from the STORM to its far range of affect

 i’m usually pretty given up. understanding at the start of Everyday that the world is ending and humans should never be forgiven for existing, so stuff like this i skip straight to the “how the hell is sci-fi gonna raise the bar to keep itself at an acceptable distance from reality?” questions. which is a better politics than most ‘human rights’-thumpers you see floatin around bein liberal or whatever it is they do. but this is fuckin affective, for me, as i’m caught off guard here. what the fuck are we to do, guys?

hummin it hard at work today. 

melodies haunting me big time today have been LSp2 “Resolution”, john coltrane, and the star trek vgr theme, which is like the saddest. 

As capitalism reveals itself as the only game in town, what of art’s insistent claim to provide a locus of real risk outside the calculative depredations of the economic system? What is left of Mallarmé’s ‘roll of the dice’ when art’s possibility is constrained by the hedging of financial and cultural capital? Can art deliver us from contingency through new certainties, or expose us to uncertainties beyond calculation? Or at its most ‘critical’ is it simply a misfiring of our instinct for order, an expression of our inability to comprehend real contingency?

cracked is doing a webshow about the waged workers on a ship like enterprise. am very much looking forward to it even though i have seriously stopped giving a shit about them. 

Memories of a Sorcerer, II. Our first principle was: pack and contagion,

the contagion of the pack, such is the path becoming-animal takes. But a

second principle seemed to tell us the opposite: wherever there is multipli-

city, you will also find an exceptional individual, and it is with that individ-

ual that an alliance must be made in order to become-animal. There may be

no such thing as a lone wolf, but there is a leader of the pack, a master of the

pack, or else the old deposed head of the pack now living alone, there is the

Loner, and there is the Demon. Willard has his favorite, the rat Ben, and

only becomes-rat through his relation with him, in a kind of alliance of

love, then of hate. Moby-Dick in its entirety is one of the greatest master-

pieces of becoming; Captain Ahab has an irresistible becoming-whale, but

one that bypasses the pack or the school, operating directly through a mon-

strous alliance with the Unique, the Leviathan, Moby-Dick. There is

always a pact with a demon; the demon sometimes appears as the head of

the band, sometimes as the Loner on the sidelines of the pack, and some-

times as the higher Power (Puissance) of the band. The exceptional individ-

ual has many possible positions. Kafka, another great author of real

becomings-animal, sings of mouse society; but Josephine, the mouse

singer, sometimes holds a privileged position in the pack, sometimes a

position outside the pack, and sometimes slips into and is lost in the ano-

nymity of the collective statements of the pack.12 In short, every Animal

has its Anomalous. Let us clarify that: every animal swept up in its pack or

multiplicity has its anomalous. It has been noted that the origin of the word

anomal (“anomalous”), an adjective that has fallen into disuse in French,

is very different from that of anormal (“abnormal”): a-normal, a Latin

adjective lacking a noun in French, refers to that which is outside rules or

goes against the rules, whereas an-omalie, a Greek noun that has lost its

adjective, designates the unequal, the coarse, the rough, the cutting edge of

deterritorialization.13 The abnormal can be defined only in terms of char-

acteristics, specific or generic; but the anomalous is a position or set of

positions in relation to a multiplicity. Sorcerers therefore use the old adjec-

tive “anomalous” to situate the positions of the exceptional individual in

the pack. It is always with the Anomalous, Moby-Dick or Josephine, that

one enters into alliance to become-animal.


These multiplicities with heterogeneous terms, cofunctioning by conta-

gion, enter certain assemblages; it is there that human beings effect their

becomings-animal. But we should not confuse these dark assemblages,

which stir what is deepest within us, with organizations such as the institu-

tion of the family and the State apparatus. We could cite hunting societies,

war societies, secret societies, crime societies, etc. Becomings-animal are

proper to them. We will not expect to find filiative regimes of the family

type or modes of classification and attribution of the State or pre-State

type or even serial organizations of the religious type. Despite appearances

and possible confusions, this is not the site of origin or point of application

for myths. These are tales, or narratives and statements of becoming. It is

therefore absurd to establish a hierarchy even of animal collectivities from

the standpoint of a whimsical evolutionism according to which packs are

lower on the scale and are superseded by State or familial societies. On the

contrary, there is a difference in nature. The origin of packs is entirely dif-

ferent from that of families and States; they continually work them from

within and trouble them from without, with other forms of content, other

forms of expression. The pack is simultaneously an animal reality, and the

reality of the becoming-animal of the human being; contagion is simulta-

neously an animal peopling, and the propagation of the animal peopling of

the human being. The hunting machine, the war machine, the crime

machine entail all kinds of becomings-animal that are not articulated in

myth, still less in totemism. Dumezil showed that becomings of this kind

pertain essentially to the man of war, but only insofar as he is external to

families and States, insofar as he upsets filiations and classifications. The

war machine is always exterior to the State, even when the State uses it,

appropriates it. The man of war has an entire becoming that implies multi-

plicity, celerity, ubiquity, metamorphosis and treason, the power of affect.

Wolf-men, bear-men, wildcat-men, men of every animality, secret brother-

hoods, animate the battlefields. But so do the animal packs used by men in

battle, or which trail the battles and take advantage of them. And together

they spread contagion.11 There is a complex aggregate: the

becoming-animal of men, packs of animals, elephants and rats, winds and

tempests, bacteria sowing contagion. A single Furor. War contained

zoological sequences before it became bacteriological. It is in war, famine,

and epidemic that werewolves and vampires proliferate. Any animal can

be swept up in these packs and the corresponding becomings; cats have

been seen on the battlefield, and even in armies. That is why the distinction

we must make is less between kinds of animals than between the different

states according to which they are integrated into family institutions,

State apparatuses, war machines, etc.


Is it by chance that structuralism so strongly denounced the prestige

accorded the imagination, the establishment of resemblances in a series,

the imitation pervading the entire series and carrying it to its term, and

the identification with this final term? Nothing is more explicit than

Levi-Strauss’s famous texts on totemism: transcend external resem-

blances to arrive at internal homologies.It is no longer a question of

instituting a serial organization of the imaginary, but instead a symbolic

and structural order of understanding. It is no longer a question of gradu-

ating resemblances, ultimately arriving at an identification between Man

and Animal at the heart of a mystical participation. It is a question of

ordering differences to arrive at a correspondence of relations. The ani-

mal is distributed according to differential relations or distinctive oppo-

sitions between species; the same goes for human beings, according to the

groups considered. When analyzing the institution of the totem, we do

not say that this group of people identifies with that animal species. We

say that what group A is to group B, species A’ is to species B’. This method

is profoundly different from the preceding one: given two human groups,

each with its totem animal, we must discover the way in which the two

totems entertain relations analogous to those between the two groups—

the Crow is to the Falcon …

The method also applies to Man-child, man-woman relations, etc. If we

note, for example, that the warrior has a certain astonishing relation to the

young woman, we refrain from establishing an imaginary series tying the

two together; instead, we look for a term effecting an equivalence of rela-

tions. Thus Vernant can say that marriage is to the woman what war is to

the man. The result is a homology between the virgin who refuses marriage

and the warrior who disguises himself as a woman.In short, symbolic

understanding replaces the analogy of proportion with an analogy of pro-

portionality; the serialization of resemblances with a structuration of dif-

ferences; the identification of terms with an equality of relations; the

metamorphoses of the imagination with conceptual metaphors; the great

continuity between nature and culture with a deep rift distributing corre-

spondences without resemblance between the two; the imitation of a pri-

mal model with a mimesis that is itself primary and without a model. A

man can never say: “I am a bull, a wolf.. .” But he can say: “I am to a

woman what the bull is to a cow, I am to another man what the wolf is to the

sheep.” Structuralism represents a great revolution; the whole world

becomes more rational. Levi-Strauss is not content to grant the structural

model all the prestige of a true classification system; he relegates the serial

model to the dark domain of sacrifice, which he depicts as illusory, even

devoid of good sense. The serial theme of sacrifice must yield to the struc-

tural theme of the institution of the totem, correctly understood. But here,

as in natural history, many compromises are reached between archetypal

series and symbolic structures.


Anyone who thinks film noir should ever have existed whatsoever is misogynistic, and I’m willing to bet that this film isn’t gonna be more problematic than that base level. In other news, it’s reportedly super influenced by Zucker(-Abrams-)Zucker films. Still no release date, but probably my favorite movie of the year.

Anyone who thinks film noir should ever have existed whatsoever is misogynistic, and I’m willing to bet that this film isn’t gonna be more problematic than that base level. In other news, it’s reportedly super influenced by Zucker(-Abrams-)Zucker films. Still no release date, but probably my favorite movie of the year.


From Sheffield Autonomous Students


From Sheffield Autonomous Students

TB bein pretty hard on the guy

I thought,” Mr. Anderson explained, “What’s something I’ve seen that can get close to that amount of great visual information and all these things going on in the frame?”

“ ‘Police Squad!’ and ‘Top Secret!’ are what I clued into,” he said, referring to collaborations by the slapstick maestros David and Jerry Zucker. “We tried hard to imitate or rip off the Zucker brothers’ style of gags so the film can feel like the book feels: just packed with stuff. And fun.

For Nietzsche there is a kind of dissolution of the self. The reaction against oppressive structures is no longer done, for him, in the name of a “self” or an “I.” On the contrary, it is as though the “self” and the “I” were accomplices of those structures.