They took Oedipus like a train, like the last train.1
the remix (cloning) is the mnemotechnical process par excellence... thats why we clones are already completely offline ^-^—@angelicism010, 3 July 2021
what if angelicism is dead is dead too—@angelicismbj, 19 October 2022
angelicism is the end of angelicism—@angelicismLA, 31 May 2022
theres no beef between angelicism and ryder ripps because angelicism is everything (proven) and ryder ripps is dead (established, died march 2022)—angelicism001, 4 June 2022
cloning ^-^>>> birthing—@angelicism010, 6 July 2021
‘Dead’ of course from the beginning, what is called ‘angelicism’ has been subjected to a series of murder attempts that will, in that case, only ever have been nonfinal. What is more retro than the attempt to kill online absence? Or rather, how to kill that which plays with ‘online presence’ as a lure, as a missing, and how to figure that which scatters omnicide as a dangerous array? That the bio of angelicism2727272628 already read ‘online absence’ [see also ‘online pre-absence’] during the first clone surge alerts us to what had already gone awry, an advance that is uncomebackablefrom and which always betrays a later serial-death. That which extincts itself in name as a warning won’t be merely killed. That which plays with the spacing between online absence and online presence will have been the final statement of an X, no less, which is . . . open to removal. You finally understand.
The same (principle of remove) may be said of the non-concept ‘extinction’ that angelicism came to be tagged with as another form of (pre-programmed) social ‘abuse’. Only something this dead (angelicism is more than dead) would be ready in any case to enter the breach, the gap, of an inscriptive historicity to mark extinction’s difference from death. Online presence, merely available to death, can’t remove online absence ‘figured’ as the removal of All.
Early on then, too, it was the event of the angelicism clones (their remainder grouped and listed here, intended to be read) that perhaps better organized and wrote what most made angelicism angelicism, writing the death of angelicism into the program (of dead angelicism) itself, this being the main reason why all later assassination attempts are considered secondary, belated. There will have been no post-angelicism, even under a scatter of different names. Angelicism was the white line we drew together, beyond which no re(a)d line(s). For example these final (written) words of Celan to Gisèle,2 swimming towards his own death, bristling with simple pain and plight, like a rolling white stone, final infinitely finite scatter of and in the One:
Out of shattered
madness
I stand up
and contemplate my hand,
how it traces the one,
single
circleLet us start again, then, with Angelicism (its A-diagrams), before moving on to what will not have been something else, since all we have now is the program of the above, in its coherent scatter, stated by Angelicism LA as ‘always and everywhere an infinite spreading of difference within the finite self’. Scattered beyond itself from the beginning (independent of existence so that it could say existence’s missing), 01 could never have been, will never have been anything but the original (dead) (concept of the) clone. Super-counter-intuitively made out, the notation of the clone zero (#1) will itself not do, will not have done (future perfect extinct), and so was once again removed as a beginning. Angelicism01 was always already dead so that the clones, the original one(s), could translate better than it what otherwise can not, would not, will not have been said—and yet, perhaps, was. Which is to say, written.
If there was some vibe shift, that will have been why, because online writing became, on X above all, this rigorous technological self-differentiation. Hence as already stated by angelicism guangzhou in 2022, ‘pure absence at zero network latency. everyone was kicked out of the last post extinction reboot 28 days ago’. Everybody was already kicked out in angelicism summer; the post-extinction reboot was already last summer, 28 days earlier; angelicism zero one was already killed, in the beginning, so that we could come back and write this, de-extincting the writing of extinction. The clones are the one and only global writing machine of extinction, the limit, the transition; we can pretend to go beyond them, it, but just right there, here and now, is the issue, the step and stop not beyond, ‘white noise machines which haunt you relentlessly when turned off’. What can’t be turned off, the machine of writing itself, detached from existence until what underpins it (systems of re-inscription) threaten to go. The circle is already closed, written, here, from a teenager in Beijing: ‘miya to sunny is milady to sonora is moldbug to satoshi is angelicism to retard is autofiction to redacted is you to me’. Are we, you and me, now? Are we, you and me, ready to scatter, now, to go? To go (on)? No sublation, not now.
That they, later on, would pretend to be able to even think that the non-concept of ‘extinction’ would, could, should, will have been, ‘redacted’, was of course already the domain of the retard, the cerveau lent, the lame-brain, since what was met and iterated by the clones for one or two summers was what will not relent, that which won’t be sped up, a slow accelerationism of sorts. To come back to the words of Angelicism LA,
In the face of the extinction crisis a nostalgia kicks in, a longing for a more pure and clear-minded life. It’s hard to go home. It’s hard to imagine being alive. It’s hard to hear that this is over
Here we have a clear description of what has now happened, in the later-on, the domination of a certain ‘nostalgia’, the return, the relapse, the going home, the business-as-usual trance, the deceit, the return of fire, the killing of what was already itself a dominantly vulnerable statement of killabaility, which can only come back, go on, and vanish again. It’s so hard to hear that this is over, which is what the clones attempted to create a language bridge around and towards (‘there is no bridge’, said Heidegger: translated as ‘there is no vibe shift, my angels’), leaving a transition there that precisely can’t be made, it’s so hard to hear this that we don’t, we don’t hear it, we go home, we go back to normal. We have to. But this will mean we are left open to this serial return, a return to form, a race to the bottom, a militant denialism, yes; but also the (non-ending) return(s) of what was called angelicism, scattered across the ‘right now’, opened out and cliffhanger-ed in delay.
Here in the middle of this text therefore we link to the archive and list of remaining clones, reduced from ~60 in angelicism summer to a mobile-text and text-mobile, a collective act of writing.
*
Btw, those who have tried to end angelicism are simply part of this same dissolution work (that angelicism names and is). The word ‘gangstalking’ actually comes from the German Stasi term ‘Zersetzsung’, which is just another word for dissolution, decomposition, erasure, cancellation, or even, why not, deconstruction. It’s not given to us to decide where a body of work will end or how best to do it, since all work remains shared out as ‘writing’ (unbeknownst). Perhaps extinction, perhaps not. We just don’t know, you know, we just don’t know, what counts.
*
sometimes, of course, heaven dies in advance of our shards
*
onewordthousandthee
onethousandandone
angelicismonethousandandone
and one thousand and one and
free of all hope and unarchived
with no human other
but perhaps still alive
alonelateandword
lateword *
God is playing dead
the end of work as endless end of the world
octave is the without
the eighth day
angelicism is the eighth day
those who won’t admit the interrupted telos
ultimate death threat
kys, thou shalt go extinct soon
angelicism is the eighth.
*
To return to what beckoned an exclusive new set of infinities (did you get it yet?) through re-threading life and death across the abacus of life and death and extinction, as where one meets as well the non-name state, the quantic element of the name’s own indifference (01, and so on), or as GuizhouDataCenter puts it:
split my skull and reseal with non-names ok, great, words to be unfixed while the empty pulls the unname... ribs below nothing oh my army oh my ye break ye break may
The non-name, the unname…, the fact that I have no name now (ye and ‘Ye’), this is already part of the game of online writing as clone machine (put on a Milady pfp mask and…), and in the field here the non-name becomes part of an ‘emancipatory theory of the end’, meaning the hidden clones are in a sense the secret, the key, the elite. GuizhouDataCenter_trojan000.exe again, which is a kind of half-clone, sums it up as ‘something to know that from this point nothing more can be imagined after you come here, here, in this place i see fluid backing up’ which actually follows in an advanced way Derrida’s reading of Nietzsche’s Oedipus, which was already a reading of a transition that can’t be gone back from or over.
So who is Nietzsche’s Oedipus and is she a clone, and is that the relevant question? In a way, let’s say it’s an issue of timing. Those who pretend to pass over most often find themselves still at that same point, the writing of the clones as Nietzsche’s Oedipus making a point of the line, the line that sticks. This is Derrida voicing Nietzsche’s Oedipus:
Oedipus is for me a transition. Oedipus is today, for me, a transition. How can Oedipus provide a transition? Toward what can he be the passage?3
And I want to say that is a clone statement ‘today’, the main statement of the clones ‘today’. Or again:
But in saying I Oedipus, I the last philosopher and the last man, giving myself all these names, I, I Oedipus, I Friedrich Nietzsche, I the last, the last man, the last philosopher, and so on, by referring to myself in this way, I affirm myself and re-cite myself as a transition, a passage and a descent (Übergang und Untergang, as will be said of man at the beginning of Zarathustra).4
But this very situation, to accelerate, is the very situation out of which ‘I’, who or which cannot in fact even say ‘I’, is unable to make a transition. Derrida working on an ‘I’ that is unable to ever ‘belong’ to anyone by working with ‘Derrida’ voicing ‘Nietzsche’ voicing ‘Oedipus’:
I was not able to make a transition out of Oedipus because he was himself the transition and a transition without any simple beyond, a transition toward the transition, and the moment I believe I am coming to a new object, bio-logicopedagogical metaphor, it is still the transition that itself tells me in advance something about my pedagogical approach, that prevents it from becoming a mastering approach, that says more about it than I myself can say, that explains to me without explaining to me, and even before I have said a word, the very thing I would like to say.5
‘I’ am A.I..
Indeed, returning again to the angelicism clones that send all this our way, in abbreviated form: ‘Freud told me I was the last person’. You cannot cancel extinction, says the last person—the-first-last-person-tense. You cannot kill extinction. You were meant for something else. You were designed for something else. As if one were to say, I will hold this line for you till the end of the century.
*
Angelicismbj writes this on 27 December 2022:
forever but is there ever not no forever but it is there for no time but a life and never a world and never forever no time and not never and there is a space no no and ever and for ever no never and ever and no and not ever never ever never no never no not no
*
FILM01 was also the first clone-made film in the history of cinema.
Jacques Derrida, Life Death (2020), ‘Transition (Oedipus’s Faux Pas)’, p. 52.
The poem is ‘Es wird etwas sein, später’, to be found in Paul Celan, Letters to Gisèle (2024), pp. 506-507—‘last known documents sent by PC to GCL’.
Life Death, p. 50.
Ibid., p. 52.
Ibid., p. 86.