De Barbarum Conundro

Since it is likely that my appearance will give the reader cause to suspect me of partiality in this matter, I will begin by offering the best defense for being clean shaven that I can.

The best argument against the whiskers is probably that which stems from natural rights; it is a classically liberal defense and runs, more or less, as follows: whiskers have the right to do what they please; they may choose to abide where they wish, they may practice what faith they will, they may engage in free enterprise if it suits them, &c. Of course, all this, provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. The problem of course, is that when they choose to take up residence on a man's face, they violate the rights of that man in one very significant way viz. the right to bear children. Though it speaks to the irrational tastes of women that such a sign of virility is so thoroughly shunned, the fact remains that once whiskers begin to bivouac upon a man`s cheeks, his every attempt to procreate will be foiled. Thus, since an encamped army of whiskers upon a man`s face prevent him from sowing his seed, he has every right to attack with any arma (I can`t imagine any tela being effective) at hand. Of course, though the severity with which whiskers are commonly treated may be lamentable, retrograde, barbaric, or what you will, it seems that men are perfectly justified in dealing thusly with them.

Now, why then, should any man conceed large tracts of his face to such an (alleged) enemy? Because the complex ecosystem of a man's face can be much benefited by the presence of such creatures. Just as trees, as we all know, produce invaluable oxygen for our planet, so do whiskers produce esteemable virtus for our comportment. Especially given the inherantly feminine nature of intellectual and cultural activity (recall, it was Šamhat who first initiated Enkidu into human culture), it behooves men, particularly those who fancy themselves the slightest bit intelligent, to counteract this femininity with an equal or more potent dose of manliness. Men, reclaim your humanity, and engage with human civilization on your terms! Let not the sheath of a woman's body be the gateway through which you must crawl to touch and contemplate beauty! (Oh dear, how very Neoplatonic of me...)

The Cult of Modern Politics

Lately I've been reading a little bit of political science. Not super recent political science - because most of that is noobish, nescient (non-alliterative) nonsense - but perceptive stuff: Joseph Schumpeter, Michael Oakeshott, &c. I also read, a few months ago, a paper by Richard Hofstadter The Paranoid Style In American Politics

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

What have I synthesized from the aforementioned readings? That Oakeshott's claim, that over the last few centuries European rationalism, on account of its very flawed tenets concerning the nature of human knowledge-aquisistion and customs, has occasioned a fragmentation in the both the left and the right's view of political events over time - and that this alters the nature of the very process of governing, is absolutely true. I will explain why this is even scarier than Oakeshott lets on:

Since governing cannot be viewed by a rationalist as an organic process that grows, adapts, and mutates over time, it fragments - each of the film's frames is viewed individually, as a photograph. The process of governing becomes a series of reactions to crises, real or imagined. The two-party democratic system (we may here include Canada) has very well adapted itself to this conception. Every election campaign is run with the following formula:

"My opponent, X, has not/is not/will not adequately dealt/deal with crises y,z, &c. I will. Vote for me, or doom impends"

The crises, may of course be real: the present recession, the war in Afganistan, the war in Iraq. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that modern political institutions would be unable to function without these. I doubt very much that there will ever be a pax Democratica; democracy needs war, disease, economic failure, injustice, &c.

Unlike the ancient millenarian cults (Christian, Judaic, or whatever) of the ancient world, the cult of modern politics is not merely psychotic; it is destroying the world in order to create the very fear which enables its survival.

On Blasphemy

For years everyone's known that Anglicans are atheists. Or anyone either moderately literate or moderately intelligent could put it together on their own. There's nothing wrong with atheists; most religious people, after all, are atheists. But Anglicans - they are avowedly theologico-atheists. Feuerbach as much as tells us so in the first pages of Grundsätze der Philosophie der Zukunft (1843). In one of the first essays in MacIntyre's volume Against Self Images of Age we find a philosophical exposé of blatantly atheistic ideas in published theological writings of 20th c. Anglican clergymen. This should come as no shock to anyone.

But I don't intend here to deal with the theological redefinition of god in terms of the apogee of human desires, the highest fulfillment of human needs, &c.; I don't here intend to spell out how this makes the Anglican creed indistinguishable from the most vehement of atheisms. Nor am I going to rant about how little I like the Protestant faith in general. No, I am merely going to matter-of-factly state how absolutely disgusted I am by an Anglican parish in Montreal.

In one of those damnable commuter newspapers of the sort which is read by people merely in order to convince themselves that they are not entirely pissing away the 30 minutes they spend in the underground, I chanced across a photograph with a very small caption.



The caption read:

Alexa Nadeau recieves communion with her dog Christy at Christ's Anglican Church yesterday in Montreal. The parish is running a four-week pilot project that allows worshippers to bring their dogs to services.

One usually expects the most horribly blasphemous things to come from dedicated, ikonoclastic atheists; however, I am little surprised that this time, the infidels find themselves outdone by the faithful. It's bad enough when you're sitting in a pew (not something I do much these days) and somebody's kid is crying so loud it's droning out the 'word of God'; imagine a dog! Not just barking, but leg humping, wandering up and down the trancepts, sniffing at the lady-dogs' cunts? I don't even believe in God (and my friends will tell you that I positively delight in offending) and I'm absolutely offended by this. And you know what, if you Anglicans ever read that fucking Bible you fancy yourselves so much better than the Catholics at reading, maybe you'd realize that bringing your dog to church with you probably violates the entire book of Leviticus.

Of course, God does love animals. He loves the scent of their seared flesh wafting up to the heavens. He loves the scrumptious taste of all the delectable parts of an animal that are unsuited to human digestion. So, unless you're bringing little Sparky to sacrifice him to יהוה, leave him at home.

Just a thought: if we frankly admitted the fact that we are atheists, infidels, &c. instead of being such a damned lot of hypocritical Christians, perhaps the Arabs would not be as pissed-off-and-about-to-kill-us. Try it sometime.