Among the many things the Egyptian Revolution (2011-...) unleashed is a state discourse that fixes normality within the realm of the state. Spaces of political dissent, therefore, become produced as “outside” the state (even if in reality they fail to evade the state structure and gaze). Within a statist discourse, this “outside” is produced as “abnormal.” A model citizen is produced, the docile subject whose normality is codified within the realm of the state, and with it its antithesis, the “licentious” revolutionary subject is produced and maligned. This paper studies the production of the revolutionary space and subject as “licentious,” prior to and during the revolution. The study traces this production of revolutionary licentiousness through mainstream films, television interviews with pro-regime figures,  pro-regime facebook groups, newspaper articles, and governmental and military communiques. The paper also traces the discursive effects of this licentiousnes, including its alleged effect on the national economy, therefore establishing a connection between the counterrevolutionary discourse on “the wheel of production” and that on personal behavior. To understand certain traits of this discourse (like paternity, invested in the leader, filiality, invested in docile national subjects, masculinity as a grid for order and normality, etc.) , this paper makes use of a Freudian-Lacanian framework that understands the superego as “the Law of the Father,” also invested in the state and used to stabilize its law and normalize its subjects. The psyche, as well as the law of the father, is therefore understood as an apparatus (both in the Althusserian and Foucauldian senses) of interpellation and subjectivation. Making use of and responding to Judith Butler’s work on subjectivity and psyche,  the case at hand poses questions about the “nature” of the oedipal psyche (and the superego as one of its main traits/products) as a vehicle of power. As this vehicle becomes available for the state and its supporters, the revolutionary moment becomes a chance to scrutinize and critique this vehicle, its working, and its “normality,” if not a chance to imagine alternative configurations. This paper, therefore, acknowledges the intellectual and epistemic weight of revolutionary moments as moments that expose the otherwise normalized working of power, and therefore also moments of potentiality in which older subjectivities are cast in doubt, thus creating prospects for alternative subjectivities and discourses.