Body Without Organs (BwO) as a Luring Alternative to Rigid Christianity and Extreme DEI: A Critique Through the Lens of Axiomatology
At present, many intelligent and intellectually curious young individuals entering universities find themselves caught between two opposing ideological forces. On one end of the spectrum stands the radicalized "woke" movement, typified by extreme Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) demands that often enforce rigid and uncompromising forms of social conformity. On the other end is a form of restrictive, rigid Christianity, often represented by individuals whose personal sincerity and moral consistency can reasonably be questioned. In this polarized environment, the concept of the Body without Organs (BwO), as articulated by Deleuze and Guattari, emerges as an emotionally and intellectually attractive alternative. Promising liberation from fixed identities, oppressive structures, and predetermined roles, BwO offers a seductive vision of freedom that appeals strongly to youth disillusioned with the available poles of cultural authority.
This article critically analyzes the BwO framework through the lens of Axiomatology, offering an examination of its metaphysical, psychological, and existential implications in comparison to the demands of structured value hierarchies.
DEI as a Parody of Itself
A particularly striking yet often overlooked phenomenon within today's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) culture is its deeply paradoxical nature. At its core, DEI operates under a series of internal contradictions that undermine its purported aims. Here, we highlight some of the foundational paradoxes of the ideology.
The primary issue with DEI lies in the arbitrariness with which social groups are defined. The rules for group formation are not based on stable ontological principles but are determined by a small, self-appointed segment of individuals who claim to represent the "authentic" voices of these groups. As a result, corporate and institutional DEI programs often descend into absurdity, employing the "magic of intersectionality" to manufacture endless categories of group identities based on increasingly fragmented and contingent characteristics.
A Thought Experiment: Demonstrating the Randomness of Group Identity
To illustrate the inherent absurdity of contemporary group identity formation, consider a simple thought experiment. Suppose we randomly select ten individuals—five men and five women—off a busy city street at a random time. No particular effort is made to homogenize the sample. Superficially, these ten individuals might share very little in common.
Applying intersectionalist logic, however, we can immediately begin constructing "oppressed" and "oppressor" groups by manipulating various superficial or arbitrary traits. First, biological sex can be invoked. Then age can be layered on top. Beyond these, any number of physical characteristics—such as height, hair color, hair texture (natural or modified), body mass index, or even dental alignment—can be mobilized to fabricate distinctions. Each new trait opens further permutations.
More critically, psychometric characteristics (e.g., personality traits, cognitive abilities, temperament dimensions) can also be configured into group identity frameworks. Given the combinatorial explosion of possible traits, the ways in which group identities can be constructed become practically infinite.
What is often missed is that the very notion of "group identity" in DEI contexts is rendered meaningless—it becomes a hollow form, capable of being "filled" arbitrarily by whoever controls the parameters of identity construction. Group identities are no longer discovered through meaningful shared experiences or objective characteristics; they are imposed from above by external agents manipulating definitions to achieve desired political or ideological outcomes.
For example, an "oppressed" group could be fabricated from men with "bad" natural hair, women with extreme body proportions, individuals with particular ancestral hardships (extending back seven generations, following models reminiscent of family constellations), or any other assortment of traits. The result is the same: the creation of matrices that generate infinite numbers of oppressed-oppressor group pairings, even among a small set of ten individuals.
When this method is scaled up to entire cities or nations, the combinatorial possibilities for manufacturing group identities expand exponentially. Thus, what is presented as scientific and moral clarity in DEI frameworks is, in practice, a chaotic parody of authentic communal belonging and ethical recognition.
The Paradox of DEI: The Need for Exclusivity and Conformity
Diversity and inclusivity are celebrated within DEI ideology, but only in strict tandem with conformity—embedding an inherent paradox at the core of the entire framework. Diversity is valued only insofar as individuals conform to the arbitrary group-formation logic dictated by the prevailing DEI orthodoxy. One can be "included" only if one submits to the rules of "inclusivity"; those who display non-conformity are, paradoxically, excluded.
Thus, efforts to promote inclusivity often lead to the enforcement of a singular, homogenized cultural norm. As George Orwell illustrated with his metaphor of the pigs in Animal Farm, a new elite—those who are "fairest of the fair"—emerges, pressuring individuals to assimilate while stifling genuine diversity.
The same paradoxical mechanics apply to equity. The stated goal is fairness, but fairness is extended selectively. Those who dissent—especially on the grounds of classical liberal principles such as free speech or freedom of thought—are often excluded from "fair" treatment. A narrowly defined combination of rights and freedoms is presented as "fair," while divergence from these ideological norms justifies inequitable treatment. This dynamic triggers debates about meritocracy and whether differential treatment under DEI genuinely achieves equity or simply redefines injustice.
Nowhere is the internal contradiction more visible than in the treatment of race. Morgan Freeman once pointed out that to eliminate racism, one must simply stop talking about it. Yet the DEI paradigm does the opposite: it elevates race-consciousness to the center of cultural discourse, thereby perpetuating racial categories instead of transcending them. In attempting to celebrate "colorblindness" while simultaneously promoting racial diversity, DEI creates a parody of itself—one that collapses under even basic logical scrutiny, often falling apart before the questions of an intelligent child.
A complete circle of absurdity is achieved when colorblindness is invoked rhetorically while race-conscious policies are simultaneously enacted. Organizations find themselves trapped in contradictions that no amount of semantic manipulation can reconcile.
This same coercive dynamic extends to how DEI programs are presented. Participation in DEI initiatives is often framed as "voluntary" yet is practically mandatory. Individuals are required to affirm prescribed ideological statements, leading to widespread performative declarations—insincere affirmations that function as ideological litmus tests rather than authentic expressions of belief. These conditions mirror the coercive ideological conformity described in Orwell’s 1984.
The requirement to "eliminate all bias" also collapses into contradiction. In practice, DEI interventions introduce new biases, favoring certain demographic groups over others. Like Frankenstein's monster, the system is held together by continual patchwork, perpetually generating new injustices in the name of rectifying old ones.
Claims that "there is no exclusion because diversity is the backbone of the organization" often prove hollow. Promoting diversity while simultaneously marginalizing dissenting viewpoints creates new forms of resistance—resistance often rooted not in prejudice but in the simple demand for free speech and intellectual autonomy.
The best example of this mechanics appears when free speech is tested within DEI frameworks. Although formally protected, free speech often collides with unstated taboos. Those who attempt open dialogue on controversial topics find themselves subjected to Kafkaesque exclusion processes, reminiscent of The Castle, where no clear jurisdiction exists but transgressors are nonetheless punished for failing to intuit the "correct" boundaries.
A similar contradiction appears regarding neutrality. Organizations claim "no favored groups," yet equity-focused policies systematically advantage certain demographics, eroding the very principle of equal treatment.
Finally, the very act of "measuring inclusivity" often rests upon comparison to arbitrary quotas established by the self-proclaimed guardians of fairness. Forced inclusion, paradoxically, can violate individuals' genuine sense of belonging and engagement. Inclusion becomes something imposed, not lived—resulting in a profound sense of alienation among those it was intended to embrace.
From Postmodern Weakness to the Willful Blindness of the West
The fundamental issue with DEI is not merely its internal contradictions, which even a perceptive child could easily deconstruct. The deeper problem lies elsewhere: not in the capacity to criticize DEI, but in the failure to reconstructsomething viable and meaningful to replace it.
This failure of reconstruction has induced a dangerous passivity among many traditionally minded individuals and parents. They laugh at the absurdities, confident that DEI's contradictions will collapse under their own weight. Yet mockery, however justified, accomplishes nothing if there is no credible alternative offered in its place.
The current generation of intelligent young people leaving high school and entering universities are far from a passive mass of "snowflakes" or ideological pushovers. They are smarter, more skeptical, and more discerning than such caricatures suggest. This is precisely why traditional forms of societal criticism—mockery of Marxism, attacks on DEI absurdities—have become increasingly ineffective.
The problem for many years has not been disillusioning the youth about Marxism or woke ideologies. The youth are already, in many cases, suspicious of these systems. The failure lies in offering them a coherent, inspiring, and morally serious alternative. Here lies the first major error of many conservative-leaning parents and intellectuals: when one fails to correctly diagnose the true essence of the problem, one often ends up opposing everything indiscriminately. Marxism is wrong, psychoanalysis is dismissed as too rigid, philosophy is neglected, and religion is reduced to rigid formalism. Without offering a positive reconstruction, conservatism devolves into little more than a bitter caricature—an angry reactionary movement rather than a living tradition.
In the absence of a coherent alternative, young people are left to choose between two equally unappealing poles:
On one side, the absurd, Kafkaesque parody of justice and equality represented by DEI;
On the other, a rigid orthodoxy of Christianity often delivered by priests whose own moral credibility has been deeply compromised.
Thus, the very institutions that should point toward higher moral grounds instead appear manipulative and hypocritical—precisely as Nietzsche warned in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in the chapter On Priests:
"With strange lusts, they sneaked into graves: the old tomb-robbers grew into churchmen."
Without a serious reconstruction—one rooted in metaphysical clarity, moral authenticity, and existential meaning—the West risks not simply ideological fragmentation but a willful blindness, where critique without reconstruction becomes the slow suicide of culture.
Two Equally Corrupt Alternatives
The cultural landscape today often forces young people into a disheartening choice between two equally corrupt alternatives:
Corrupt DEI movements: What began as an aspiration for genuine Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has largely degenerated into a caricature of forced identity politics. Rather than fostering liberation and authentic pluralism, these movements have become stifling, absurd, and increasingly authoritarian—imposing rigid group identities and suppressing freedom of thought.
Rigid, corrupt Christianity: Simultaneously, institutional Christianity, as represented by corrupt hierarchies, has become tainted with hypocrisy, scandal, and moral failure. The Church, once meant to embody the living spirit of Christ, is now often associated with bureaucratic control, lifeless dogma, and, in tragic cases, the systemic cover-up of grave abuses such as pedophilia.
In symbolic terms, young people are offered a flamboyant clown on one side and a scheming, unholy tomb-robber on the other—both grotesque distortions of what should have been noble callings. The clown parodies freedom; the tomb-robber parodies sacredness.
Given these options, it is hardly surprising—and certainly not blameworthy—that many intelligent young individuals instinctively recoil from both poles. Their first rational move is often to distance themselves from a choice that, at its heart, feels like an insult to both their intelligence and their moral intuition.
The real crisis, therefore, is not youthful rebellion or disillusionment per se. It is the profound failure of the cultural, religious, and intellectual classes to offer a vision of life that is worthy of belief, sacrifice, and love.
A Luring Alternative: Becoming Independent Through the Body Without Organs (BwO)
What now becomes attractive to disillusioned youth is not overt Marxism, nor even the theatrical radicalism of thinkers like Žižek. Rather, it is a subtler, more intellectually sophisticated rebellion, masked within the language of liberation and reconstruction. It manifests most compellingly through the Deleuzian concept of the Body without Organs (BwO).
In Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari articulate a vision where identity, desire, and behavior are no longer dictated by pre-established structures. For a generation facing the grotesque poles of the Corrupt Rainbow Clown (DEI's caricature of liberation) and the Pedophilic Masked Priest (Christianity's hypocritical collapse), the idea of BwO feels like true transcendence.
The BwO framework offers the youth something that neither traditional Church nor DEI can: an invitation to dismantle imposed frameworks and "fixed organizations" that dictate life trajectories. It speaks not to conformity, but to pure becoming. It proposes that individuals are not defined by their assigned roles—Christian, atheist, activist, obedient son—but can instead experience existence beyond pre-coded forms.
Critically, the way both corrupted institutions approach the youth plays directly into this disillusionment. Neither the Church nor DEI organizations "lure" through an organic call to truth (a Whiteheadian Initial Aim); they tell. They command, prescribe, assign roles and futures. The modern youth, however, has an instinctive aversion to being told.
Why should a young person follow a rigid blueprint of career steps, family arrangements, and societal expectations, when an AI could just as easily live such a life? Everything feels pre-fixed, mechanical, drained of authentic choice. The externally imposed structures, whether from the Right (obedient son, virtuous Christian) or the Left (obedient activist, righteous ally), are experienced identically: as prisons of pre-scripted identity.
Thus, the true protest is not against specific ideologies, but against the principle of obedience itself. This is where the BwO manifests its full seductive power. It offers the youth a whispered promise:
"You can be free of all of it."
It suggests a radical freedom—not a transfer from one system to another, but an annihilation of the systems themselves. A field of pure becoming, without imposed "organs" of society, identity, or expectation.
Why BwO Starts Making So Much Sense
The psychological landscape offered to the youth today consists of decaying structures dressed as liberation:
The Pedophilic Masked Priest
Rigid Christianity is no longer seen as the humble, spiritual path of Christ, but as a corrupted empire obsessed with control, wealth, and moral double standards. Public scandals (such as the systemic cover-up of sexual abuse) have permanently stained its moral authority.The Corrupt Rainbow Clown
DEI movements, originally intended to open society, have degenerated into bureaucratic, self-cannibalizing machines—labeling people by race, gender, or oppression score rather than freeing them as individuals.
Both the old Right (the Church) and the new Left (DEI) have become caricatures.
Both claim to liberate but, in practice, imprison.
Both preach transcendence or justice, but enforce rigid social codes, labeling, and repression.
Both immediately begin forming the individual into a compliant minion.
In this environment, the Deleuzian escape becomes psychologically and intellectually magnetic:
"Why play their games at all? Why not tear the game board apart entirely?"
And indeed—it does sound alluring.
Profoundly so.
The Intellectual Lure of the Body Without Organs (BwO)
Perhaps the very notion of hierarchies itself is flawed.
Perhaps this is the secret that the conservative Right so desperately tries to conceal—resorting to absurd analogies with lobsters or cosmic order—lest the entire edifice collapses.
In contrast, the Body without Organs (BwO) offers a revelation:
There exists a state beyond obedience and rebellion—beyond fathers, bosses, priests, judges. No master, no slave. No imposed hierarchy at all.
Maybe I do not even need to desire in any prescribed way.
Instead of being told what I should want (marriage, career, revolution), I can allow desires to emerge and flow freely, unpoliced by external authorities or moralizers. In doing so, I become more spiritual, more mindful, more awake—reaching a plane those who impose desires have never themselves attained.
Isn’t it plausible that most structures around me are indeed socially constructed?
Critics mock the phrase "social construction," yet their critiques are often themselves built on social constructs. The realization strikes: I choose myself.
I choose not to be bound by any fixed identity.
I can become something new each day, each hour—I am a nomad of the self.
All externally imposed structures are alien impositions, not representations of the true energetic core of my being.
It makes profound sense that there is only now.
Instead of waiting for salvation (from the Church) or utopia (from the DEI revolution), I can live directly in the immediacy of experience, creating micro-liberations moment by moment.
Thinkers like Alan Watts and Eckhart Tolle may have been vague at times, but they understood this essential truth:
There is only the now. There is no other domain of existence.
Immanence, not transcendence, holds the real key—and the proof lies in the simple fact that I cannot move through time except through conscious presence.
Why should I feel guilt and shame?
Psychologically, physiologically, existentially—they offer me nothing but unnecessary suffering.
Guilt (the echo of "sin") and shame (the tool of oppression hierarchies) are themselves artificial constructs.
I owe no inherited moral debt.
I am free to exist without the burdens of ancestral trauma or imposed obligations.
In this vision, I can create my own universe.
The BwO does not merely negate—it enables "lines of flight," creative divergences from old structures.
New forms of art, love, community, and existence can emerge without permission from collapsed authorities.
It is plausible—even compelling—to believe that many great artists, revolutionaries, and visionaries intuited this deep truth:
They stopped playing the old games. They became something radically new.
BwO as Positive and Logical Nihilism
Isn’t this exactly what is needed today?
I am sickened by Church scandals, yet still yearn for spiritual purity.
I am frustrated by leftist DEI orthodoxy, yet still desire genuine compassion and justice.
I am exhausted by being labeled, boxed, moralized, surveilled.
I sense that both the Left and Right are dead languages—bureaucratic, lifeless, sterile.
In this moment, Deleuze's voice emerges with revolutionary clarity:
"Wake up. Stop trying to fix the system. Stop trying to find your 'true self' within their maps. Forget the future self: there is only now, flowing into the next now. Abandon their maps. You are a field of infinite becoming. You do not have a self; you create yourself, moment by moment, like a work of art."
To be absolutely objective:
This vision does feel revolutionary, artistic, heroic, and deeply healing—all at once.
This is not nihilism in the despairing sense ("nothing matters").
It is positive nihilism:
Since the old orders are dead, I am free to sculpt new modes of life, new forms of existence.
It is my choice. It is my art. It is my life.
The Problem with BwO: The Desire for Unholy Chaos Is Nothing New
The lure of the Body without Organs (BwO) is often so overwhelming that those who fall under its spell instinctively reject any attempt to analyze or conceptualize it. To them, BwO becomes something sacred—something that should not be dissected, critiqued, or even clearly articulated. It is treated as a mystical experience, beyond reason, beyond scrutiny.
Yet we do not need a microscope to understand what stands before us.
A simple, honest look reveals that BwO constitutes a system of ideas and ideals—an ideology in the full sense of the word: a coherent structure that undergirds political, economic, and cultural attitudes.
In this, Slavoj Žižek was correct: what appears to be a movement of liberation is, in fact, a powerful ideological formation. Deleuze’s BwO concept functions as a restructured, more seductive form of Marxism, carrying forward its dreams of liberation while offering "freedoms" that justify practically any rebellion against structure.
The deeper philosophical lineage is revealing.
Marx famously quoted Mephistopheles—the devil figure in Goethe’s Faust:
"Everything that exists deserves to perish."
This is not a superficial literary flourish. It captures the core metaphysical move: the rejection of existence as given, the embrace of destruction as a form of liberation.
The lineage extends backward further.
In Milton’s Paradise Lost, Lucifer proclaims:
"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."
Here too is the essential gesture: the refusal to submit to the structured hierarchy of divine order. Lucifer's rebellion is the preference for radical self-determination—even if it leads to Hell—over participation in a cosmic structure where roles are given rather than chosen.
The movement from Deleuze to Marx to Lucifer is not a historical accident but the expression of a recurring metaphysical mechanic:
Rejection of transcendent order.
Affirmation of autonomous becoming.
Preference for destruction over submission to structure.
The more intelligent and verbally sophisticated the thinker, the more beautifully this ancient impulse can be articulated:
"Nothing is sacred. Destroy the ideal. Escape to absolute freedom—from anything, toward anything."
There is an infinite and timeless allure to this idea.
It promises spiritual freedom without responsibility, a self unburdened by inherited duties, cosmic narratives, or moral accountability.
Eastern-inspired Western mysticism—modern adaptations of yoga, neo-Taoism, and hybrid spiritualities—echo the same theme. They may use different metaphors, softer language, and therapeutic packaging, but the underlying message remains identical:
Dissolve structures, transcend boundaries, flow freely, owe nothing.
Thus, BwO is not a singular intellectual curiosity; it is part of an ancient, enduring temptation: the promise of unbounded being without the burdens of truth, hierarchy, or sacrificial love.
Axiomatological Explanation: Consciousness, Chaos, and the Necessity of Moral Structure
From the perspective of Axiomatology, the phenomenon of the Body without Organs (BwO) can be explained through foundational metaphysical principles that trace back to thinkers such as Schelling, Whitehead, Heidegger, and contemporary interpreters like Žižek.
Žižek, following Schelling, emphasizes the idea of an irreducible remainder within the structure of being. In Less Than Nothing, he describes the Anstoß as "the transcendental a priori of positing, that which incites the I to endless positing, the only non-posited element." He compares it to Lacan’s objet petit a, noting its homology to the "irreducible remainder" in Schelling’s Weltformel. Across these formulations, the underlying intuition remains constant:
there must be a "madness"—a primal chaos—incorporated into the system itself as a necessary glitch that allows structured existence to function at all.
In Axiomatology, this insight is framed through the dynamics of Self Fusion and occasion composition. From a Whiteheadian perspective, consciousness is not an event confined within conventional spacetime but a pre-structural process that flows into each becoming occasion. Consciousness, in this view, is pure potential—absolute chaos, entropy, or, in Schelling’s terms, madness.
The principle insight of Axiomatology regarding consciousness is that it must be prehended—that is, included into the Self Fusion process—not simply as raw inflow but as structured content. As self-awareness grows, the volume of consciousness accessible for prehension increases. Greater self-awareness means greater exposure to the chaos underlying existence.
Heidegger touches this same truth in Being and Time (Division II, §51), where he writes:
"In anticipating the possibility of non-existence, Dasein opens itself to its ownmost potentiality-for-being. This anticipation discloses the possibility of an authentic existence."
Authenticity, in Heidegger’s terms, aligns precisely with self-awareness in Axiomatology. As the tear in the fabric of conventional existence grows wider with a person’s age and existential development, so too does the opportunity—and the danger—of integrating higher volumes of consciousness into the Self Fusion process.
However, and this is crucial:
The inflow of pure consciousness, by itself, does not generate greatness or flourishing.
Deleuze and Guattari, like Nietzsche before them, correctly intuited that creative production arises from tapping into unconscious flows—but they underestimated the necessity of normative frameworks for managing that inflow.
Without a structured moral value hierarchy—without conceptual prehensions capable of ordering and constraining the raw energy of consciousness—the result is not higher creativity but collapse into madness.
Historically, this dynamic is tragically exemplified in the fate of Nietzsche himself. His later descent into madness can be understood, from the Axiomatological perspective, as the overwhelming inflow of consciousness without a sufficiently integrated value structure to stabilize and direct it.
In short:
All consciousness needs a moral network—a structured value framework—to prevent its disintegration into entropy.
As self-awareness grows, the burden of managing this inflow becomes greater. Without external, vertically ordered moral structures, the individual consciousness, especially when expanded, becomes increasingly incapable of containing itself. Chaos, once invited without hierarchy, eventually erupts into both internal psychic fragmentation and external social destruction.
Thus, from the standpoint of Axiomatology, the dream of radical freedom through the BwO—the dream of pure becoming without hierarchical order—is not liberation.
It is the path toward collapse.
The Key Idea: Finding a Structure
What solution should an intelligent young person genuinely consider today?
The answer, from the standpoint of Axiomatology, is clear.
Borrowing the insight from Zen Buddhism—"the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon"—Axiomatology reminds us that the failures of religious institutions (such as the Church) should not be mistaken for the falsification of the underlying truth they sought to mediate. Institutional corruption does not invalidate the source of spiritual order.
The narrative cosmology of Axiomatology therefore encourages individuals to seek the necessary normative framework for identity formation through sacred stories—many of which are still best preserved in the Bible and other enduring mythological structures.
The Danger of Lurking Madness
Human beings require structured rules—not merely for explicit moral decision-making, but for basic psychological coherence and everyday existence. Structures regulate not only action but also vision, meaning, and internal emotional stability.
The Body without Organs (BwO) approach, however, seeks to dismantle inherited structures regulating identity, desire, and meaning.
What it overlooks is that these structures also protect the psyche against disintegration.
Without stabilizing "organs"—such as a personal mission, family roles, spiritual discipline, and loyalty to higher narratives—desire becomes chaotic, unfocused, and ultimately self-consuming.
Nietzsche foresaw this collapse:
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?"
(The Gay Science, §125)
Without ordered structures, the individual risks fragmenting into disconnected, schizo-fragments—tiny, incoherent desires incapable of forming a unified life.
Real psychosis becomes a possibility: breakdown of memory, perception, self-location.
Freedom, instead of flowering into joyful creativity, collapses into paralyzing internal noise and existential panic.
Collapse into Nihilism
Destroying all inherited maps and rejecting all fixed values carries another grave danger:
the risk of falling into nihilism.
If no value is accepted as objectively real—not even the ones one creates—then every "new line of flight" eventually feels as arbitrary as the old prisons.
What begins as exhilarating creativity dissolves into empty aesthetic performances: endless surfaces, no rootedness, no depth, no real courage to suffer for anything.
The will to create decays into the will merely to drift: endless movement without home, without purpose.
Manipulation and New Tyrannies
Radical openness without discernment also renders the individual highly vulnerable to manipulation.
Without a structured internal framework of identity and aspiration, a person becomes malleable—easily shaped by whoever offers the most seductive new narrative.
The BwO, lacking an immune system of discernment, becomes an open field for colonization by new tyrannies:
cults, ideological movements, extremist groups, predatory relationships.
One form of ideological imprisonment simply replaces another, again and again, masked as "freedom."
The Trap of Hedonistic Self-Gratification
Finally, if the highest goal becomes simply "experiencing pure becoming," then pleasure and stimulation become the default gods.
Without structured aspiration—such as loyalty, duty, authentic service—life degenerates into endless micro-pursuits of pleasure:
drugs, shallow sex, cheap art, hollow rebellion.
The individual floats between stimuli, consuming novelty without integration, without maturity, without enduring meaning.
A life designed to escape oppression collapses into a deeper trap: a slavery to ephemeral pleasures, forever unattainable in the long run.
The End Result of BwO: Existential Isolation
What happens if one destroys all inherited values, seeks to recreate new ones, and ultimately fails?
The answer is existential emptiness—a hole at the core of the soul.
Nietzsche saw this clearly.
He understood that once the previous structures are dismantled, a void opens within the human being. His idea of the Übermensch was not simply a "new human" in a biological sense, but rather a symbolic figure—a creator of new, collective values, a new Ideal that could re-anchor existence.
Yet, historically, this project has proven largely unattainable.
Societies have rarely, if ever, succeeded in creating such a sustainable new ideal once the old structures were abandoned.
And each individual must critically evaluate their own potential:
Can I truly surpass Nietzsche? Can I generate values that are more enduring than those I would discard?
The problem with the Body without Organs (BwO) is precisely this:
It acts like a beautiful but dangerous medicine.
It appears to offer salvation from the rot of dead institutions—but if taken without profound wisdom and structure, it dissolves individuals into helpless, drifting fragments, easily colonized by new ideologies, easily broken by internal chaos.
Without a reanchoring of desire toward real Truth—truth rooted in cosmic order and moral stability—the BwO risks becoming a prison even more sophisticated and more despairing than the ones it seeks to escape.
This is the archetypal Luciferian pathway:
Reject the imposed order, seek autonomous self-becoming—and collapse into isolated ruin.
What happens to those who drink this poison is the same existential fate that befell Cain:
the destruction of ideals leads inevitably to isolation.
Isolation is not simply a social condition; it is a metaphysical wound.
To be isolated within a community—to exist like Cain, exiled but still alive—is one of the deepest forms of suffering.
Dante, in his Inferno, captured this horror precisely in the Ninth Circle of Hell: souls frozen in ice, locked in solitary anguish, unable to connect, unable to move.
In Axiomatological terms, this is the metaphysical manifestation of hell on Earth:
Being utterly alone amid a multitude, cut off from vertical alignment, from narrative continuity, from meaningful belonging.
And what metastasizes at the individual level eventually scales up:
Communities, families, friendships, and even nations begin to disintegrate when they abandon shared structures—oaths, laws, memories, duties.
The BwO, allergic to any fixed identity or commitment, makes lasting communal bonds nearly impossible.
Even when new "communities" arise, they remain unstable, unable to sustain themselves against the allergic reaction to permanence.
Over time, endless becoming without rootedness leads to radical solitude:
No shared memories.
No deep trust.
No common future.
No lasting love.
The BwO promises liberation but condemns its followers to profound existential loneliness.
Axiomatology’s Counterpoint: Narrative Cosmology and the Need for Absolute Structure
Axiomatology posits a different path:
Understanding and aligning oneself with cosmic order through narratives—narrative cosmology—without discarding the structures that have historically enabled human flourishing.
The solution lies not in abandoning stories but in recognizing that true stories must posit something absolute.
There must be clear edges, clear centers, clear poles—like Moses driving a staff into the desert—to generate vertical alignment with something higher than the self.
Deleuze is not Jesus Christ.
Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus are no substitute for the Bible.
Intellectual brilliance is not enough to replace cosmic rootedness.
In fact, to counterbalance the rhizomatic chaos of A Thousand Plateaus, one might suggest a healthy dose of roots—of solid ground—such as what is found in Knut Hamsun’s Growth of the Soil.
Hamsun understood the need for rootedness in the real, even if he too, at times, succumbed to the allure of “absolute freedom” through the rejection of inherited moral structures.
He was not foolish, but he was Luciferian:
A ruler in a world of entropy, a creator of chaos unable to chart a stable path forward.
Thus, the final judgment is clear:
Without rooted narratives, without absolutes, without moral structures capable of containing the inflow of consciousness, the dream of infinite freedom collapses into the nightmare of existential isolation.
Freedom without truth is not liberation.
It is exile.
Maybe All Classic Values Are Not Wrong
The narrative cosmology of Axiomatology offers a profound framework for identity formation—one that neither collapses into the absurdities of DEI nor falls into the nihilistic chaos of the BwO.
But it also recognizes a crucial boundary: the nuclear family—the basic unit of parents and children.
For Axiomatology, the nuclear family constitutes the minimum irreducible structure for sustainable identity formation. It is a sacred limit, a foundation for narrative rootedness that resists both external corruption and internal entropy.
The BwO ideology, by contrast, has targeted the destruction of the nuclear family with particular aggression.
This is no accident.
The risomatic approach of Deleuze and Guattari—especially in A Thousand Plateaus—could not have emerged without first dismantling the ideal of family continuity.
It is telling that Guattari himself had no stable family life—a biographical detail that should give thoughtful readers pause.
Perhaps there is something enduringly true in this:
One’s core identity is not confined to the immediate body, the social role, or the cultural environment—but is anchored through the relational bonds within the nuclear family.
In resisting the false idols of the Masked Pedophilic Priests, the Corrupt Rainbow Clowns, and the Entropy of the BwO, an individual does not merely rebel outwardly; they defend and strengthen the primary unit of existential meaning—the nuclear family.
This is not a regressive retreat into nostalgia.
It is a forward-looking defense of something holy and lasting:
A trinity of belonging—parent, child, mutual becoming.
Like Noah’s Ark, the nuclear family is a vessel of survival:
It is aligned with cosmic order.
It offers a stable ideal to fight for.
It sustains life by generating life.
It endures because it is rooted in more than political constructs or personal whims—it touches the absolute.
It is not flashy.
It is not chaotic self-reinvention.
It may even seem "boring" to the intoxicated rebel spirit.
But it is stronger and truer than all the alternatives of chaotic self-indulgence offered by contemporary ideological movements.
Here, then, lies a path worth contemplating—even for the most intelligent and rebellious of youth:
The possibility that tradition, rooted not in dead rituals but in cosmic narrative structure, offers a more profound, sustainable freedom than the endless drift of radical becoming.
