Monday, December 31, 2012

New Year's Resolutions

1. Learn enough French to read Rousseau.

2. Finally understand Spinoza's argument that there can only be just one substance.

3. Lose thirty pounds (yeah, right).

4. Think about quitting smoking.

5. Take up Wedding Photography just so a gay couple can sue me for refusing to shoot their gay "wedding".

6. Get over my triskadekaphobia.

7. Finish all six volumes of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

8. Read Moby Dick.

9. Try to understand why blackface is so offensive except when Bush der Zweite does it and calls himself Obama.

10. Get kissed by a beautiful young woman.

Monday, December 24, 2012

By the way...

By now, it should be very well known that gay rights activists insist that there is no difference between their cause and the fight for racial equality. Therefore, if you dare oppose what is known as "marriage equality", you are as vile as thugs who wear those pointy white hoods and burn crosses. Yeah, well, I am not convinced. Perhaps, it's that I am one of those bigots who think gay "marriage" is an absurdity, and bigots, of course, are notorious for thinking they are NOT bigots. Perhaps. And, perhaps, I need to be told that I'm a bigot repeatedly. Only by that kind of tough love therapy will I finally be disabused of my rancid delusions and finally be able to see the Sweetness and Light that Sodomite "equality" is supposed to be. Er, well, oops. I guess I should have written Gay "equality" and without the scare quotes. Sowwy. The therapy needs a little more time to work. So, feel free to call me "bigot" as often as you like.

But until this therapy does liberate my inner sense of Rawlsian Fairness, I, as I said, remain unconvinced that the parallel drawn between the fight for gay "equality" and that for racial equality is anything but risible.

The premise of the latter is that the main difference between the whites and blacks, skin color, is nugatory and, therefore, cannot justify any discrimination between the two. For the parallel with the fight for racial equality to hold, the gay rights activists are forced--it seems to blinkered, bigoted me--to argue that the main difference between straights and gays is as insignificant as skin color. The main difference is that the former desires sexual intercourse and the latter desires mutual masturbation, and to say that this difference is trivial is to ignore that the endurance of any human society has depended quite literally upon the desire for sexual intercourse whereas the appetite for mutual masturbation has never and will never be necessary for anything but, maybe, the ephemeral gratification of sexual hedonists. The actions of straights have obvious societal value, those of gays do not, and to say that the desire to procreate does not matter is to say that the endurance of humanity does not matter.

Yes, I know, I am wildly homophobic. Fine, gay rights activists are wildly misanthropic.

Oh, Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Everyone!

The subject heading says it all.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Freedom!

I was at a Starbucks today, reading a book against gay "marriage". I did not get kicked out. Tolerance! Is this a great country or what?

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Nota Bene

I quit facebook for good. Why? It's the Capitalist Version of the Stasi.

Friday, November 30, 2012

Point of Clarification

So, let me get this straight, Susan Rice: The U.N. can create the state of Israel, but NOT a Palestinian state? Okay.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

I want to be a writer

A writer writes, obviously enough. I have not been writing. At all. The only way I can justify my current lifestyle of sleeping until twelve and then diddling around until 4 a.m. is to say that I am a writer. But I cannot say this unless I actually write. That's why I am going to post something here every single day, even it if it is rubbish, and I assure you, my gentle reader who obviously has, like me, much too much time on his hands, that most of the time it will be rubbish. But when has that stopped bestselling authors such as, say, John Grisham and Jenna Jameson from writing and getting published? See you tomorrow!

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Diogenes

The people who clamor for "marriage equality" do so because they want "homosexuals" to have full equality with "heterosexuals". Well, since the former group is defined by the desire for mutual masturbation and the latter by the desire for sexual intercourse, full equality between the two groups necessarily entails the declaration that these two defining desires are equal as well, and that's just patently absurd. Society simply cannot survive without the desire for sexual intercourse. It can do just fine without the desire for mutual masturbation.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Old Post

From the weblog of a young woman:

Why can´t we love as many people as we want in a life time??

Monogamy is really a very unnatural state that's being forced on us for centuries by screwed-up religious leaders who are completely out of touch with their own sexuality.


I would like to suggest that there is no difference in kind between the question above and this question: "Why can't we love as many people as we want in a day or, say, even an hour?" The difference is merely one of degree.

The premise of this question subordinates love to our wants. As any student of marketing demographics will tell you, the wants of people can fluctuate wildly. We've subordinated God's creation to our wants, and now the landscape is littered with the wastes of our ever-changing and insatiable desires. Is it really wise to endorse a concept of love that is as disposable as cola cans? I know that it is practiced all the time, so is gluttonous consumerism. Should we just think of falling in love as eating Lays potato chips: "You can't each just one!" That's the logic of that rhetorical question above, and I don't think such logic repulses only sexually repressed religious wackos.

I wonder how many women would understand their boyfriend's or husband's desire to love as many people as they want in a lifetime. The female author of that weblog post above may well understand, and I would suggest that she is thereby just setting herself up for savage exploitation and very keen pain.

Love is the yearning for permanence. This is why the pain from losing a loved one to death never goes away this side of the eschation. And if it does go away, then you did not really love.

Truly loving someone romantically is different in kind than love of family or friendship for romantic love involves the complete surrender of one's entire person to another. Romantic love culminates in the sacrifice of one to another. This is why the climax of the consummating act is called The Little Death, and like death itself le petit mot is supposed to make your loved one even more dear.

A good friend of mine and I were once debating the morality of pre-marital sex. He conceded to me that the tremendous feeling of self-sacrifice ultimately explains the desirability of the sex act but hastened to add that it is healthier to want that feeling without the actual self-sacrifice, by which he meant an unconditional commitment to monogamous wedlock. This undergraduate pagan understood health in an Epicurean sense as freedom from pain. Genuine self-sacrifice is not healthy because the pain to orgasm ratio is not very conducive to the Epicurean ideal of equanimity. Therefore, it is better not to get too attached to just one person. Too much investment in just one person involves too much pain, but if you "love" many people simply to satisfy your ephemeral wants for a mere simulation of sacrificial passion, then you will learn that love like any other comfort is fleeting and fungible. You will learn not to take it too seriously, hence, it will not obsess you, and you will have sound Epicurean health.

But you will also not take death, the little and the real, seriously. If the self-sacrifice of any person is simply a handmaiden to the health of a self-satisfied materialist, then the human being simply does not have any eternal worth. For the substance of the sacrifice no longer matters, only the accident of pleasure which now becomes the measure of the act's worth. The human being ceases to be a creature with a capacity for eternity but merely a machine that exists for temporal pleasures. Machines are replaceable, and it is just silly to mourn the death of machine. Machines break down, and more can be made. No big deal.

#2

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about fornication, more commonly known nowadays as pre-marital sex:

"Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young."


Okay, please, someone, tell me why the Catholic Church is wrong to claim without qualification (i.e. absolutely) that pre-marital sex is wrong? I will not in this post argue (well, not very thoroughly, at least) for the correctness of this claim. I simply wish to invite arguments to the contrary.

My suspicion is that all arguments that justify fornication lead straight to the grotesque banality depicted in The Brave New World. I suggest that one must either argue for the separation between true love and the sex act, in which case the body might as well be just a toy, or one must argue that love is merely another gratification that may last longer than an orgasm but is just as fleeting, in which case human loyality can have nothing to do with love and must find some other foundation such as, say, fear. Both arguments, as best as I can see, lead relentlessly to Huxley's dystopia.

In that world, the body is not an integral part of the human person; it is merely an instrument for a series of ephemeral pleasures. Also, Romantic Love is not a foundation for loyalty. There are no marriages and, of course, no families. The citizens of this carefully engineered hedonism do appear to remain loyal to the "family" of the state but only because they are either engineered to do so or because they are so addicted to soma and feelies that they can't endure the withdrawal involved in leaving. Human engineering and addiction to pleasure are the foundation of the social bond, and love is simply ignored, and when it is mentioned, as it is when John Savage tells the story of Romeo and Juliet, it is simply laughed at as a monstrously ridiculous absurdity.

Now, of course, some may argue that the brave new world is not a dystopia at all and that, therefore, one does not refute the justification of pre-marital sex by a reductio ad bellum saeclum novum. Fine. I will say that if one wants a brave new world, then one cannot have Shakespeare, and a world without Shakespeare is a world not worth living in.

But I could be wrong, and if any reader of this post thinks so, I ask him or her to tell me why.

Friday, August 31, 2012

E-mail

The username of my e-mail address is "sadecamus". Now, some of my fellow Catholics, trying to be charitable, have gone to their Latin Dictionaries and searched in vain for the verb "sadeco". And then I have to tell them as gently as I can that the name is not from an innocent Latin verb but instead an amalgamation of the surnames of two notorious French Atheists. Scandal.

I then tell them that I adopted the name because I just like the sound. But that's not true (even though "sadecamus" does sound very cool). I like to scandalize, and that's bad. So, I had to find another excuse because changing usernames is a hassle. Fortunately the New Atheists came along to give me one.

Now I say that I use the username to taunt them. The "New Atheists" would like us to believe two things: 1) that Atheism is the ONLY world view that leads to a truly moral life and 2) that meaning is indeed possible in a universe without God. Well, the life and, more importantly, the atheistic philosophy of the Marquis make the first claim dubious, and Camus devoted most of his writing trying to teach people how to cope with ultimate meaningless. In short, my e-mail address impishly dissents from the solemn and insufferably arrogant Magisterium of the "New Atheism".

And if that fails, I'll just return to the euphony argument.

One reason this scientific age can never be happy

"Edit and interpret the conclusions of modern science as tenderly as we like, it is still quite impossible for us to regard man as the child of God for whom the earth was created as a temporary habitation. Rather must we regard him as little more than a chance deposit on the surface of the world, carelessly thrown up between two ice ages by the same forces that rust iron and ripen corn, a sentient organism endowed by some happy or unhappy accident with intelligence indeed, but with an intelligence that is conditioned by the very forces that it seeks to understand and to control."--Carl Becker

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Would you like a large order of Edmund Burke with that?

Social conservatism has now become a commercial for greasy fast food. Gag me with a spork!

On my bucket list

I want a Calvinist to explain to me why human beings are intrinsically superior to cockroaches.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Question

Who is reading this shit anyway?

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Modern Love 2

Scene: A Bar in Massachusetts

Man: Hey, babe.

Woman: (flashes her ring)

Man: Yeah, so?

Woman: Geez, you're dense! I am married, sleezeball.

Man: Yeah, I know, what does that have to do with anything?

Woman: Oh my Gawd! Don't you know that marriage is the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others?

Man: And you think that this definition means that we should not boink?

Woman: Well, duh!

Man: Well, first of all, the "others" in that definition does not refer to "unions", it refers to "spouses" as in "to the exclusions of all other spouses". I don't want to become your spouse. I just wanna fuck you. Second, that definition isn't intended to spell out all the rights and responsibilities of said spouses and, therefore, says nothing about and, hence, is utterly indifferent to our doing the horizontal nasty. I therefore can conclude only that your reading of the definition is blindingly stupid and as such has nothing to do with us right now.

Woman: (Throws her drink in the man's face and stomps out.)

Modern Love

Man: I love you.

Woman: I love you, too.

Man: Well, then, let's do something that will express our love for one another.

Woman: And also our trust and intimacy.

Man: Yes, that, too. Of course. Our trust and our intimacy.

Woman: Well, what do you have in mind? Marriage?

Man: Nah, that's just for financial and legal benefits. I am talking about love! Let's boink!

Woman: You're just not saying this because I look like Jessica Alba in Dark Angel, are you?

Man: No, no, no, oh, no. Not that. I really, really love you, all of you, and that includes your mind, too. You are a very special person to me, and I want to do something very special to, uh, with you.

Woman: But sexual intercourse is special because of its literally creative possibilities.

Man: You mean, you're not on the Pill?

Woman: Just teasing. Oh, you men! Yes, I believe in contraception. I am not an irrational, religious nutter!

Man: Oh, thank God!

Woman: What?!

Man: Just being metaphorical, dear.

Woman: Oh, that's a relief.

Man: But the religious teaching against contraception is really quite silly, isn't it?

Woman: Oh, yes. Just because a human activity has one purpose does not mean it can't be used for other purposes as well.

Man: Very well put. It would be like if someone said walking is for pedestrian transportation and, therefore, using a treadmill is a most blasphemous violation of the natural order.

Woman: Yeah, walking can be put to many different purposes.

Man: Exactly!

Woman: Fine. I need some fresh air. There's just a gorgeous full moon out tonight. Let's just go out for a walk and express our love, intimacy, and trust that way.

Man: Oh, darn.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Raindrops are actually falling outside!!!

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Straussian nihilism?

Fr. Braun is apparently ignorant of classical metaphysics. According to classical metaphysics evil is the absence of Being. Ergo, sin as an instance of evil is an absence of Being, and, hence, the power to sin is the power over nothing. To claim, as this priest does, that the power to sin is the power over God is silly. Or, perhaps, Fr. Braun is really NOT ignorant of the classical metaphysical definition of sin but only appears to be. Perhaps, he does know that sin is an absence of Being, that the power to sin is indeed the power over nothing, and that when he is claiming that this power is the power over God, he is simply announcing in a Straussian way his closet nihilism.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Row, row, row...

I dreamt about my Dad last night. He was cleaning house, more precisely cleaning up what should have been my duty to clean up for he gave me a very cross look as I emerged from my bedroom in what must have been the afternoon. This dream, as dreams often are, was especially vivid, so vivid that for a few seconds of my actual waking I thought my Dad was still alive and that I would soon be in big trouble not just for a messy house but also for smoking in the house and sleeping on the couch so much that I have torn up the upholstery on the cushions. But then I realized that it was only a dream. I really hate dreams.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Nota bene

I am no longer on facebook.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Quotidien

I promise that I shall update this weblog every fucking day from now on. Even if I have absolutely nothing profound or insightful to say. Which is usually every fucking day.

Life is not a dream

I had a weird dream, which means that I remember having a dream. All dreams are weird. Anyway. I drempt that I married Allyson Hannigan. Weird. It was also a rather pleasant dream. I really didn't like waking up to discover it was not true.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Still one follower

This weblog still has one what Blogger.com calls a "follower". Even though I have not posted anything new for quite some time. I have no idea who this "follower" but do applaud him or her for his or her loyalty and say to this one "follower" of mine, "Repent, the end is nigh!" Otherwise, I won't rapture him (or her).