poetry

Seeds

still-life-with-pomegranate-and-pears-1890

Open up your hand

And let me count the

Pomegranate seeds in it

Red as blood

Sweet as the kisses

With which you pepper

My neck

Advertisements
Standard
poetry

Lilith’s Mass

lilith

We blaspheme, moiling hard for Baphomet

Incanting frontward back gospel and hymn

Babylon’s mistress, splay upon the tablet

Host baking in the heat of her tight quim

 

Darkling priests prone before the reredos

Scenes of lusty life painted on its front

Fulsome orisons lauding libidos

Men bathing in the mead of woman’s cunt

 

Burst forth from the folds of generation

Waves of robust pleasure exalt the mass

Those gathered give cum as their devotion

As each in turn embugger Lilith’s ass

 

Hail the Lord of Light and open fucking

Give thanks for Baalath’s pleasant endowment

We all owe our existence to loving

And to our nature which is pleasure bent

Standard
poetry

Tete de Poulet

schiele2

Edo equal onslaught sequel affront

Menage a deux never imbroglio

Do new the thing is odd sui encunt

He sings, “alack, please heed Benvolio!”

 

Fabrique du mal, wrenched upwards blessed red

Blaise Pascal holds it releases winter

Chaise bestride agape invites lonesome head

Plenum pensees, critic, a dissenter

 

Mum of words and yet ample of mumbles

Leche la chatte, I work in trade of kind

Your maw, a treat, and so soft it humbles  

A vessel for my milk is thus defined

 

I quibble with my thoughts of dark remorse

Supine with my prick hard-pressed to deflate

Warm dew speckled lips pout around the source

Pleased with my renown as a reprobate

Standard
Feminism

MRAs: Weak People Who Hate

The MRA Delusion Personified

The MRA Delusion Personified

I was making my rounds of the internet cesspool tonight (I like to keep abreast of what is going on in the camps of my ideological enemies) and came across a few posts on a Men’s Rights Movement site that I will not name but that shares a name with a famous Fantasy Film (Peter Jackson should sue them for defaming the name of his magnificent creation) that made me stop in my tracks and literally laugh out loud.

First though, a quick aside. What is the “Men’s Rights Movement”? I’m glad you asked. The Men’s Rights Movement is the latest permutation of the ever present “community” (for lack of a better term) of men who enjoy to whine to each other about their lack of getting sex, their acumen at writing wikipedia sourced nonsense whose hilarious premises were articulated much more creatively by Rush Limbaugh 15 years ago, and their general fear of anything that would expose them as the scared, spineless insecure-in-their-own-skin-and-masculinity schlubs that they really are. Or in other words they are Tim Allen’s character on Home Improvement only better at Call of Duty and with more ‘roid rage (at least the ones who do not weigh 345 lbs after taking a dump).

But back to the point

I found two articles on the MRA website that caught my attention, much in the same way a freshly laid turd on a marble floor will catch your attention, and I was moved to respond on here because I love intelligently trolling fools. The first article was written by someone who calls himself “Roosh” whose Napoleon complex has reached the stage where he is growing epaulettes out of his shoulders. This piece of work has convinced himself he is the leader of a movement of abused and misunderstood men who are only trying to reclaim the “inherent” rights as men. Here is an actual quote that was not, I swear to Jebus, was not written by the Onion

“This is not the time to make a stand. Conditions are not ripe for an open-air battle. Instead we must continue finding men who already lean red pill instead of trying to convert blue pillers [sic]. There are many men in gaming and bodybuilding spheres that would be open to our message”

Another brief aside: the “red pill/blue pill” dichotomy on display here is a blatant rip off (and simplification to the point of inanity) of the plot device used in The Matrix films to visualize a choice between self-delusion and “the Real” (if you want to get all Lacan about it…and I love to). Roosh has turned this concept into a “with or against us” black and white moral choice that marks the distinction between “real men” (i.e. men who agree with his arguments) and “betas”, or, anyone who respects women as equals or do not see getting sex through manipulation as a goal worth striving for. Suffice it to say he has a good time tenderizing that particular deceased equine. “Roosh” is a decent writer, by the often sketchy standards of internet blogging, and he at least tries to remain consistent with his own ideological rhetoric, and he seems to see himself as the leader of a “movement”, a government under siege that may one day strike out against the boogieman he has created i.e. the rest of secular civil society.

I think you can see where this is going…this group is pretty much a space for men to engage in philosophical and political mutual masturbation. Nothing can prove their arguments wrong because their ideas are priori correct and confirmed by their own particular biases that they carry from hating and fearing a world that is slowly becoming less hostile to the interests of women. It is the same sort of mentality displayed by modern day Randian Libertarians and Austrian School economic cultists: if I cannot do exactly what I want, when I want to, how I want to and without any consideration for the needs and concerns of other individuals and the rest of society then I am being “repressed” and “persecuted”. There is nothing new here besides the novel popular culture inspired ideological language and internet savvy. Evidence against their points of view is discounted as “feminist propaganda” because it is evidence against them, and the less an argument is taken seriously by the rest of society is confirmation of its truth. This is pretty much the conspiracy theory mindset…which brings us to the second article in question.

In the wake of Elliot Rodger’s entitlement and misogyny fueled shooting spree in California the media, twitter, and the blogosphere took a second look (or even a first look in the case of the mainstream media) at the MRA world and how it fuels the resentment and pathetic desires of men who feel they have lost their privileged place as masters of the universe. Scores of essays, posts, and interview segments were devoted to tearing apart the arguments of the MRAs, with a special emphasis on “Roosh” and his toadies. The MRA responded predictably to being called out on their bullshit by closing ranks and setting up a wall of cognitive dissonance that would keep their opinions safe from the facts and from better constructed arguments. Self-delusion only survives in a vacuum; as soon as it is exposed to outside opinions self-doubt rushes to fill the void and the illusion of power and potency collapses. This why people with strange or wild opinions often speak only to each other and dismiss on its face all attempts by opposing forces to engage and debate. Call it the Faux News Paradox: the more convinced you are of your own rightness the less you are able to deal with other opinions that contradict your point of view and the more you retreat into your own delusion.

This process is on display in the second article, a conspiracy theory piece, written by someone who goes by “Samson Lamont” that tries to “disprove” the objective reality of the shootings in California. If reality does not fit the delusion, reject reality. The article itself is badly written and a retread of the sort of Alex Jones-esque “false flag” circular reasoning that can be easily debunked by Occam’s Razor and 5 minutes of research on somewhere other than chat rooms.  I mention the article at all because of this unblemished Freudian gem, which I will now quote in full (you have been warned)

“Anyone who’s watched Elliot Rodger’s pathetic videos and read his manifesto can see that he’s playing a character to some extent.  I’m not saying that he doesn’t have issues, but his delusions of grandeur are so over the top that it just rings false.  It’s like watching a bad audition for a D-list movie serial killer from someone who can’t act for shit.  You get the feeling that some Hollywood scriptwriter just created a character based on the “loser” template that feminists apply to all the members of our little community.  Socially impotent, whiny loser that’s addicted to World of Warcraft and can’t get pussy blames all of his problems on women and wants to kill them all due to his own inadequacies.”

There is more projection in that paragraph then there was at the 1975 Cannes Film Festival. Just let that soak in for a moment…If I TRIED I could I could not come up with a better example of psychological projection. Clearly these “men” are riddled with self-doubt and fear and it is tempting to ignore them completely as just another bunch of fools being “wrong on the internet”. Remember though that Elliot Rodgers bought into this sort of bilge and acted on it and that small, insular, self-deluded movements have been and continue to pose dangers to society and individuals. Let’s laugh at them but also keep an eye on them…a self-deluding idiot with a gun can still do a lot of damage. Just ask the families of the 6 victims of Elliot Rodger’s fragile ego.

Standard
poetry

Semele

kingrichard

The following poem is an excerpt from my soon to be finished play “The Fields of Eleusis”

Oh Muses sing your endless song of lust and fatal abandon

Sing of Cadmus dancing mindlessly to this succulent threnody

Giving his seed to Harmonia, who wore the ill-starred brooch on her breast,

The world was given Semele, a beauty to tempt the gods!

It was not long before the ever wandering eyes of Zeus beheld her charms

As she stood upon his altar bathed in the blood of a sacrificial bull

The God-King was struck with love incurable

And he thirsted for her

Parched he set out for this fertile spring

And knew her like the rains know the yearning fallow fields

But she who wore the polos of Olympus, Hera, beloved of thunder maker

She was jealous of her husband’s new lover

And descended from her heavenly perch in the visage of a crone

Befriending Semele and sowing doubt in her love-struck mind

Pregnant with the child of Zeus she now feared he was not who he said

And begged him to grant her a boon worthy of his power

He swore on ever flowing Styx that he would abide

She begged him to reveal his splendor in full

Consumed with sadness and remorse Zeus did abide

And showed her his eternal form in all its terrible glory

And like the endless fire of the sun burns the deserts and the sand

She fell to ashes, consumed by his awful glory

But Zeus would not let the child of their union perish

So he clove his thigh and sewed the babe, not ready to be born, up into it

And after month passed on month the new god, Dionysus, sprung from his father’s wound

Twice born, once from the ashes of his stricken mother

And once again from the flesh of his immortal father

So great a god was Dionysus that the very earth rejoiced by given up

Its intoxicating berries

And the twice-born god made wine for all peoples to revel and celebrate

The union of mighty Zeus and fair Semele

And the child the created

Gift to earth and heir to heaven’s heights!

Standard
Atheism, books, Literature, Philosophy

Book Analysis: 120 Days of Sodom [Part I]

Marquis-de-Sade-9469078-1-402

           The Marquis de Sade is not often the first man who comes to mind when one is asked to name a great moral philosopher. That is a shame, and a true misunderstanding of an entire part of the living dichotomy that is moral philosophy. So many thinkers have been obsessed with the potential for good and with the exploration of what is needed to improve morality and society. Sade was not such a man. He was beyond such things, and really beyond petty questions of “the good” or even of society. This is a stance that is both dangerous in the eyes of those unprepared or unwilling to see the real impact and importance of evil as a moral force and unwelcome as a distraction at best and a perversion of the concept of morality at worst by those in the halls of power and the ivory towers of intellect. Sade was the philosopher who rejected love, rejected society, rejected kindness, and above all despised taboo. He pushed the limits of what it meant to be human, indeed what a human being was capable of while remaining human. No book of his illustrates this ability of his more than The 120 Days of Sodom.

“The extensive wars wherewith Louis XIV was burdened during his reign, while draining the State’s treasury and exhausting the substance of the people, nonetheless contained the secret that led to the prosperity of a swarm of these bloodsuckers who are always on the watch for public calamities, which, instead of appeasing, they promote or invent so as, precisely, to be able to profit from them the more advantageously.”

 

Right here in the first paragraph of the book that would become one of the most infamous and despised of all European literature we are told by Sade that this is no conventional morality tale. The narrative and the ethics of this book will be divorced from the interests of the people and of the state. A more conventional author would follow up this first passage by explicitly apologizing for coming parade of “bloodsuckers” and their twisted wants and desires. No such apology is forthcoming from Sade, nor should one be expected. This is not an apology for perversion and evil, it is an exploration of evil, indeed a celebration of evil. This is not an evil perpetrated against the protagonists, as in his novels Juliette and Justine, which would allow us some leeway to claim that this is a tale of overcoming adversity or at least withstanding the same. It is certainly not like his Philosophy In the Bedroom, with its playful exploration of the desires and deeds of free actors reveling in their consensual sexual excesses. What The 120 Days gives us is foremost a catalogue of the perverse coupled with a simple narrative of four men and a handful of women who partake of these perversions and get away with it all scot-free. We are not asked to lament this fact, indeed we are not even called upon to regret this outcome. Sade has given us a list of what can be done by one or more human beings to another human being. Not what should be done, or what should not be done. What can be done. It is this unabashed honesty of purpose and execution that makes this book one of the great moral tomes of all human history.

The further we go into this forest of iniquity and pain the more we are numbed to the advance of evil in favor of conscience and humanity. Sade introduces us to four men: A bishop, A judge, an aristocrat and a banker. These are the perpetrators of the infamies that follow. They purchase over a dozen men, women, boys and children, men and women, boys and girls, with which they can inflict all of their desires and urges. There is not stop-gap to keep them from going too far, and there are no rules beyond which these four powerful men have arbitrarily created in order to extend their pleasure and delineate the limits of what one man may do to the erotic property of the other. The only law on display here is the law of the jungle. It fulfills the desires of the men who are without question in complete tyrannical control over the bodies and emotions of those they would exploit, and it leaves to their undeserved fate the boys and girls they have purchased and acquired from the very dankest recesses of society. These are unwanted and the unloved. These are the wretched, and their worth is only as playthings to be used and abused by their betters.

Sade makes it clear that the lot of the poor is to suffer, and it is the responsibility of rich powerful men to take advantage of this suffering as much as they can. Sade declared that

 

Crime is the soul of lust. What would pleasure be if it were not accompanied by crime? It is not the object of debauchery that excites us, rather the idea of evil.”

 

A world where evil is the norm and the expected result of human interaction is a world where the concept of evil only has meaning in relation to what pleasure can be derived from it. The world has no apotheosis, mankind no chance at betterment or redemption. Mankind serves as a feast, a meal prepared for those who have the chops to take and to consume. This is a morality of annihilation: the world is a disgusting joke and would be better off destroyed, but since it is around and there is no possibility of anything better why is it a crime for those who can take advantage of this to do so with relish? Millions suffer every moment to no effect. Why not take some pleasure in this inevitable pain?  The world is not this way because there is no god. Indeed one comes to the conclusion that Sade believes that if there were a god things would be unimaginably worse than they already are. What is god but yet another powerful “man” and powerful “men” seek pleasure through the torment of others. Indeed the existence of a hedonistic god would make the evil inherent to the world make more sense, or at least give it some sort of meaning. Sade sees no reason to believe in a god though. He is content to let the world be evil on its own terms.

That is not to say there is no good. There must be good for evil to have any meaning at all, but in the end “Violence is the authentic spirit of mother nature [Camille Paglia, Sexual Persona (1990) NY, Vintage, p. 235]. Kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten. Take pleasure or see pleasure experienced at your own expense. Nature made man its image, and nature consumes, and nature encourages those who would take pleasure in existence to do so.

These instincts were given me by Nature, and it would be to irritate her were I to resist them”.

 

The word “Nature” here is capitalized, and this connects Sade to the enlightenment tradition of seeing the world and humanity as products of an all-encompassing universal moral and material existence. The deists saw in human kind and in the natural world the workings of Nature’s God. Sade had no need for this “revolting absurdity” as he has the Duc express to his fellows in the book. Sade sees the foolishness and stupidity of basing an entire system of morality and law around a “moral” god who, if in fact real, made the world as a vicious state of nature. Are we not creatures of this Nature, or, for the sake of argument, this Nature’s god? If so why should we of all creatures deviate from the standards upheld by the other creatures of the earth? Set aside all of those childish justifications from revealed religion; such stories and precepts are like the mutterings of an idiot trying to keep himself from doing his duty. This duty is to be a part of Nature, and to do ones best to live up to the potential that Nature imbued us with. “Thus”, he has the Duc continue, “nothing but the law”, a law of moral weaklings struggling against their own nature, stands in the way of human potential.

Sade is no fool and he understands that others do not see the world as he does, and they will do their best to make sure that men like Sade do not hold sway over the lives and fortunes of men. But the fact remains that many of these good Samaritans, most of them in fact, will fail or in the attempt at doing good cause even more evil. And there is no greater evil in the eyes of Sade then keeping powerful men, or even just men with enough gall, from achieving the greatest amount of pleasure that they can derive from the world. The world is shit and it will always be shit, but at least let those who can play like hogs in the filth.

Standard