A Guide to Analytical Belonism


In order to understand better what Contemporary Belonism would have looked like if mainstream academics weren't so shit, It would be best if we employed the idea of two ideologues. They have basically what the Belonist method has. The works of Freud and Deleuze in essence it is a pretty straightforward synthesis.

This would I hope to be the most Comprehensive text on Belonism that has ever been compiled. Firstly, this is normie as shit. I recommend people to actually read the works of Freud, or at least Lacan, and Deleuze in its depth. There are people far more knowledgeable than me in this regard on what Deleuzian and Freudian frameworks are.

Further research on Belonism and it's possible paths to the present day is the idea that it may have been a form of Mythological Cybernetics. I will give a step by step analytic interpretation however I think there will be a picture related concerning what I am about to say. All of this is grossly oversimplified, in fact I have barely drove deep into the later works of them both without getting a tad bit mad myself, although I already am because long story.

I will divide this into many parts hopefully just three to summarize the different Mathematical points as they appear. I would also give the disclaimer that I am not a Mathematical prodigy. I am only a 17 year old Science nerd who just happened to keep on liking Mathematical proofs, PoMo and Spinoza. My classmate is though. The text in itself is merely an Exegesis of Isabelo De los Reyes thought used in the modern contexts.

This introduction is meant to be short so the next blog posts will be the parts of the main body itself. I hope you can read actually. You have plenty of time in quarantine.

I changed a few bits, specifically on spacing and design overall just for the sake of placing it in one place. Although the individual parts can still be found in the blog proper.


  1. I. Basics: The Mathematical Stages of Definition.

  2. II. Analytic Belonism: an extrusion of Lacan

  3. III. Models and Processes

  4. IV. Schizophrenia and The Algebra of Lack

  5. V. The use of Analytical Belonism

  6. VI. Corporal Mythological Models

  7. VII: The Pseudosphere Republic.

  8. VIII: The History of the Belonist Revolution[WIP]

I. Basics: The Mathematical Stages of Definition.

In reading Lacan and how he structured what is known as the 3 registers, I became inspired to draw up a similar thing. I do admit Lacan was a better Mathematician than a Psychoanalyst. I would say these on account of the things I will say next. However it is no denying that his ideas have a logical, somewhat metalogical, foundation. I would ponder this from a Gadamerian prejudice. Tangent, His prejudice is the idea that tradition in which an interpreter stands establishes "prejudices" that affect how he or she will make interpretations. Gadamer criticized Enlightenment thinkers for harboring a "prejudice against prejudices". In essence it goes like this, I call this the number crunch problem. There are three ways to define a number, a unit or a measure or whatever one wants to call it. I will summarize them in the following. In Lacanian terms, we could assume that the (n) is the objet petit a or the unattainable

  1. Metric-
    n -> 100 units
    (because n is a metric crush meaning a number defining atoms within a "length" unit or the amount of time that a ray of light must cross etc.)
    (a)n -> undefined
    (b)n -> estimated\

example. let n be the number of water molecules in a drop of water. if n is 100 units -> 1 unit is 1.370005e+19 molecules

  1. Absolute-
    ~(b)n -> |n|
    a|n| is defined(d)
    b|n| is calculated/measured\

example. let |n| be the speed of light(because fuck C), -> 299 792 458 m / s

  1. Implication-
    a|n| ^ ~(b)n -> i
    i is an imaginary number i exists

example, let i be the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/C of a second. -> is a metre

These are the three main types of mathematical definition without getting much into Mathematical proofs. n represents the idea of definition as a division in a Hierarchy or numbers. Whereas one level or one unit is the actual number we have defined as one unit, it is merely reductive. |n| represents the number itself. It means we have signified a certain distance as C or as 299M. i represents what has recently been defined, we imagine the implications of knowing the number of C which created, through imagination or implication, the Metric system with definitions only in relation to itself. A structure where people can define.

In each stage one can argue that the concepts are indeed just mere creations dependent on all factors and at the same time at odds with each of those factors. This leads to us dealing with the process of creation, definition and implication as a never ending cycle that goes in various directions and multiplicity of ideas and creations of thought. In fact, we can deduce each in Lacanian terms however in order to go further, we will be referring to the next graphs. Again, I'd like to say if anything like the such appears on Deleuze, Freud, Lacan or connected philosophers' texts, I still have no knowledge of any whatsoever. However, here is the graph in question


:. |n|->[d]->[i]

N here being the goal If we were to punch in Deleuze into the cards. Petit n -> the defined goal the goal with parameters and steps to achieve it. It lists the prerequisites and preconditions necessary to achieve petit n. Gros N -> the unachievable or the goal which just is. It is an aim that is made to be impossible. There is no definition, no definite steps, requirements and so forth to achieve the gros N because it is unattainable. I will offend a lot of readers by classifying things as N but it is necessary for us to form a link to Belong. In the written graph there is something however that makes something not achieve N and that is d or definition which turns i into petit n. It is a vicious cycle but it is in quintessence what most of Psychoanalysis deals with. Now, Deleuze's cards would look as such

  • n -> the desiring machine
  • |n| -> Psychiatry
  • i -> the senses
  • N -> the Body without organs
  • d -> production

This is read as follows. the senses want to experience the body without organs and therefore understands the implications that would allow them that. This runs the metric crunching or deduction engine defined by Deleuze as the desiring-machine. The desiring machine does its best to achieve the Desire, however Psychiatry diagnosis the Desire to achieve it as a mental problem. This diagnosis defines He/r with a masochistic or dysmorphic psychosis. This definition therefore castrates he/r desire and probably leads he/r to ask for psychiatric help. Considering above, it talks about two things, namely we have castrated ourselves and objectivity is false. I would term the first on the proof of the graph as castration within Freudian terms is when we are forced to accept the convention of sexuality and not to fuck our moms. Castration means that we are told to stand down by the authority of the Dominant or Big other. To be more specific let us plug Laco-Freudian terms into the equation.

  • n -> the Real
  • |n| -> the Symbolic
  • i -> the Imaginary
  • N -> Oedipal consummation
  • d -> Castration

On the second point, it argues as above that definitions are indeed arbitrary but it doesn't mean they aren't methodical. There are words on relation to other words but it doesn't mean they have lost their salt. It instead focuses on the Wittgenstein-Gadamer argument that we are defining things, as Lacan would in his Graph of Desire, for ourselves. That we signify to differentiate and to enforce that difference. And that "prejudice-free knowledge is neither desirable nor possible. Neither the hermeneutic circle nor prejudices are necessarily vicious. Against the enlightenment’s “prejudice against prejudice”, maybe Gadamer believed the Enlightenment's gros N is Objectivity, to this I agree with him. I will get to this soon. In summary, let us simplifying the definitions of the Mathematical stages of definition.

whereas: s is the sign and s' is the signifier

|n|-> s=s'
n -> s℮s'
i -> s=/=s'

II. Analytic Belonism: an extrusion of Lacan

In fact, we can argue a further line of thought. Psychosis is a break from this usual mental thought process and find themselves in deficiency, inactivity, Lethargy or etc. on these different stages of definition. Psychosis is usually found as a disorder in the (d). If they cannot define then it would imply that there will not be a return to petit n but a satisfaction of gros N as a matter of sense experience different from the Imaginary or the Real. It cannot be defined and therefore must be experienced. Psychosis is in this respect unfulfilled Angst. It is therefore experienced and we can only take the word of those who have gone beyond to know. Which is where Don Belong comes in. Mythology is a study of the gros N and its effects on the different stages of definition. Mythology in this respect is not just a study of the folk and actual culture but a study of simply taking the word of people. Therefore, it is a study of Collective Psychoses ingrained and part and parcel, ironically, of the Real. It has real consequences, rules, prerequisites and definitions.

Let's start from the beginning. Reading Belonist texts allow us to create mathematical definitions to (N) and (d) as a matter of its functions. the properties of the gros N and the definition(d) can be summarized as follows

(a). N is interchangeable with the stages of definition due to signification(Empirical property)
(b). N must always be in view to justify the drive(Spectacular property)
(a). d is like Schrodinger opening the box because definition becomes evermore filtered once words define it further(Ascribing property)
(b). d creates conditions to make either N or |n| possible(Structural property)
(c). d is always = |n|(Authoritarian property)\

Using Don Belong's analysis of mythology and folklore, we can create the Algebraic qualities found in the basic model from before. These graphs will be utilized to understand these properties better. In Belong's analysis of Nationalism, which is the one I base out of and expand is using the basic model however with a difference. See if you can spot it


:. |n|->[d]->[i]

So, Don Belong believed that in order to build a nation we must have a National Myth in the first place and therefore the Absolute and the Gros N interchange. This perfectly describes the property (a)N. The |n| being the Nation of the State which is a reality, which is the most achievable requires the Actualization of the impossible through Nationalism. This is what was known as Active Democracy wherein people must first express the sentiment to unite before unity is achieved. For the Subjects to achieve N in this case a Nation. they needed to first believe they are. n differs from the late and middle Belonist periods as n in the Late believed that n is Modernization, a hack-saw state that through sheer force of violence and bureaucracy by means of education and the state apparatus, can create a country. The middle believed n is Active Democracy, drumming up support for the Nation through Mythological institutions and popular circles.

To define, (b)N we need to use a different although similar model. I already said, this was a more algebraic version to the Classic model(Cx). It shall be dubbed "the Historical model(HRx)" which more accurately describes the hermeneutic of Historians or Social theorists. This model is necessary to understand b(N). It is much simpler however.


There was an old adage about how at one point people thought something was impossible then after the event people just said it was inevitable. This is it but as a graph. It works as such because definition(d) comes after the Imaginary(i). Now in this graph, N is both itself and also serves as the role of n. Why? Let us assume N represents the Revolution. N must always be in view because again if N is defined it is no longer N, it is castrated due to jargon and definitions. The Revolution is a process but a process with a lot of mythological baggage which is why most of the time the Left thinks about achieving Revolution at least(therefore N) at the same time that it is a process making it necessarily that N is in view, that it is relevant, that it is a sensual event. We'll expand upon this later. Now, let us expand upon the properties of the definition(d), we'll use the same model to define (a)d but we need to use another to define b&c(d). a(d) can defined like so. Let us assume N means Renaissance.


This is what people commonly call inspiration. The mythical gros N is the object or goal that one wants to achieve or something close to it. The force needed to get from imaginary(i) to gros N is known as Drive whereas imaginary(i) to absolute(|n|) is called satisfaction or contentment. Contentment is the plateau on which one rests before achieving another toward an unachievable summit. Contentment is the compromise between desire and reality. In this case, the graph shows the creation of description or as Deleuze would believe is concept-creation, the primary motive of Philosophy. b(d) and c(d) will be a bit confusing but let's just say one is mutually exclusive and the other is not. So, a graphic description of both will need yet another model which shall be called the relative definition(Rdx) Model. It goes as such. Let both N represent Myth

fig 1. |n|=[d] [i]->[d]-> N [n]->[d]

fig 2. |n|=[d] [i]<-[d]-> N [n]->[d]

In fig 1., Myth is defined by both a process and the individual, by both a dictionary and an internet forum for example. It is defined primarily by use and it's relation or difference to other things. However, fig. 2 shows that the definition only is reflected by the individual or the Subject, this is called Rationalization wherein the more an idea or a word is defined and not used the more it "dies". This is incredibly important. Let us use this new ideas to arrange the graph in Belonist terms. With these terms however, instead of defining the theory itself it instead defines it's methodology. The mathematical stages now represent steps than the beliefs


  • n -> Lore Theory
  • |n| -> Actualization
  • i -> Folkstructure
  • N -> Myth
  • d -> Post-script

It is important to define each in order for people to understand the whole graph. The Graph we shall be using is the HRx because it is more in line with Belonism than the two other models. This is because, what I shall dub, Word Death or Language Death, when the active, functional myth has been institutionalized, is an event that describes. Does this mean that (d) as well can interchange, not exactly. The description here denotes a post-description or "the inevitable". Which is an after analysis, after the fact, when the myth no longer exist and the stories are now said in museums and books told in a different language, in a different context sometimes even scoffed at and even wanting to believe in such ancient myths would get you cancelled on Twitter. The N is positioned depending on the function of the Myth itself, however in most times, the graph looks like the graphic description of (a)d.

III. Models and Processes

Now, can we analyze something with these graphs and proofs in the Belonist sense. Yes we can. In fact we have done multiple times but let us give a middle finger to the Enlightenment and use "Objectivity" as our Myth(N). Following the HRx, we must define the terms.

n -> Scientific Method |n| -> Scientists & Data analysis i -> objective answer N -> Objectivity d -> Subjective Language/Gadamer's Prejudice This would create an HRx that is quite queer i it's own way. It would look something like this.

i-(n)N~(|n|)N->d :. N = d Or [(|n|)N] would be absent.

This would indicate a certain idea which was expressed in a way before. In order to understand what exactly is going on here we need to get back to Deleuze. Now, Deleuze is using terms that was borrowed to critique the Oedipal(N) of Lacan so it was only fitting they had similar writings and ideas. However, what must be said is this way of defining the lack of either, each or itself within the graph corresponds to differing Modern Mental illnesses. Of course I do believe that using such terms are distasteful however I will only use these in context to their work. I'll be arguing with the Dark Collection of Looney Tunes argument on this. Now, the idea here is that each represents a mental illness as reference to it's symptoms. We will begin with the Algebra of Lack because this is the most important aspect which we will get to. It is similar to the Freudian Fixations, which were understood as a fixation with sensual deprivation or mania centered on a certain orifice due to childhood trauma or problems in the child's psychosexual development. Lacan argues that if the Graph lacks connection in the entire graph, it should be called "Schizophrenia", called by Lacan as the breakdown in the signifying chain. Deleuze and Guattari theorized schizophrenia as a process with revolutionary potential in the sense that it reserved. the most important place for understanding how desire produced the real. In order to better understand the Algebra of Lack, we need to first understand it's acute characteristics of their problems

~i ->
Acute: routines, impersonal, rote;
Chronic: Neurosis-a class of functional mental disorders involving chronic distress but neither delusions nor hallucinations.

Neuroses are said to be rooted in ego defense mechanisms, but the two concepts are not synonymous. Defense mechanisms are a normal way of developing and maintaining a consistent sense of self (i.e., an ego). But only those thoughts and behaviors that produce difficulties in one's life should be called neuroses. A neurotic person experiences emotional distress and unconscious conflict, which are manifested in various physical or mental illnesses. The definitive symptom is anxiety. Neurotic tendencies are common and may manifest themselves as acute or chronic anxiety, depression, an obsessive–compulsive disorder, a phobia, or a personality disorder.

~n ->
Acute: Authoritarian, a need for Domination;
Chronic: Psychosis-an abnormal condition of the mind that results in difficulties determining what is real and what is not.

Symptoms may include false beliefs (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that others do not see or hear (hallucinations). Other symptoms may include incoherent speech and behavior that is inappropriate for the situation. There may also be sleep problems, social withdrawal, lack of motivation, and difficulties carrying out daily activities.

~|n| ->
Acute: need for sensual experience comparable to the Freudian Fixations.;
Chronic: Addiction-a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences.

Despite the involvement of a number of psychosocial factors, a biological process—one that is induced by repeated exposure to an addictive stimulus—is the core pathology that drives the development and maintenance of an addiction. The two properties that characterize all addictive stimuli are that they are reinforcing (i.e., they increase the likelihood that a person will seek repeated exposure to them) and intrinsically rewarding (i.e., they are perceived as being inherently positive, desirable, and pleasurable).

In the chronic it is worse but in common they all Lack the ability to even want the gros N(physically defined as lower dopamine levels). All as well do such things above in order to gain definition(d) in their lives. I need to define each Chronic area as a manifestation of the symptoms and not the definition in of itself of the Mental illness. The principal Lack however is one that people desperately need. Some call it closure, Most call it Desire, A sizable bit call it Love, Bataille would call it Limit Experiences. Essentially one of these, if were to be done in a Societal level would actually do more good than harm. That would be ~|n|. In fact, one must be done in order to get closure is to break the authority of the |n|. The re are definitions although they mostly deal with it on a societal level leave one. This is due to an overall theme of accelerationism with the writings former as well as the diagnosis of Don Belong concerning when it happens, when true Desire or when the Limit Experience of society has been felt. Let us first go with how this may come about. There are different ways but I can at least define 4 which are the following. Note, that the process is different however to Belonist thought the outcome remains.


|n| ℮ (d) -> n

This is the reform strategy. In order to change the Authority |n|, due to too loosely defining it's definition(d). It barely even constitutes the state. Therefore they must create a new Authority that replaces, reforms or revolutionize it. Nonetheless, the |n| is still there and fulfills it's description. the |n|'s main goal is to be defined, it is a statue someone looks at or a dead person's portrait that you admire as your inspiration. It is a matter of changing the pictures. A New compromise will be made in response and this redefinition of the state allows it in essence to survive. Examples would be Constitutional Monarchies like Britain. So nothing exactly changes.

The next three will be called "Das Neue Reale" as this is what it achieves. We can explain at length what happens after using the triumvirate. I will give these names merely o the factor of the individual philosophies they entailed.


|n| ~ (d) -> N

This is the essence of Das Neue Real. If the Absolute[|n|] no longer constitutes it's definition(d), therefore it must be overthrown. In so doing, it means the Authority that has blocked the Subject from achieving Desire(N). Thus the main thrust must be to fulfill it. The event has turned from Deliberated(n->N process) to Spontaneous(n->N directly). It has become a Situation where the event felt not wrote, it wasn't described until after the climax when Das Neue Reale would be realized. The Das Neue Real looks as follows


As previously mentioned in the Historical Model, it would mean that the event in question created a New Definition which will bear subsequently new implications which will flourish and form a New Society. This is Das Neue Reale. It isn't always positive however, just saying. The new society can only exist if firstly, there is no description of it and secondly, a situation has occured to change from one to the next which is where we pivot to..



So, it is no surprise that there are different ways to get to Desire(N). In this way, the Situation reflects a spontaneous occurence and them achieving this Desire(N) even to the point of not knowing it. In essence, it could be like a psychadelic experience. I once heard of a story of a man hit with a car who could now only see in Mathematical fractals. The wiki would say it best however. The construction of situations, one of the early central concepts of the Situationist International; the term also refers to any individuals engaged in the construction of situations, or, more narrowly, to members of the Situationist International. Situationist theory sees the situation as a tool for the liberation of everyday life, a method of negating the pervasive alienation that accompanied the spectacle. The founding manifesto of the Situationist International, Report on the Construction of Situations (1957), defined the construction of situations as "the concrete construction of momentary ambiances of life and their transformation into a superior passional quality." Internationale Situationniste No. 1 (June 1958) defined the constructed situation as "a moment of life concretely and deliberately constructed by the collective organization of a unitary ambiance and a game of events". The situationists argued that advanced capitalism manufactured false desires; literally in the sense of ubiquitous advertising and the glorification of accumulated capital, and more broadly in the abstraction and reification of the more ephemeral experiences of authentic life into commodities. The experimental direction of situationist activity consisted of setting up temporary environments favorable to the fulfillment of true and authentic human desires in response


N ~ |n|

Simply put, the Anarchist definition is that the Desire(N) in itself is the thing that brings down authoirty. This is in reference to a previous graph which would prove a mythological foundation


Heretofore speaking, The Desire(N) is the methodology which basically believes that that process-wise it is a psychotic-machine with a need for domination. the Domination here is the Desire(N), Man his own Master, so to speak. Replacing domination with desire will therefore allow them to transcend the need for Authority and instead bring them towards self-actualization. Production then becomes a never-ending process of description a Desire and it's translation.

Belonism, in this respect, can easily diagnose what comes after Das Neue Reale. Remember the chart from earlier?

:. N = d

Again N is objectivity. What is the definition we can give to the graph. We shall dub it, "the Desire to Rationalize" aka Modernism. In this case N cannot be achieved and at the same time is the definition. Objective(N) is therefore the new term and the new drive, Das Neue Reale's product. Now, if so from the previous points, what was the previous [|n|] that Objectivity became a desire. One can point to the Church, Superstition or fear of Damnation, although I would favor a fear of their feudal betters than anything else. The old graph would use the Classic(Cx) Model with these definitions

  • n -> service and submission

  • |n| -> The Lord

  • i -> Paradise

  • N -> Objectivity

  • d -> G-d


:. |n|->[d]->[i]

The process to Die Neue Reale, we can use the Historical model.

  • n -> Reason

  • |n| -> The Lord

  • i -> reason to submit

  • N -> Objectivity

  • d -> G-d

|n|~[d]->~[i] :. (i)N-[n]-[|n|]->[d]

which evolves into:

  • n -> Scientific Method
  • |n| -> Scientists & Data analysis
  • i -> objective answer
  • N -> Same
  • d -> Subjective Language/Gadamer's Prejudice

In effect this would mean that if one were to Desire something else it could shift the balance. In closer inspection however, it means that Objectivity is both a myth and a definition, truly an effect of Das Neue Reale. This is the most comprehensive theory of Belonism to date. However, this methodology has wide ranging utilization but it should be used with care. I will primarily use it as the Contemporary Belonist method and it's analysis of Mythology from heretofore, it is in no way to be used other wise.

IV. Schizophrenia and The Algebra of Lack

Within the last blogpost I discuss the symptoms of people who lack a certain stage of development among many other things using the graphs. I will restate this for those that hadn't read the earlier blogposts on the Topic. The point I would like to come across is to make an actual argument because all the previous had only been the definition of terms and so I would actually like in this work to focus more on the argument at hand in order to classify it into a coherent idea. Essentially bring forward the Graphs previous as a way to prove my sentiment. I covered the proof of all of these in the Basics. On here I will cover the societal problem or societal myth rather of the Divine Right of Kings. I will do this through the graphs and hopefully create a process by which people can understand things. Let's begin with the Classical model(Cx) with the defining terms. In order to define these terms, we need to first establish N is the Divine Right. Now what? We need to get a few points across as this is a Belonist analysis. Firstly, the gros N's main property is that it cannot be defined, Myths can only be experienced. In fact, we know it is because it couldn't exactly be a myth if you can correctly describe a dragon. Some poor bastard who read LOTR will, in the near future, is going to turn chicken eggs into dragons I bet you. So, to define the N castrates it, like a mother explaining to their teenager why they shouldn't go to the neighborhood party. So, if gros N is the Divine Right, how can we define it? we need to use the Historical and Relative models to solve this pseudo-mathematical problem just to give a middle finger to my math brain classmate.

  • n -> fight and defend the realm
  • |n|-> the Sovereign
  • i -> Absolute Monarchy
  • N -> Divine Right of kings
  • d -> Power to define

If it was not made clear by the earlier chapters, imaginary(i) defines N by implications or what ifs, Metric(n) defines N by process of getting the closest we can to it & Absolute(|n|) defines N by Authority meaning what institution or person can truly define N actively or literary. So let's start with i because that is the easiest. (1) What if Kings were chosen by G-d? This is where we ask the imaginary, the implications. It analyzes the possible. Well then Kings can do whatever they want as Absolute Monarchs or are they beholden unto the Law ordainded by G-d to rule. That would mean that G-d rules(Theocracy). Let us use the former since the point of the graph is not decision but rather definition, just like Rorschach's test. It is a process of how we arrived to a definition not the decisions we make.

Now if i, is the Absolute Monarchy, (2) What must be done to come close to the Divine Right? This is what one must ask as a Metric, to crush down, to summarize the role or to approximate the gros N of the Subject into one unit. Since we disregarded the theocratic arguments namely, they should follow G-d's precepts, they should build churches, swear your fealty to the Pope or make the give the masses Christian education to be good christians and so, that means what must do to achieve gros N as a ruler or within the system of Absolute Monarchy. As an absolute monarchy, the Subject must fight and defend the realm, the nobles are centralized and under the fealty of the sovereign. Therefore, in order to go as close to N, one must be the Sovereign, the institution. So, it come to (3) As the Sovereign, how must they define the Divine Right of Kings. This means the Subject has been institutionalized. They are now in the full reign of power to act. It comes back to N, but gros N again cannot be defined literaly but sensually. The sensual high of being blessed by G-d with Power. Therefore, the Sovereign can no longer define, they act. Power, as the Sovereign in the Absolute Monarchy means that their only means of definition is through usage or through action. The other however can define the literary cum eo.

This definition or the process of defining inches closer the power of the Sovereign to Word Death or Language Death(4) as I have talked about before. This is when the active myth is encroached upon by language. It has been defined by Historians, by Academics or Archaeology, even misrepresenting the myth can be a blow to the N. the Desire toward N indeed stays the same with no difference however due to definitions, the Absolute(|n|) will change over time. Going back to (3), So as the Sovereign, their primary function is to castrate any attempt to challenge their rule. Therefore the question will be related to the Relative model. To redefine the Sovereign as the Authority, the Power, the Father in Freudian terms. The one who defines. This is their role before Word Death. The Sovereign defines Law. Law becomes the definition of he/rself. The definition as per the model, exerts authority to the imaginer, the individual who imagines through the definition. The Sovereign dictates the dictionary. We all know how it would come down as per before

  1. i~(n)~(|n|)->d(N)

  2. [(n)N]~(|n|)->d

  3. (|n|)=d

  4. {|n|}~d

  5. fig 1. |n|=[d] [i]->[d]-> N [n]->[d]

fig 2. |n|=[d] [i]<-[d]-> N [n]->[d]

So, what would happen if the opposite were to come to. If the definition(d) is left and we try to assess the Myth. This is is usually the problem that happens under Modernism. Let us do a 1940s telephone and start with a (d). Now, this would mean we have a definition which we shall name as Socialism. Socialism in this instance we assume is already in practice. Now if the definition exists independent of the authority due to the authority's contradiction from the authority as established before, the definition would therefore begin the process of word death, the desire achieved and Das Neue Reale will take hold. Within Modernism, the faster something gets to word death the faster it will be accepted by society. This is due to it's emphasis on the Objective which we have established as a myth or gros N. The more something is defined, the less it has biases or so they say but in honest terms it becomes a schizoid disorder within mythology. Schizophrenia, Deterritorialization or the Body without Organs would be better defined as the gros N of the Deleuzian thought. The Anti-Oedipal idea that one needs to achieve gros N through the process of deterritorialization. The process is described as Cartographication. Which in the above concepts would mean the Metric(n).

Denotation(d) disappears in the face of the processed described by Peirce as ‘diagrammatization’. […] This operation of signs, this work of diagrammatization, has become the necessary condition for the deterritorializing mutationst that affect the fluxes of reality; no longer is there representation, but simulation, pre-production, or what one might call ‘transduction’.

When identity and it's definitions cannot form a coherent whole it breaks apart is the shortest way possible to describe this. In the same way, as Don Belong would have put it, A Nation without a coherent Myth cannot survive a week. I would like to define more of this further. We have already covered on the mythological disorders before such as the neurotic, psychotic & addictive. These will be the schizoid disorders that we shall be tackling the former would relate to the Basic nature, when one simply desires or dreams it is not a disorder. Without knowledge or definition of the Absolute(|n|), to crunch it into the Metric(n) or to understand it's implications(i) it is merely a dream. If one however gets from that point to desire then what really is the use of all these diagrams. I could have already slept. So, we begin with the first of the Schizoid mythological disorders, fanaticism. This is where N=d when one imagines and authority with a process to get them to N. There is no questioning here. remember n & |n| in itself are totally absent, sometimes the fanatic even believes the |n| is them. the definition creates the imagination.


Pure Schizophrenia is when one imagines all the components: the Absolute(|n|), the Metric(n), the gros N, the definition(d). There is no better example than that of Judge Schreber.

  • n -> miraculation

  • |n|-> Dr. Flechsig

  • i -> "Order of the World"

  • N -> G-d's graces

  • d -> nerve-ray interuption


If you have a stomach for case files I believe it is best for one to read the daunting text of his memoirs, if you don't get it congratulations you're normal. Now Pure societal schizophrenia is achieved when we only have a definition of the world that was outside of social reality but at the same time. It's like the myth of confederalism lasting forever. Now can the Schizophrenic transform into the basic? Meaning d->N(drive). This need to turn their fantastical definitions into a reality is a result of this schizophrenia.

Now, all of these are the chronic disorders, the acute disorders can be induced from the ones in Chapter I. the next is the Schizo of the Metric(n) which would try to come as close to an imaginary desire as possible. It makes a society to want to achieve insanity. It believes in something probably in the sense of a lack of safety. They believe that it is wholely real since it is not imagined. That there is no authority that can save it. It is beyond description. This "it" is what it desires against. Paranoia, or even in basic terms Capgras' disorder.


The schizo of the Absolute(|n|) is definitely narcissism. It is the illusion of grandeur. They believe as posited before within the logic of the Sovereign. They define the method, they define the implications, they define the definition in the terms of action and power.


Schizophrenic Mythological disorder in general is the lack of the ability to unite all these definitions into a certain whole into the Classical model perhaps. What happens if there is a lack of the gros N. In Freud's term, it's normal, or what is known as the Castration.

This, however, gives rise to (socially derived) feelings of guilt in the child, who recognizes that it can never supplant the stronger parent. A male child also perceives himself to be at risk. He fears that if he persists in pursuing the sexual attraction for his mother, he may be harmed by the father; specifically, he comes to fear that he may be castrated...The ensuing renunciation of the aspiration to be the phallic Thing for the mother, and not any physical event or its threat, is what Lacan calls castration, and it is thus a function to which he thinks both boys and girls are normally submitted. The child’s acceptance of its castration marks the resolution of its Oedipal complex, Lacan holds, again shadowing Freud. The Oedipal child remains committed to its project of trying to fathom and fulfil this desire.


This brings us to the last one the Schizophrenia of gros N. The desire without definition a sensory experience unliterable, unutterable. The Euphoria, the cause of Das Neue Reale, the state that comes before the birth of a new Mythology is the experience of the Mythology sensorally. It is likened to Thomas touching the side of Christ. Undeniable proof yet unnutterable definition. It is, in a sense, the process of rehumanization. Angst and Euphoria, the ability to be sad to having attained the gros N is the abandonment of the old definitions.


In order to solve these problems we need to get back not to an idea but to a myth. To cure the Schizophrenic Mythology, we need to create a myth. This is the charge of the intelligentsia, the artists, cultural workers and so on. All can be healed through Das Neue Reale, a new way of seeing things in a Mass scale. You can escape from Mythology to Mythology. On a final note, The difference between Belonism and Hegelianism is that whereas Hegelianism deals on truths, Belonism deals in the Dialectic of Lies, obviously, of Myths. Myths that people believe to be true. Myths that have real consequences, real problems, real concepts and real actions. Myths propel society, yet it is a Lie. There is no goal to Belonism, whereas there is World-Spirit or Communism, we have none. In fact, if we did the whole point of Belonism, the analysis and definition of Myths would be not only redundant but careless. It's like assuming the Confederacy would win the Civil War. We can only define after the fact, after the gros N has achieved word death.

V. The use of Analytical Belonism

Out of all the categories that I have mentioned before hand, What is the main purpose if what was identified above are mythological disorders. What is the point itself of Belonism. The whole point of Belonism after all is not a psychoanalytic reading of mythology but a mythological reading of society. So what is the purpose after all of this. That is simple, that is to create the Psychopath. The psychopath within this context is ideal within a society because of its aversion to pressures, or remorselessness. Its gaze fixed on the present and the ability to set a goal and actualize it through sheer force of will.

Belonism when arguing this makes a few primary axioms however. Firstly, that the idea of a dialectic within material points in history is next to absurd. This is because of the idea of a collective subjective that moves history. We also refute Hegel's dialectic because it does not in any way relay towards a rational thing. Rather it is in the irrationality of any society that one can be popped up at any moment. And this popping up of society, which is the usual Liberal argument of chaos in the streets because of the death of an unarmed black man, must be where we begin our studies. Not on the foundations that society is rational but rather that societies can be built at all. This is within of course the context of the communitarian idea which builds up the society in the first place.

Now the idea of a Psychopath is the idea that goals can be achieved not defined. It is in fact the very repression of the psychopathic tendency that allows for mythology to be coopted by institutional forces.


Psychopathy is one that actually believes that the Myth is achievable and in some way actually achieves it. Think of the Mythological Psychopathy to subvert & manipulate the situation in order to bring about the rise of Capitalism from Feudalism. It was of course propped up. It took the interests of a Community specifically serfs and merchants to take advantage of the wars of the era and rise above. Psychopathy is when the Mythological element is turned of for one second and shown that we are in fact far from it and that there are steps. Now, individual psychopathy is obviously not that goal but the idea is that we create a society with a myth that is worth "the full mobilization of all available resources".

A Collective Psychopathy, I cannot believe I am using this example but it is definitely an accurate one, could be found in Stalinist Russia during the 2nd World War and Mao's Civil War and even today's COVID tested China. Nobody actually knew what they were doing, it was unexpected, yet through sheer force of will, cunning, manipulation, and "the full mobilization of all available resources" they won the fight. The method was in fact built as they went along since they did not have one in the first place. It is the fully involved motion of this giant machine set to one tune. It was blind optimism and the help of a fox that got them towards their destination.

It is a manifestation of the Collective Subjective, a personification of Sponteneity added with the drumming heart of the Bakunawa. And all we know or what we can describe about that miracle of ordinary people is only known after the fact. Belonists are all eunuchs to the rich emotion in the heart of all myths.

VI. Corporal Mythological Models

What I have described thus far is just the Phallogocentric version of Mythology. It is diverse and Darwinian instead of an absolute random. What do I mean by this? Mythology within the context previous is merely a random darwinian form of Mythology. Let's take into this example Catholicism.

  • n -> Sanctification
  • |n| -> the Church
  • i -> practices
  • N -> G-d
  • d -> Doctrine


:. |n|->[d]->[i]

In this case, Mythology is an Emanation of the Absolute Authority. This Corporal model therefore is Phallogocentric. To be crude, I used the model of a penis and the normal seminal track process. In this chapter we will deal with the Hysteracentric model and the Anti-Corporeal model. In the first we will deal with the Hysteracentric model, we'll talk about the process and the organs within the context of it as a proper model. Here is the long verse:

In humans, ovulation occurs about midway through the menstrual cycle, after the follicular phase. The few days surrounding ovulation (from approximately days 10 to 18 of a 28-day cycle), constitute the most fertile phase.[3][4][5][6] The time from the beginning of the last menstrual period (LMP) until ovulation is, on average, 14.6[7] days, but with substantial variation among females and between cycles in any single female, with an overall 95% prediction interval of 8.2 to 20.5[7] days.

The process of ovulation is controlled by the hypothalamus of the brain and through the release of hormones secreted in the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland, luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). In the preovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle, the ovarian follicle will undergo a series of transformations called cumulus expansion, which is stimulated by FSH. After this is done, a hole called the stigma will form in the follicle, and the secondary oocyte will leave the follicle through this hole. Ovulation is triggered by a spike in the amount of FSH and LH released from the pituitary gland. During the luteal (post-ovulatory) phase, the secondary oocyte will travel through the fallopian tubes toward the uterus. If fertilized by a sperm, the fertilized secondary oocyte or ovum may implant there 6–12 days later.

Oogenesis: Oogenesis starts with the process of developing primary oocytes, which occurs via the transformation of oogonia into primary oocytes, a process called oocytogenesis. Oocytogenesis is complete either before or shortly after birth.

Number of primary oocytes: It is commonly believed that, when oocytogenesis is complete, no additional primary oocytes are created, in contrast to the male process of spermatogenesis, where gametocytes are continuously created. In other words, primary oocytes reach their maximum development at ~20[14] weeks of gestational age, when approximately seven million primary oocytes have been created; however, at birth, this number has already been reduced to approximately 1-2 million.

Two publications have challenged the belief that a finite number of oocytes are set around the time of birth. The renewal of ovarian follicles from germline stem cells (originating from bone marrow and peripheral blood) has been reported in the postnatal mouse ovary. In contrast, DNA clock measurements do not indicate ongoing oogenesis during human females' lifetimes. Thus, further experiments are required to determine the true dynamics of small follicle formation.

Ootidogenesis: The succeeding phase of ootidogenesis occurs when the primary oocyte develops into an ootid. This is achieved by the process of meiosis. In fact, a primary oocyte is, by its biological definition, a cell whose primary function is to divide by the process of meiosis.[18]

However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle.

Meiosis I: Meiosis I of ootidogenesis begins during embryonic development, but halts in the diplotene stage of prophase I until puberty. The mouse oocyte in the dictyate (prolonged diplotene) stage actively repairs DNA damage, whereas DNA repair is not detectable in the pre-dictyate (leptotene, zygotene and pachytene) stages of meiosis.[19] For those primary oocytes that continue to develop in each menstrual cycle, however, synapsis occurs and tetrads form, enabling chromosomal crossover to occur. As a result of meiosis I, the primary oocyte has now developed into the secondary oocyte and the first polar body.

Meiosis II: Immediately after meiosis I, the haploid secondary oocyte initiates meiosis II. However, this process is also halted at the metaphase II stage until fertilization, if such should ever occur. If the egg is not fertilized, it is disintegrated and released (menstruation) and the secondary oocyte does not complete meiosis II (and doesn't become an ovum). When meiosis II has completed, an ootid and another polar body have now been created. The polar body is small in size.

  1. Follicular phase
    The follicular phase (or proliferative phase) is the phase of the menstrual cycle during which the ovarian follicles mature. The follicular phase lasts from the beginning of menstruation to the start of ovulation.

For ovulation to be successful, the ovum must be supported by the corona radiata and cumulus oophorous granulosa cells. The latter undergo a period of proliferation and mucification known as cumulus expansion. Mucification is the secretion of a hyaluronic acid-rich cocktail that disperses and gathers the cumulus cell network in a sticky matrix around the ovum. This network stays with the ovum after ovulation and has been shown to be necessary for fertilization.

An increase in cumulus cell number causes a concomitant increase in antrum fluid volume that can swell the follicle to over 20 mm in diameter. It forms a pronounced bulge at the surface of the ovary called the blister.[citation needed]

  1. Ovulation
    Estrogen levels peak towards the end of the follicular phase. This, by positive feedback, causes a surge in levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). This lasts from 24 to 36 hours, and results in the rupture of the ovarian follicles, causing the oocyte to be released from the ovary.

Through a signal transduction cascade initiated by LH, proteolytic enzymes are secreted by the follicle that degrade the follicular tissue at the site of the blister, forming a hole called the stigma. The secondary oocyte leaves the ruptured follicle and moves out into the peritoneal cavity through the stigma, where it is caught by the fimbriae at the end of the fallopian tube. After entering the fallopian tube, the oocyte is pushed along by cilia, beginning its journey toward the uterus.

By this time, the oocyte has completed meiosis I, yielding two cells: the larger secondary oocyte that contains all of the cytoplasmic material and a smaller, inactive first polar body. Meiosis II follows at once but will be arrested in the metaphase and will so remain until fertilization. The spindle apparatus of the second meiotic division appears at the time of ovulation. If no fertilization occurs, the oocyte will degenerate between 12 and 24 hours after ovulation. Approximately 1-2% of ovulations release more than one oocyte. This tendency increases with maternal age. Fertilization of two different oocytes by two different spermatozoa results in fraternal twins.

The mucous membrane of the uterus, termed the functionalis, has reached its maximum size, and so have the endometrial glands, although they are still non-secretory.[citation needed]

  1. Luteal phase
    The follicle proper has met the end of its lifespan. Without the oocyte, the follicle folds inward on itself, transforming into the corpus luteum (pl. corpora lutea), a steroidogenic cluster of cells that produces estrogen and progesterone. These hormones induce the endometrial glands to begin production of the proliferative endometrium and later into secretory endometrium, the site of embryonic growth if implantation occurs. The action of progesterone increases basal body temperature by one-quarter to one-half degree Celsius (one-half to one degree Fahrenheit). The corpus luteum continues this paracrine action for the remainder of the menstrual cycle, maintaining the endometrium, before disintegrating into scar tissue during menses.

The process in itself with it's relative organs creates a somewhat Bergsonian and Nietzschean time schema as a result of Hysteracentric models. Hysteracentric models compared to the Phallogocentric model is a positive feedback loop in which the creation of the product is unique. In simple terms, it is the difference between a machine and a person making a bowl. A machine is programmed with rigourous instruction and little margin for error to execute a program of design whereas someone by hand could make errors or attributions as their own.

In comparison of models,

  • the Phallogocentric model:


:. |n|->[d]->[i]

  • whereas the Hysteracentric Model:


:. |n|->N

As one recalls, this is the Schizo of the Absolute or Narcissism. This is to mean it becomes a subject that defines itself. To become oneself is to first love the idea of self. A noumenal individual, the Subject, is separated from the Other in this distinction, that being they were created not dendritically but Oologically. Which relates to the Bergsonian or at least the Deleuzian input of the eternal return. It is beyond all else temporal but Time has been conquered by the Hysteracentric model. It goes one way with virtual recall. And so the discussion of the Hysteracentric model depends on a Deleuzian perspective on time.

Unlike Biology, this classical Hysteracentric model is Mitotic. It's main goal is not merely replication however because if we are to believe in the vast Bergsonian, Spinozist or Nietzschean perspective the replication will come eventually. I wouldn't call it cell replication therefore and instead rather Cell proliferation.

  • Interphase:

:. |n|->[d]->[i] + 2N

  • Prophase:

:. |n|->[d]->[i] + (|n|1->N1 + N2)

  • Prometaphase

:. |n|-> + ((|n|1->N1=d) + (N2->|n|=i))

  • Metaphase

:. |n|-> + ((|n|1->N=d) + (|n|2->N=i))

  • Anaphase

[i]--->[n] / [|n|]--->N
:. |n|-> = (|n|1->N=d) + (|n|2->N=i)

  • Telophase
  • [i]-(|n|1->N=d)->[n]->N1 \
  • [|n|]-(|n|2->N=i)->N->N2

So, what we explain here in rough diagrams is what happens after a Das Neue Real in a mythological level society-wide. Or within certain contexts, the process of Revolution itself as a Mythological and Corporate entity. And as you can see within the Telophase the two cells are entirely distinct. The Hysteracentric model again shows an extra-corporeal model which creates without care for the product and thus creates a random model within itself. In comparison to the Negative Feedback loop of the Phallogocentric. The Hysteracentric is a Darwinian positive feedback loop of which contradictory existences may exist.

VII: The Pseudosphere Republic.

The Pseudosphere is Space. Faulty Logic Machines are Solar Systems. The Cathedral is a Black Hole. The Pseudosphere is basically the Matrix and based on Deleuze's Difference and Repetition.

Analytical Belonism has officially become Astrophysics because of this.

The Pseudosphere is the opposite of the world of forms yet is not the physical realm either. It is a World of lies. If the Matrix is a Simulation, what is it simulating? In the context of gaming engines, you may have codes and other designs however we do not know that and there is diversity as a natural necessity when discussing the matter of the Pseudosphere.

The Pseudosphere is made up of both a Positive feedback loop and a Negative feedback loop. The structure is called by Deleuze a "Line of flight". As the line of flight moves forward it defines things that will be assigned a signed value that is interchangeable with the material object. As the Line of flight moves only in one direction forwards into the void as its nature, it constantly drops the former definition in favor of a new one that does more justice to what it seeks to define. The Chapter at length talked about the Negative control loop in previous chapters. When combined it moves wherever Void space is available freely. However, that information based on these definitions can never truly be utilized as it is spread and returns to the void.

To survive and to originate the Line of flight, to begin with, it is more likely that it comes from Faulty Logic Machines These are contradictions based on the current definitions gathered by the lines of flight. FLMs are Machines made up of Machines and also makeup Machines.

The FLM does a very important job for the growth of this body via the absorption of previous definitions that it - the central contradiction - had deemed inappropriate to current understanding. This process of Cancellation increases the profit of the central contradiction and validates its existence, despite the overall premise being flawed, to begin with.

The Central Contradiction can only exist to justify the negation of previous definitions and thus contemporaneously updating the Faulty Logic Machine. It is never a solid entity within the Pseudosphere, it remains liquid and keeps on expanding. Relying purely on the idea that the Central Contradiction can maintain being justified. The idea being that any Faulty Logic Machine due to its embedded central contradiction will give in to it and collapse, ala Marx, he could not have been more wrong.

What happens when a contradiction has never been disproven and has always been fed and keeps on being justified? It has been justified for our entire existence as humans. Neoreactionaries call this the Cathedral. When a Faulty Logic Machine gets too big, the definitions would be codified this is to keep the Faulty Logic Machine true. When a Star is too big, it turns into a black hole. The Cathedral although having multiple iterations never was of such magnitude as it has now due to the democratization of information. This also is in benefit to the rest as, normally, if an FLM gets too big it runs the risk of offending other FLMs. The resulting conflict is a culture war the way to handle it in the usual sense is to feign objectivity. As I said in previous times, victory in the culture war is never good, rather true peace and justice can be found in those who can continue it as long as they can. This can only be assured by those who can be trusted to be objective within the social construction which all agree too, not due to trickery but credibility and consistency. This is the Cathedral.

But this balance, although is something that would have been great was not happening due to the pandemic of a virus known as Capital. The virus of Capital is a side effect, a rogue computation. From the dust of the Reformation, Renaissance, and the Thirty Years War arose the Virus. It's primary Modus Operandi? Desacralization. The FLM exists only via the sacredness of the central contradiction. When infected, the FLM could no longer "afford" to be itself. It disguises itself. Capital turns the FLM into Schizophrenia as it breaks down the signifying chain. Capital then coopts or recuperates the central contradiction feeding it to itself. It sells all the factors necessary for the FLM to exist, the bonds, the signifying chain, all of it. It sells implications in advertising, books, and research. It sells its methods in patents, in factories. It sells its authority to capitalists, police, presidents, and politicians.

This process of acceleration turns the FLM into a Nomadic War Machine. Capital will keep on feasting on the central contradictions of FLMs until all are in the void. This loss of a future within the Pseudosphere is felt and is palpable. Luckily the Nomadic War Machine isn't just expansive anymore, it travels. It has replaced the positive feedback of definitions with implications. The March of Progress leaving behind old definitions for waste and the Central Contradiction merely being there to guide its course.

Revolution can only exist when either: the natural results of Acceleration come about, The Nomadic War Machine adapts to become a Byzantine Fault when both implication and definition cancels the Virus of Capital by the Nomadic War Machine feasting on the Virus of Capital or, in a dramatic turn of events, All of Capital will become it's own FLM and Revolution becomes an ethnic Conflict.

In a Historical context, I see the point that there were Corporatist structures that exist within the unions of the CNT-FAI assuming a direct Hegemony damn near a party line with individual members forming quite literally a mob. Assuming their numbers, they were quite prone to extreme opinions and thus the ersatz centrally planned structures, labor camps, and forced disappearances. Such is the nature of any organization that gets too big.

As Anarchism is about decentralization I see the benefit of a Republican Organization methodology rather than a Democratic Organization(that is Panunionism or the largest Anarchist Org like the FAI taking the helm) methodology.

I have seen and am developing my theoretics on the possibility of Republicanism to slowly evolve rather than mere democracy in an Anarchist setting.

I have re-read opinions by u/ziq and some of the other members on Raddle on the topic of democracy and I believe the last point is very much connected to that article and have seen the benefit of civic or affinity groups over Jacobin-style policymaking after the Catalonian Revolution of '36.

Republican Organization[1] is a theory developed within the 70s to combat the rise of Corporatism in the 30s-60s it was made by the imbecilic American Libertarians but a broken clock is always right twice a day.

As opposed to Democratic Organization, it does not rely on Parties or Consensus but rather policy causes[2]. Instead of parties, we have affinity groups that form blocs rather than parties where the vote is centralized and strict policy is decided. You may know them as Lobbies. For example, the Gun Lobby is made up of different companies and focus groups having the same interest (whether economic or political) in forwarding Gun Rights. The Money changing hands is just something that exists under Capitalism but you can have the system work (much better I would add) without it.

The idea came from Habermas' The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere[3]. The Public Sphere having to be adapted to the needs of Capital rather than multiplying and justifying central contradictions it has managed to be defeated by Capital as it is a system and methodology, a contradictory one at best. At this point in its development, I am surprised it's not an FLM in its own right.

My Political Praxis has recently tended towards rejection which is the latter option. To treat any Revolution for a Post-Capital Society as a cultural rejection of the Capitalist FLM and embracing and conserving the definitions, implications, and contradictions of the New and stable Socialist BF-NWM.

VIII: The History of the Belonist Revolution[WIP]

People often gloss over the idea that Belonism is a concrete movement and a concrete practice. We have already talked about the ideas that come with the actual philosophy and methodology of Isabelo de los Reyes. We have covered the History of the Belonist Movement. But what is the record of their achievements? Is there a History to the "revolution". To truly understand how this history works requires a metanarrative but as a postmodernist, I will do my best to make it narratively neutral as possible.

Let's go on the Deleuze route and use general terms but agglutinated to make me sound intelligent. An FLM could be anything from an individual to a globe-spanning corporation. It could be popular or covert. It could be real or it could be fake. But there are constant rules to the Pseudosphere:

  1. The Properties of the Pseudopshere are fixed, there is nothing new.
  2. All Power is equal, the rise and fall of those who endorse it is based on material conditions
  3. All elements can be manipulated, it is up to people to move the elements around.
  4. The Pseudosphere only remains alive through the actions of people.

In the previous chapter we covered the idea of Markets. We described the Pseudospehere in terms of how Capital has affected it and has led to the collapse of many FLMs. What I haven't talked about yet is the idea of Pseudo-elements which I think can explain how the Viruses work.

Pseudo-elements are basically the same concept but are just associated differently. Think of when I say our native word "Bayanihan". It could be heroism "Bayani•han", It could be a system of mutual aid "Bayan•ihan" or it could mean a specific event that occurs in dire need that requires the help, although an exagerated claim, of the entire village, "Bayanihan". Pseudo-elements allow us to understand the pseudosphere from the subservient's perspective, someone in tuned with the pseudosphere, as we have established, is a psychopath. If it needs to be defined then some truth by association can be found, if it does not need to be defines then truth by action begins.

As time progressed, People have found ways by which to make Pseudo-elements become in of themselves. Whereas the Pseudosphere deal with Absolute concepts and axioms a posteriori, the Pseudo-elements, of people's own creation are synthetic a priori, both exist within the same Pseudosphere and it is in such a universe where we lay our scene.

The Market, a fairly regular FLM, has succumbed to Modernity. Previously it's mother Cathedral, as it always has, controls the means of production for the benefit of society of that time. The Market has reached it's natural conclusion. When stars fuse iron. It will implode, when it does, supposedly, Man will no longer need it. As Modernity promised the end of all structures and the equality of all peoples under Communism, in its original context.

It does not, rather the end synthesis, Capital, the iron, has somehow turned itself into a new structure, neither FLM, NWM, Bureaucracy or even a Cathedral. It's a virus come to ruin Man for it's own purpose, to invade the world of Man. The process has already began and soon technology will bring it to life.

So why did this happen? Why didn't this FLM die a natural death like every other concept? And it has began infecting other ideas to rise from the dead. We are currently experiencing the apocalypse, the wholesale end of the Pseudosphere and it's natural mechanisms could not outrun this Pseudo-Capital. Why? Why did it have to come to this?

This is where we meet our two parties, two pseudo-structures: "Hotel California" and "the Cathedral". Pseudo-structures are the collective imperfection, a harmonious creation of Man, a description of their freedom. In a very basic organization, when FLMs simply want to be more efficient and stable rather than be alone and eat themselves up, they attract themselves to other FLMs on their own free accord to be Polynary Logic Gates(PLG) upscaling the level of abstraction leads us to a grand computer, stable, efficient, 99.9% success rate, The Cathedral. It doesn't always lead to this however because it can be rigid and simply die of overexhaustion, this is a Bureaucracy. The Cathedral however is full of free individual FLMs carrying out their pursuit of self-righteousness and sin efficiently and for all, no one above the other, the perfect orgy.

There have been many Cathedrals, this will not be the last. The Cathedral is the core of any civilization however in meatspace they all occupy the same buildings, they are everywhere from the Church you go too to the letters you type to the very emotions and social conduct it takes to say "I love you".

This current Cathedral of "Western Civilization" has defined too much, it must die. And, it almost does. Unfortunately it's going to go to war with "Hotel California". This is a very new institution, from a hubris that gave us Frankenstein, this particular Cathedral wanted for the first time in the history of the pseudosphere to make itself from the resources around.

Now, a Hotel california is a formation of pseudo-elements that corresponds, in Astrophysical terms to a wormhole. This wormhole's acquisition of resources, as we have discusse, is a roundtrip. This wormhole, has only been recently opened via a form of atomic fission stellarwide. In the 1930s-1970s, Deleuze and Guattari, using already known concepts, detailed this cosmic event in their book Anti-Oedipus. When, old man Capital prodded his cane where it shouldn't.

In such a way Nick Land also noted how through a Hotel California, Capital self-actualizes as a "self-actualizing cybernetic alien being that comes from another realm coming to consume our universe". But when did this Hotel California start? Where did it start?

The Hotel California, for many of it's obviousness, started in the new world. The New world couldn't possibly develop a cathedral but it has nothing to do wit their lack of civilization, but the idea that the strength of their otherworld and their notion of it actually exists. In the old world, the otherworld exists around us and their beings can exist in parallel with our own. But since the advent of the discovery of the new world this idea of the separation of teh other world and our own through "science and reason" and the separation of church and state.

The Spaniards discovered the Hotel California when they invaded the natives and they knew. They destroyed, or at least tried, the Hotel California. However, by some first of irony they came to lord over it.