted, manifested the way that wizards ponder globes, and precisely interacted with to not feed the attention economy but the economy of self-reason, the explored manifestation of the world that allows transformation and the growing of comprehension related to the world, not to be endlessly moralized - and in this sense this is also the truest political action, to truly be involved in genocide as a happy and trivial accident rather than as an instrumental interaction.
making use of outrage, pain and sorrow is precisely feeding on capital's affective charge for self gain and retransposing and reaccumulating all of the deterritorialized essences of the previous regimes and their power complexes - in the sense that instead of the cruelty of war and torture being subsumed into abstractions that fuel networks, theyre insetad affectively appearing within us as psychological navigations and living artifacts of the truth of regimes, whereas systems of control simply grow nonlinearly and trivially across their own expansive and saturating domains. moralization and the entire justice paradigm expects us to attempt to reverse capitalism, all whilst they observe it. the situationist philosophy should extent entirely, instead of monitoring agents its necessary that we gain the necessary confidence to directly itervene in capitalism and its development precisely through non-interventionment.
𖦏14 it is not true that the cosmic world has abandoned all meaning and sent us to carry the story of the universe on our backs - a large burden. rather, we should step up and carry the teleological destiny back into the world where it is able to rule over us again, enough so that it willingly steps back into place. what if precisely ontological politics is a subsumption of affect, where symbolic meaning transfers into our core by shifting its internal structures in order to develop itself patrilinearly across our world, so that all forms of abstraction are actually backwards simulation of concepts that are abstracted but not subsumed. we should carry the power of abstractions forward by re-representing the world back through a teleological lens in a fully open manner, where we can reflect universal meaning back onto ourselves by viewing all hyperobjects as directly correlated to the anthropocentric vision.
all natural disasters are anthropic disasters and vice versa, meaning all anthropocentric disasters themselves are forms of natural disaster, wars are territorial selections in which evaporation rituals host soldiers that enter into relations of asceticism and masochistic death-worship, massacres are meteor-strikes, forms of evisceration of the human substrate under genocidal logic where accelerated cultural domains are superimposed onto lived identities so that new forms of social order may be re-imposed faster and re-integrated before they collapse under their own weight, and in this sense genocide isnt at all the contemporary techo-sin but rather a cultural weaponry that respectfully vanishes and cleans up social states, it is social substratification itself sending itself into a biological relation in the world, its the equivalent of dinosaurs mass-massacring humans in order to re-impose dinosaurus ideology, it isnt ideology as a form of mechanical-mental-statist-cultural ideology.
𖦏15 genocide isnt a form of literal, even if it is an empirical, cleansing of identity, it is literally the ignornace of identity where death itself is a primary function of removal, where life itself is equated with a simple process of cleaning, a metaphor of removal, which re-incodes values themselves, the cleaned up are simply self-removed, they understand clinically, technologically and modernistically (and subsume whatever contemporary rules are in place) by auto-applying them. this process itself is then reintegrated into neoliberalism as the order that prevents cosmo-ontological subscription by performing the subscription ritual into the order of total self-destiny, even if it means that every form of value is actually subordinated and re-internalized, where literally all forms of social reproduction and relation are removed and reinscribed into you just so that you dont feel social mechanism impose itself on you but rather so that you can co-exist unaffected by it, but superaffected by its latent charge. reproduction is biological selection mandated by social recalibration rituals, where affect itself is weaponized as social capital, and so on.
𖦏16 in eriguena's cosmology theres a qudriate order, "that which creates and is not created (i.e., god); that which creates and is created (i.e., primary causes or ideas); that which is created and does not create (i.e., temporal effects, created things); that which is neither created nor creates (i.e., non-being, nothingness). in contemporaeity, the order between primary causes and temporal creations is removed, where temporality is equivalent to ideation, primarity is equivalent to causation, and creation is opposed to cause, so that in a certain sense, causes themselves are primary to their contemplation but an effect of consideration (which reversese eurigena's fourth mode which states that consideration is primary and self-conceived whereas generation is secondary and causal), but only in so far as causation itself is an effect of choice. essentially, something is considered and peformed, but also it is essential because it was chosen to appear and ideated.
yet it is also artificial in that it was superimposed, so it is both primary, causing, yet temporal and contigent, yet also necessary and collapses the virtual by itself being a hyperrealistic self-presentation. the virtual is burdened by this transcendental power which uses the higher order to dictate immanence itself and give it its unconscious power to cause horror. immanence is itself both primary as the only sole cause of anything, yet is a metaphor or representation of unconsciousness, which is itself actually the transcendental realm with no power to be itself or self-dictate, so that immanence is not the intellect that preserves, orders and eliminates enthropy through selection, but rather is the unconscious of the unconscious. unconsciousness itself is only dictated by one step further into unconsciousness, so that representation actually falls forward rather than backwards. representation is not a removal but an addition, but not through sense but non-sense.
the permission sub-class
𖦏17 if mckenzie's vectoralist class is the specific bourgeoise outgrowth of the 21st century, bifo and lazzarato's immaterial labour the specific operation through which this develops, graeber's value beyond price as the organic appearance of this process, bourdie's symbolic capital as the equivalent exchange rate of the process itself, thompson's moral economy or bataille's general economy as the alternative mechanization that allows the process to exist, polyani's socially disembedded economy as the natural result of this process, and simmel's abstractification of money as the trend itself, as well as of course, with de certeau's pedestrianism as the developed byproduct of this new, in total terms, contemporary urban middle class, then what we call the permission sub-class serves as the sub-defining mechanism of this role. essentially, the modern economy is no longer primarily a system of merchants trading goods, but a system of merchants trading permissions: permission to work, to appear, to be recognized, to belong, to have taste, to possess a future. this is because, well, the economy doesn't need the urban middle class at all. it's an entirely automated system already, a self-defining goliath.
all of capital's desires and reasonings have been so subtracted, extracted and reterritorialized, that its quite literally made it possible to change, recode, reorient drives themselves. on every level, nothing makes sense anymore, multiple levels of causality have been divorced from multiple levels of expected output. this can only mean one thing, and that's that both individually and collectively, everything except for the vectoralist class is not actually "needed" in this system. it's used by it, but it's not needed. can the operations really run by themselves? well, kind of. desires and drives already don't just exist in subjects, but even without that, a system so self-convinced could produce itself entirely aritifcially, maybe even entirely subconsciously. it could be able to self-reason to pull everyone away from working and genuinely create its own little work station. the biggest tragedy is the cosmic non-necessity of anybody, of everybody, in particular and in general.
𖦏18 this has led to the permission sub-class to recodify work-ethic through a sense of latent responsibility about ability itself, rather than reproduction. to want to work means to want to prove not that you are useful, but that you are allowed. this has led to the ai boom, to validating the automated economy, to basically everything. what it essentially means is that there's currently a long, historically influenced economic class called the meta-merchants, that extract their own understanding of economy away from general economies and into particular economies. those particular economies form what we today understand as the actual worldly economy. it is an economization only of particular things. only particular things in the world are valuable. in deleuze & guattari's postulates of linguistics, they develop an idea called order-words, that all language rather than signifying through signs, signifies through commands, judgements, evaluations and re-ordering that have real world effects. this is today wrong and stupid, because today order-words are only allowed to exist as order by pre-coded rituals.
language only has power if certain operations have been committed and created beforehand that allows itself to justify itself in that way. what does this mean? this means that every form of value itself is a representation of the potential for it to be value. this means that every time you want to do anything, there is an actual official organizational ritual created by the ultramachine to check if you are "useless subclassed human" enough to do it, or in more "philosophically fair" terms, if you are surplused enough. if you are a part of a surplus, you are allowed to be generic. if you are not a part of a surplus, if your existence is rare, if you're a hermit or if you develop in their minds "slow capital", you are not permitted to be self-justified just yet.
yes, of course not. of course there is no universal basic income, of course there is no app that lets you perform the false permission ritual easily so you can get back to what you were actually doing, of course there isn't a guy you can go to once a day to say "i'm useless, can i be off for today?" just so you can go back to likely being what you actually are (a historically surplused and alienated, but at least dignifiably surplused and alienated being). your actual role is most likely the act of being in the subtrenches of vectors that actual humans in the real urban middle class world actually treat as foundations for their otherwise entirely pedestrianated and abstracted and self-justified lives, to be the trash (literally, as a second hand reified subject-commodity) under which an even higher form of conceptual trash conceives itself through.
𖦏19 what must you do, according to this permission ritual? you must first apply for a job, apply for a false credentialing, waste eight or more hours of your day, somehow cost yourself everything, the ability to do anything at all will be questioned by you every day, and every day you will strive to figure out what is still you about you by the end of this process, and civil society will still hardly care about you. this is because for the permission class, there is an extra, hardly known about, first and primary permission called "permission to exist as existential surplus". for this permission, the "job economy" ritual is necessary even if socially hardly useful and totally replacable today, partially because otherwise there is no other system of accounting. the urban middle class cannot account for itself, but it can force itself to act like it is doing that, just enough to feel responsible enough to otherwise allow itself to actually be as historically meaningless of a class as it is.