The Love That Leads to Death



"Queerness is often transmitted covertly (1)"  



Romance : lives in the gap between reality and the dream world

                   It’s a world where our desires are realized.

                   Romance is produced and reproduced through the friction of ideas/people/things etc.


Coolness : is a way of presenting oneself that embodies your desires and eclipses any doubt or                                heaviness  

                 coolness alludes to an individual’s romance worlds and the other bodies that inhabit them

                 coolness is the trace of romance on you


      coolness can make a space romantic.


Your coolness is a preview of your contribution to all our lives and romance is the way an extrapolation of those ideas and what they create  influences the world/creates portals to new worlds.

These are both ephemeral. They are dependent on specific time/place/people/things and need to be refreshed/renewed and reperformed. They are special b/c they are "for now" and "for you".


Both of these performances necessitate a gap or an eclipse/occlusion to allude to - you have to want something. Gaps and occlusions in the restrictions of current reality  are called desires. Desires inspire and spur romance and make it necessary. Sometimes we leave things out/temporarily eclipse aspects for the whole to be attractive. Ex skimpy clothes are desirable while nudity is different and can even be grotesque. Because the genitals are usually occluded from popular cultural view, they operate on our desire to see them. We stare at them. Occlusion creates a desire to figure out the missing piece or gap even though the result isn’t ever quite equal b/c the desire was in the allusion - unless what’s occluded leads to another occlusion; like in love. Allusions and dreams are always a little more and a little less than the new potential reality, the new romantic world that fills the desire gap.


Love is romantic b/c you are drawn to this thing/person/idea without a set explanation and the love fills the gap. The reason for the magic of your connection is occluded and the person becomes wonderful, even when they vomit. B/c love’s lack of explanation is a given - there isn’t an exact way to describe exactly why and how we love something - and we know we’ll never know why or get a sufficient explanation for exactly how it feels so good, instead of being extremely complicated, it instead becomes simple/light.


Social Performance

"My suggestion is that the body becomes --  through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time. (2)”

Like gender, coolness and romance are performances that impact the meaning of their labels on the world by operating on and finding holes within the already existing histories and logics of the world. They change the world/create new worlds by using a body. Because coolness and romance are both acts, they both point to a constant distillation.

“In order to describe the -- body, a phenomenological theory of constitution requires an expansion of the conventional view of acts to mean both that which constitutes meaning and that through which meaning is performed and enacted. (2)”

When we romanticize people on the street (fill the space where we don’t know who they are with a shiny other world based on how we receive their coolness and our desires for them)  it's because the way they perform themselves alludes to the worlds that you imagine they could live.


Coolness is a mood of identity. The performance of "fake it till you make it" presence/confidence (read confide) of coolness alludes to a dreamy sentimentality or a dreamy lack thereof - an impossible desire of not caring, a world where everything's already alright so why wouldn't we be thoughtless, or use that space in our minds to think of more important things. Coolness brings the future to now.

In faking it till you make it, a person is seen as cool/magnetic/attractive b/c we don't see the weight of what it takes to be them every day (which is eclipsed in the gap). When the weight of being is eclipsed, the person comes off as light.  They make it look easy. But their presence also gains an intelligence - b/c there is more to it - even if it’s out of view. It bears the traces that the person is accomplishing it despite... which gives depth to their entire presence, which then reflects strength. We don’t want to be more innocent or a return to innocence, we want distilled intelligence - which seems simple but is actually cognizant of the complexity it’s eclipsing, the nuance that shines through.


It's less cool to say you're really into something than to perform your desire by presenting it in a romantic environment or your performance of coolness. There’s more hospitality in offering a greater possibility of value.

That is unless you're saying you're really into necrophilia which alludes to an occlusion/your membership in an alternate understanding: either you know something they don't or have an alternate read of necrophilia or you are revealing your membership to a group that is eclipsed from popular culture, and the further violence it alludes to (of murder/death).


Sometimes the performance of coolness alludes to a wanting to be accepted by dominant groups. Advertising captures coolness/romance, which were originally specific ephemeral performances meant to grow and change with the person/group and reperforms them, replacing the original intent of the with the desire for profit. This market-coolness/-romance gets its sense of value from the traces of the accomplishments of the original, but because this same performance of coolness is merely reproduced over and over a as a copy, its  hollowness is eventually revealed. The performance is never refreshed, there are never any further distillations. The process ceases to become a mode of social research and exploration and instead just masturbates on the discoveries of one performance instance (see mechanical reproduction). Eventually people get bored.

Commodified coolness is only a marketing strategy that uses a part of someone else’s idea and asks other people to reperform the synthesis of that part out of context (in exchange for money) in order to sell the snapshot of the idea in product form. But money halts the distillation of intelligence and becoming b/c money halts desire.

Let’s do away with passing.

We don't actually all want to be the same or even come all the way out of the closet (who becomes vulnerable in transparency? (3)). But we also don't want the clutter of sharing/experiencing absolutely everything from/to absolutely everyone. There are things we reserve for our loved ones or ourselves or that we just don’t care to know.

It’s okay not to care about everything.

Let's think of coolness, not as a tool for passing into a specific group, but a way of self-curating/distilling/becoming that allows potential kin in other worlds to recognize you and everyone else to see a glimpse of your world and the way you activate it as something magnetic, sparkly and light with a grounding nuance.


The gap in the understanding of why something’s magnetic -  is the je ne sais quoi -  is the coolness.


Coolness is cruising for loved ones and most times there are things to eclipse and distill for future haptic understandings.

- to protect ephemera    - to protect ourselves    - to protect culture from $ (repetitive emptiness)




‘mama said just let him do it, the cock is bigger than all of us.’

   In popular contemporary western society, the masculine is sexualized as animal and the feminine is sexualized as robotic. The sexually desirable masculine is marketed as a loving, but carnivorous beast that despite its occasional affinity for being taken care of (and returning that care) cannot help its insatiable/indiscriminate urge for sex. Conversely, the marketably desirable feminine is seen as the ultimate trophy. She is unimaginably sexually desirable. She is aware of her desirability, and she is reciprocatingly sexual and supportive, but only to a select few and even then not for very long. This marketable sexuality is based on mass produced/market-coolness. The masculine and the feminine must constantly keep cool and suppress/occlude any feelings of attachment in order to play out their roles. Market-coolness occludes personal goals and desires for becoming with what’s popular, trending and being sold. This popular capitalist sex appeal does not typically line up with actual human pleasure and desire - in this way the system bets against us and makes it so we’re bound to mess up. And if either party acts on an emotion that falls outside of their sphere of market-coolness, they default on their marketability - reinforcing the hierarchy and the demand for ‘perfection’.

       If the masculine decides to become monogamous or that he doesn’t want sex absolutely all the time, he loses the fire of his animalsexuality. In monogamy he becomes “pussy‐whipped”, or conquered by feminine domesticity, boring, dad‐like, and old. In admitting that his urge for sex is any less than insatiable, he becomes castrated - he is “dickless”, a eunuch or a “pussy”, the feminine, the conquered, and afraid. If he stops working out, he can still maintain his sexual dominance he but ceases to be a tiger. His marketability drops. His body is ridiculed as being that of a “bear” or “dad‐bod”, and although he can still take marketable feminine objects, it is with the understanding that they don’t need him and can do better. The marketable masculine is a strong, fit, and threatening carnivore that can be physically and emotionally cruel. Supervert queers this image of the market-cool masculine to portray a relatable scenario of necrophilia in Hideous Desiderata, the third short story in Necrophilia Variations. In the story, the main character uses the “Law of Diminishing Kicks” to explain the motives of a man who sleeps with a hooker on his wedding night. His logic being that although the man’s bride is beautiful, he already owns her.

 “At some point the Law of Diminishing Kicks sets in,” the main character explains. You go out with an actress – and then you want a model. You go out with a model – and then you want a supermodel. You go out with a super‐model – and what do you want then? A super‐dupermodel? Tough luck! When you’re intimately involved with the most beautiful woman in the world, there’s nowhere to go but down…by the time I’d tired of the construction worker, with her body that resembled a bull terrier, I’d started to understand something very fundamental about the libido…when you play the Law of Diminishing Kicks backwards – when you stop trying to top the last kick and voluntarily turn around to descend through the depths of the nether thrills – something very surprising happens. Listen. You feel stronger – better – harder. Imagine! The libido is a muscle: it grows stronger through repeated exposure to resistance. And what, to the libido, is resistance? Ugliness” (4).

         The “Law of Diminishing Kicks” describes the problem with the binary system of market-cool desire, there is always a top and a bottom (which are typically the same). What happens to the market-cool masculine when he has already captured all of the pretty feminine objects from the top? If he is to remain insatiable, from that point he can only descend. Supervert describes the marketably masculine subject’s libido as a muscle, an instrument that resists the ugly. But also, in a queer twist, that same resistance also makes the muscle stronger. At the end of the story, the market-masculine carnivore describes the extreme pleasure he finds in copulating with the grotesque and rotting bodies of the dead. But he also warns that “once you’ve been there…you will be forever condemned to see beauty through a lens of ugliness. …it will be impossible to see the clitoris of the most beautiful woman in the world without feeling astonished at how much it resembles a maggot on her cadaver” (4). When the carnivore has tried every type of meat there is, he realizes that the types themselves are just constructs. In terms of actual desire, the extremely desirable and extremely undesirable share more commonality than one might assume.

       While the m-masculine is instinctual, hot, forceful and dumb, the m-fem robot is the cold, complex, directly manipulative counterpart. She is his weakness, the only force that can even momentarily tame him. If she decides she doesn’t want sex, in teasing the masculine, she only becomes more mystical, more of a desperately desired scarcity. If she decides to settle down, her intrinsic maternity degrades them both into domesticity. Also she loses her wonder, the mystery behind her taming power, and instead of being an instrument of market-sexual desire she becomes the masculine’s own personal instrument - there for him to get bored of. For the plastic/automated m-fem, there is also a danger in telling the truth of about her nature. She must perform docile inanimate perfection. If she has hairy legs, or farts, or thinks too much in public, then the façade is ruined. She loses her power of attraction if she performs traits that are recognized as masculine. She becomes a threat. Nina Power describes in her essay Woman Machines: the Future of Female Noise that “for women, as Sartre famously noted, the machine dreams through them…women have historically operated as conduits for the dreams of machines” (5). As the instrument of the m-masc, the m-fem must not publish her ideas as her own. The m-feminine is the object, an instrument to the m-masculine and the market machine.

      In a 2010 CurrentTV appearance, performance artist Amber Hawk Swanson’s describes her 2007 series To Have, To Hold, and To Violate. During the project Hawk‐Swanson, inspired by the RealDoll community and her own search for a female partner, designs, marries, lives with, and dates a RealDoll made in her own image. Throughout the project, the two collaborate to disrupt social events such as wedding receptions, roller‐skating rinks, and football tailgating parties in order to question “ideas surrounding agency and objectification…[and] the success or failure of negotiating power through one’s own participation in a cultural narrative that declares women as objects”. As Hawk‐Swanson describes: “My work with Amber Doll, herself a literal object, deals with such themes through an oftentimes‐complicated feminist lens”.

       In a play on the queer wedding tattoo ritual, Hawk‐Swanson and Amber Doll get matching tattoos to demarcate the terms of their relationship; Amber’s tattoo reads “bully” while Amber Doll’s reads “prey”. In this relationship, Amber positions herself as the m-masculine subject to Amber Doll’s m-feminine objectivity. Amber Doll is her wife, but also a literal object in her possession (read: intersubjectivity and the american slave trade (6)). Amber speaks for Amber Doll like the m-masculine speaks for his silenced m-feminine partner, but also like a child speaks for her imaginary friend or favourite doll. Amber cares for Amber Doll, but also uses her body as a resource for her art. As an instrument, Amber Doll resists Amber’s love by not being able to respond. Her body resists the project by being heavy and difficult to carry around. In being a perfect doll made in her image, Amber Doll is also the m-fem object version of Amber who reveals her, in contrast, as the (exposed) m-fem who uses her materials to benefit her own agency. Amber is the feminine robot who let the secret slip and lost her marketability, and when compared to Amber Doll on social media, comments like:

aaahhhhh at 7:45 PM on 8/4/2007 Fascinating. Her “identical” doll is so much better looking than her. And I imagine more interesting as well. (7)

show how her audience is not shy in making her aware of that fact. Just as she uses Amber Doll as an object and an instrument for her project, Amber Doll also objectifies her and reminds her of the role she is failing to fulfill as a woman in consumer society (9).

      In every instance, the objectified material resists its instrumentality. The sexually m-masc carnivore’s libido resists perceived ugliness and the grotesque. Amber doll resists being Amber Hawk Swanson’s co‐collaborator and love object. The sexually m-cool masculine and feminine resist capital by loving someone/something (and not necessarily one another) in an environment of care, dependency and respect. And the m-fem automated doll resists capitalist patriarchy by publically thinking for herself. From the perspective of a capitalist society where there is only a top and a bottom the position of subject is the only one with any value, but capital uses this illusion of scarcity as a motivator to retain followers and exist. The instrument always resists. It is possible to be an instrument of a body without being owned but this requires sensitivity and communication. Objects are not identically interchangeable, in different climates they resist in different ways, and how do we benefit from those resistances? The illusion that there is a top and a bottom, a necessary subject who takes credit for their instrumentation is a commercial illusion, especially since most people carry some objectivity and most objects the inverse (6). If there’s a top and a bottom there must also be a sideways - there’s always a different angle from which to negotiate a way out. No position has more inherent potential than another. The supermodel has the same measured value as the rotting dead.




having this in mind:

but approaching it from this way:

and being able to let go of both of them (and all things) as beautiful illusions.


Love gives us a sense of responsibility to be all we can be for the ones who’ve nourished the things we love before us, for our peers we are asking questions with now and for the future who will continue to ask questions. And love is a bind. It handcuffs you to someone or something and allows your decisions to reverberate - it’s a responsibility for more than just you.


This section uses the history of black performance in america as a model to consider how romantic environments get produced and reproduced.  


From the  original performance (negro spirituals/gospel/jazz)  –

The original performance stems from the collective haptic bonds formed in the original political moment.  Hortense Spillers describes the ungendering violence of “total objectification” that occurred when humans were abducted from their culture and sold and shipped as cargo - severing their rights to culture and foundations of origin - and were instead born as descendants of the Atlantic (6). As terrible as that history will always be, Fred Moten describes a haptic bond that came out of surviving that shared experience and being marked by the unsettling feeling of “never being on the right side of the Atlantic” - a feeling that “unsettles with others” (8). He proposes that even in that moment when slaves were refused humanity and every respect and sacred rite that comes with being a sentient being and thrown into the hold, “thrown together touching each other we were denied all sentiment, denied all the things that were supposed to produce sentiment, family, nation, language, religion, place, home. Though forced to touch and be touched, to sense and be sensed in that space of no space, through refused sentiment, history and home, we feel (for) each other” (8).

Slaves were refused all sense of bonding and yet there was one.

Hapticality is a strong corporeal understanding that comes from touch and shared fugitivity/resistance.

Even when humans become material objects, the material always resists.



To the solidarity of the free slave experience. The working class (black and white) migrate to cities for early factory jobs and the mixing (blurring) of shared space between races, the erotic friction of the touching worlds and their touching music (Motown, Rock n Roll) -

The most passionate music that ever existed is a result of the friction, the rub, the sex, the point of contact – and the resultant haptic bonds – between black americans, the group that were haptically bonded in objectivity and loss of origin, and the whites, the group that were haptically bonded in being complicit in or assumed as complicit in the violence of slavery and/or benefiting from the privilege of not having lineage in the enslaved group - and every little arm-brush inbetween. Every sex reproduces something – be it pleasure, feelings, lack of feelings, quality of labor, humans, cultures, romance, individuals etc.

With all of the confusion put on us to think that sex is bad or diluting to the high quality of the mind, that your neighbor is out to steal from you so you have to collect and protect your things before they do, that all touch is sexual and therefore violent/evil…we constantly rub against each other from all sides of all arguments – and it changes us, it marks us, and it binds us to others through these histories. It creates love in complex places – and allows us to question ourselves again – and it creates romance, fruits of love/questioning like art, science, food, technology.

Love and pain are binary opposites that are more the same than different so that’s why we can be attracted to suffering and self-harm because we can produce them, but suffering is more like masturbation than brushing/rubbing against something else.

We can have sensual and violent curiosities for ourselves and others (especially those perceived as non-sentient). “These three-dimensional figures are nonhuman players in this scene, but they nevertheless initiate and make visible the principles that the viewer calls on when confronted with passivity” (9). Objects (including human objects) teach us about ourselves.

In an age where everyone “knows” so much about everything, we are all dealing with varying degrees of intersubjectivity from the different times when we are acknowledged as people v when we are acknowledged as things. But in the end a lot of things go into the making of an individual and just b/c you know “how scorpios tend to act in committed relationships” “how women really feel about kissing with tongue” or “what facial features link modern peoples to what indigenous peoples and tribes” these details tend not to mean much when decoding individuals and their lived experiences. It’s easier than ever to turn a person into a list of things b/c you want to know, but what do you want in “knowing”?



To what it means to reperform past songs + romances today as stories that have been carried on from a past generation that already have a history of producing romances and affecting the world around them. How do we recon with the romances that made and were made by our ancestors (b/c they also contributed to making us)?

Covers and samples and second listens and re-masters and greatest hits albums carry the weight of their original haptic relationships (and their specific times/places/political climates) into different times, to arouse new and different implications.

The next generation, naive to the experience of what it was like to exist when these songs were being created, will hear the songs and be moved by them in a contemporary context that inspires them to create something similarly powerful, that is specific to the present but in tribute to the past. They want  to make something that (fans) who were moved by the original romance/haptic bond will recognize. A refresh that adds to the weight of the historical friction that’s been carried on.

The naiveté of the descendents, knowing the music but detatched from its origin/the personal haptic struggle that created it that is impossible to understand out of context, creates a  gap in understanding - where desire and longing live. The desire to understand and to demonstrate that you too have a stake in the tradition, even if it’s from a more contemporary point of entry.

The collective longing that we share for past romance, heartbreak and struggle of turning haptic marks of dissonance into love is the desire surrounding what it means to be a fan and really love an art/object/person/god/book/barbie doll/anything.

What’s made new through the re-performance (like cosplay/collage/sample or dreamgirls)? How is it changed and haunted and re-doubled by the next generation?

Even when a piece is reperformed at a different time by the same person and we have the performer’s body, they are both themselves in this moment in this performance with these current factors acting on them, and the shadow/ghost of the past performance and past veneration that they have to live up to. In desire to do justice to the past and the desire to hold onto presence rub together - and the friction gives birth to something new and refreshes the romance to make it contemporary.

 Also Technology

Every new romance affects every other romance. Everything meshes together to spread and make loves new. The beatles sound so good and their remastered recordings are better than they’ve ever been so it’s easier to fall harder and harder b/c someone loved something else enough to refresh it. It makes you ask that same question about the gap/desire in understanding “how they ever did that then when they knew less than I do now?” When it wasn’t as easy. There’s an awe. Great romance worlds are literally ahead of their time - their greatness only makes sense in the future, in hindsight.

 Love isn’t blind. Love sees and tells you everything’s going to be okay, we’ll get through it together. Love is a bind/a responsibility. It’s a promise of pleasant and confronting conversation and touch.



And then we have the music of now and the last decade - (next generation rap/hip hop)

Black Americans who were slaves only 5 to 8 generations ago have now mixed, not only with working class whites and immigrants but also with the rich and the super rich. A people who were the overt material for the production of commodities, whose ancestors were literally objects, have mixed with people who have so much money and/or fame that they are literally worshiped for it. Obama’s the president. The extreme subjects have mixed with the extreme objects, the tension of which we see exemplified clearly in contemporary rap culture.

This generation of rap and hip hop is mirroring back the absurdity of popular culture to the point where it seems like satire, and in that way it reveals the truth.

Not only are young black people who have come from the systemized poverty and oppression that followed slavery beginning to spend more time in the social spaces of the rich and the super rich (not just as their doormen and nannies), but the modern rap star is a prime example of the special form of intersubjectivity in embodying both sides themselves, as one person. Kanye West came from the south side of chicago and now has more societal power, influence, and discretion than most people could ever dream of.

Rap stars who often grow up in racially segregated communities where people have often been systematically kept from obtaining the ‘typical american dream markers of success’ like nice cars/nice houses/and expensive schools and instead live in worlds where love, word and reputation are the strongest forms of currency, suddenly make it big and transition to a world idolized by everyone where people have so much money that everything becomes an object. “Everything they touch turns to gold” be it clothes, women, sunglasses etc (10).

At this level of instant fame/money/subjectivity, the supersubject cannot love things based on pleasure anymore. If a supersubject loves a car that’s worth less than their friends’ cars, or dates a person who is less commodifiably attractive than someone their friend’s dating, or pretty much does anything that can’t be valued or marketed toards the public’s image of them, their subjectivity stock takes a hit. If Drake were to all of a sudden marry a middle aged white guy, people would freak out for a bit and then lose interest because that image is different from his brand/his subjectivity/his marketed personality.

When kanye says in his 2013 song New Slaves that black people are ‘spending everything on alexander wang’ it’s not because he’s super into alexander wang or that the clothes are intrinsically worth more to him personally or last longer/have deeper pockets etc, it’s because there are only a certain amount of brands with values high enough for him to be seen in and still have people respect him. So as we see in the Migos video Versace, as the rap star becomes the new face of these ultra-commodity brands, the public’s idea of what the brands and what the modern day rapstar both look like begin to blur together and respectively change. But Migos definitely could not have made the same video about Rocawear or Fubu - these are both attainable (and even worse, attributed as being attainable to ‘the ghetto’). They don’t leave a monetary end to aspire to. In this way, supersubjectivity is a different side of the same restrictions as poverty.

And if people lose interest they loose power. Everyone wants to see rappers, models, and politicians be irresponsible (and even violent) with their fame and their money, but there’s a hidden clause that if you fail to entertain us you go back to the ghettos that you came from (see hoodrich). You go back to becoming a nobody - there’s always somebody in nobody. It must be jarring to go from a world where you can’t catch a break to a world that feels like you have everything, and that’s why people particularly love to see “rap star story”, they’re inspired by it. They love it because they can relate to being poor and they want that money and that influence. It’s the American dream of hustling until you get yours rebranded, but it’s only a commodity - the real story is that no matter how many days of honest hard work you put in, you probably won’t ever get there (b/c they’re blocking you from it) and getting there isn’t worth it anyway b/c even the super rich suffer  restrictions. Just b/c they have money doesn’t mean everyone’s not still betting against them. Everyone wants to see supersubjects fuck up.


Kanye expresses this in his song FML from the 2016 album The Life of Pablo “I’ve been waiting for a minute for my lady so I can’t jeopardize that for one of these hoes...they wish I would go ahead and fuck my life up, can’t let them get to me.” Kanye knows no one wants to see him, Kanye West, a huge rap star, live happily ever after and love his wife and kids. People love when celebrities lose. They want to be able to make fun of them and take them down a notch. They love to watch these kids who came from a particular sort of nothing suddenly be granted all they were denied and spend the rest of their lives binging and destroying themselves, if for nothing else than to make them feel better that these huge celebrities are just like them.


Whether the rap star came from systemized poverty and public housing or grew up middle class from the inner city listening to punk rock and going to suburban schools, being black in America still comes with a long list of restrictions from subjectivity. Black families still make less and own less homes, black culture is still a major source of entertainment as well as the biggest and most grotesque cultural joke, black girls still want good hair, people still think black boys are sex fiends and murderers (meanwhile white boys will be boys), black children still play with white dolls, everyone still relates blackness to the ghetto, dating a black person still has to be ‘a thing you’re into’, and non-black families would still prefer you didn’t bring a black person home to dinner. Because black people innately have more restrictions from subjectivity, as supersubjects the rap star stereotypically goes all out to show how self made they are and makes it a competition with other rap stars, queering the status of the supersubject to insane proportions. But rap stars of the last decade have gone further than that, they act out, and resist acting out, and act out more strangely, and put the identity battle and the stereotypes of acting out and the acting out out itself on trial in their songs.

The rap star wants to know why the relationships between love/respect and money, and between money and value, and labor and value and money don’t add up. Is money just a bad substitute for love? What is it about being a supersubject/being famous (being a marketed commodity (11)) makes people who they don’t know and could honestly care less about profess their love for them? In 2009 Souljaboy made a whole song just to tell people he doesn’t know to get out of his face.

Saying that Souljaboy should be grateful that people know his name and want to bother him at all is the same logic as saying women should be grateful for being catcalled. Honestly as humans we probably don’t have the capacity to love and respect very many people at once, so trading money for favors that would have been based on love is an incredibly irresponsible method for weeding out who should be the leaders in our society (especially b/c huge groups of people are intentionally kept from money/subjectivity/societal love). The sort of fans that contemporary society creates, those who are obsessed with their idea of the artist’s brand instead of the spiritual value of the works/romances that they’re creating is just a way of creating a bigger demand for capital. The public sees the celebrity and the rap star’s lush lives and then they do everything they can to align their lives with that model out of admiration. But the lives that the public are being sold are only exaggerated, sculpted versions of the supersubject’s real life, which if you could see you would probably just be bored because its themes are probably pretty similar to yours. The idea that there’s a scarcity of incredibly talented people (or that they’re all artists) is a complete lie. There are an infinitely various amount of talented thinkers and we are all capable of creating worlds and romances further into the future and far beyond what anyone could have ever conceived. And money is completely arbitrary to this process.


Let’s stop worrying about good or bad or capitalist v anticapitalist, there’s a whole other world out there (11).

What’s left to be desired?

b/c in the end the love you take might not be equal to the love you make - but if you’re making love you’ll be happy enough to not be keeping score.


The truth, like everything else, is being made new always. It’s particular to different worlds, so there are different ways of knowing. Different truths are more valuable in different situations. You can know with your mind, body, with or without language with the help of your cell phone, in a dream or  in another world, infinity. But the magic has to be reproduced so it can stay light despite what new intelligence we’re always learning and who new is trying to fuck us over, b/c it glitters, it’s warm, it keeps us from the death that comes before dying and cradles us towards the one that comes when we’re dead and it alludes to love, the great occlusion which we do not explain.


Works Cited


(1) Jose Munoz ‘Ephemera as Evidence: Introductory Notes to Queer Acts’ Women & Performance a Journal of

           Feminist Theory Vol 8 Issue 2 (1996, page 6)

(2) Judith Butler ‘Performative Acts + Gender Constitution’ 521, 523

          < >

(3)  Jose Munoz ‘Ephemera as Evidence: Introductory Notes to Queer Acts’ Women & Performance a Journal of

              Feminist Theory Vol 8 Issue 2 (1996)

(4)  Supervert. Necrophilia Variations: A Literary Monograph. New York, NY: Supervert, 2005. Pdf -pg 10.  


(5)  Power, Nina. (2009). Women Machines: The Future of Female Noise. In: Mattin Iles & Anthony Iles, ed.,

              Noise & Capitalism, 1st ed. Donostia‐S.Sebastiá, Spain: Arteleku Audiolab, pp.97‐103.u.

(6) Spillers, Hortense J. "Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe: An American Grammar Book." Diacritics 17, no. 2 (1987):


(7) Getsy, David J. "Queer Exercises: Amber Hawk Swanson's Performances of Self-Realization." GLQ: A

         Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 19.4 (Fall2013): 465-85  <


(8) Fred Moten/Stefano Harney The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study 2013 pgs 97-99

            < >

(9)  David J Getsy Acts of Stillness: Statues, Performativity, and Passive Resistance 2014

           < >


(11) (section 4)

(12)  Fred Moten/Stefano Harney The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study 2013

< >