Why god has died.

Tuesday, 01 August, Year 9 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Nevermind god for a second, let's look at something else.

So, the position of the literary "critic", or however you'd call him, is very tenuous indeed. Here's how it goes :

  1. A third party (the author) produces a string S.
  2. This may be productive for the author (economically, morally, sexually, however), but most often it is not.
  3. The "critic" then endeavours to extract more out of whatever sloppy seconds are left after the original author is done.

To be perfectly clear : authors produce for all sorts of reasons, from patent insanity to an irritated esthetic, ethic or otherwise sense ; or because they happen to be drunk, or inspired or transported or anally probed by aliens, muses, machine elves etcetera ; or because they hope to be rich and famous ; or because they already are rich and famous ; or for all sorts of reasons. Critics, however, write for one reason, and one reason only : to get something by it. Whether it's money, or fame, or the favours of some smegmatic cunt -- there's no such thing as the critic who writes for any other reason than the hope of extraction, of benefit of some kind or another.

There are cases where the critic is actually an author himself, either an incomplete, impotent author ("Please do not eat the daisies" tells a great story in this vein) or else the fully blown item (such as you can admire on this here our sheet of immorality, Trilema) and thereby his "criticism" is merely a literary device, a transparent pretext. These cases are however rare, and such authors may be also critics, but they'll never be critics full stop, critics as such and plain-and-simplei.

On top of all these indignities the gods have rightfully piled on the deserving, the critic's position is made even more tenuous by the following circumstance : while the author may speak of whatever he pleases, the critic must speak of S! He's stuck, in a way the author isn't, and what's worse : this relevancy, this "about-S"ness is actually a foundational promise of the critic. If it should be the case that his verbiage turns out to not actually be about S, then whatever he managed to extract goes right into the injust enrichment pile, probably to be refunded!

For instance, the teacher who purports to teach Physics but turns out to have taught pseudo-Physics may manage to avoid having to repay whatever fees he already pocketed for his services, but is surely out of a job. Similarily, the "university" professor passingii himself for a critic of, say, Proust, should he be shown to have not, for instance, ever read Proust will thereby lose his job. Such is the indignity of the critic's position : his life's work is his livelihood, and his livelihood entirely depends on his having a close relation with S.

This opens the critic to the sorest fate of them all : because the author has a priviledged relationship with S, it therefore is the case that the critic's livelihood, and thereby his life's work, is entirely at the mercy of the author! Should the author stand up in the forum and invalidate the critic-S relationship, in whatever manner, such as for instance declaring "this dood has no fucking idea what he's talking about", the critic's up shit creekic without a paddleic.

Once the final throes of industrialization (sometimes called post-industrialization) have smashed together sufficient ex-laborers into dead end functions so that the universities were so fulla "professors" they actually started competing with each other!iii the critics then finally organized together for political ends (or in proper words -- to try and rob the public treasury for their own benefit). First on the list, obviously, the most burning problem of them all : that pesky author, and his hierarchial position over them.

How! They, clever, independent pantsuit-wearing scions of ourdemocracy to be mere slaves on the farm owned by another ? No! And so the solution was readily found : the author, see, has died! And as the author died, the slaves of yesteryear inherited the land, and get to sleep in finery and get to call the shots.

But why was this solution so readily found ? Why... because it... was found... once before. You see, the transition from the original Jewish god, eternal, omniscient and very, very angry to the catholic-protestant "Jesus", a ridiculous concoction, substantially as well as fundamentally undivine is exactly this same thing!

He has a pet dog, now, you see. God has a pet dog, and picket fences, and a mother, and a wife and a girlfriend, and of course credit cards.iv The God 2.0 of catholic-protestancy has all the good things, and especially the best one of them all : he can now die!

A god that can die is a fabulous item, because you see... finally... the death of the author! God can die, and the critics can tell you it was "for you", which it wasn't. It was for them.

God so much loved this world, he went down to the unemployment office to stand in line so Hillary can yak importantly about herdemocracy. And so should you!

Isn't soviet life wonderful ?

  1. Teachers are a particular case of critics plain-and-simple. They usually hope to get a little money by it, and a lot of respect. Rarely, they hope to get exactly what G. Petronius describes :

    "In Asiam cum a quaestore essem stipendio eductus, hospitium Pergami accepi. Vbi cum libenter habitarem non solum propter cultum aedicularum, sed etiam propter hospitis formosissimum filium, excogitavi rationem qua non essem patri familiae suspectus amator. Quotiescunque enim in convivio de usu formosorum mentio facta est, tam vehementer excandui, tam severa tristitia violari aures meas obsceno sermone nolui, ut me mater praecipue tanquam unum ex philosophis intueretur. Jam ego coeperam ephebum in gymnasium deducere, ego studia eius ordinare, ego docere ac praecipere, ne quis praedator corporis admitteretur in domum.

    Forte cum in triclinio iaceremus, quia dies sollemnis ludum artaverat pigritiamque recedendi imposuerat hilaritas longior, fere circa mediam noctem intellexi puerum vigilare. Itaque timidissimo murmure votum feci et: "Domina, inquam, Venus, si ego hunc puerum basiavero, ita ut ille non sentiat, cras illi par columbarum donabo". Audito voluptatis pretio puer stertere coepit. Itaque aggressus simulantem aliquot basiolis invasi. Contentus hoc principio bene mane surrexi electumque par columbarum attuli expectanti ac me voto exsolvi.


  2. The word denotes what transsexuals and crossdressers do when they pretend to be the gender they aren't ; and also what pseudointellectuals do when they pretend to a life of the mind. []
  3. Think, what fucking nonsense this is, when you have more supposedly qualified professors than you have jobs for them! How, how could such a situation make any sort of sense ? []
  4. Oh, you think I'm making shit up to go with the flow ? I'm not making it up, the shit's right there. Jahveh never fucking said "give unto Cesar", now did he ? []
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

11 Responses

  1. Relevantly, "passing" is also how English-speaking counterfeiters refer to the trickiest part of their work.

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 1 August 2017


  3. A god that can die is a fabulous item, because you see... finally... the death of
    the author! God can die, and the critics can tell you it was "for you", which it
    wasn't. It was for them.

    The argument for limited atonement is also made by the notorious
    God Hates Fags
    church, and it has no foundation in the Bible.
    Also, the Word of God (the Bible) was not written by God,
    or anyone for that matter; the Word of God is God.
    (John 1:1)

  4. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 1 August 2017

    Are you proposing that the scripture is not text ?!

  5. No, I think he's suggesting coconuts migrate.

  6. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 1 August 2017


    Anyway, re the linked material, two items.

    The first is that the article doesn't intimate intent, but effect. So : if you go to a poor neighbourhood in a poor country and throw a bushel of silver coins at a gaggle of street urchins, you might have, as far as you're concerned, "thrown money at all the street children". In practical fact, you actually gave some money to the three or four pimps who own the respective whores as cattle and use them to pick money for them in the street, irrespective whether that money comes from Belgian pedo's paying nine year olds for taking it up the ass or strange people like yourself throwing out money by the bushel. It is in this sense that I say, "the death of the author fiction as applied to Christianity, was applied by and for the priesthood."

    The second is that the Sodoma nonsense is very much indicative of the necessary cuckoldry of any sort of religious attempt to interpret xtianity taking the Jesus fiction seriously. To wit :

    In Westboro Baptist Church's monograph to the Quintessential Magazine they reveal their view of Sodom is quite twisted. In there they write,

    All Sodom citizens were not gays and lesbians. Most were not. But they were enablers! Sodomite society had reached a stage of decadence and debauchery whereby homosexuals were accepted with respect and dignity as merely innocent practitioners of a morally neuteral lifestyle. (www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/feb2004/Monograph_2-14-2004.pdf, bold added)

    This is the exact opposite of the word of God. Please note Genesis 19.

    Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." (Genesis 19:4-5)

    The men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord. (Genesis 13:13)

    Phelps' claims "Most were not" gay. Scripture indicates all the men were.

    The problem with this is that if 1) Sodom was a town, and therefore 1.1) included humans of all biological ages and sexes and if 2) Sodom was destroyed as a town, not as some kind of bit-and-piece selection then indeed 3) little girls of say 6 yeard old were destroyed with it. Meanwhile the best construction the quotes afford, as your author provides, is 4) "all men were wicked".

    This leaves you with a very unpleasant trilemma :

    Either females, and children, are incapable of moral action, in the very deep sense of salvation (which is to say, that children do not have souls), and so will be burned along with the men and for men's sins as any other piece of property, such as for instance the chair they happened to sit on when the lightning struck, or whatever footwear they had on when the mudslide came ;

    Or else little girls as young as six years of age didn't limit themselves to simply torturing their little girl dollies for imaginary guilts and chewing their hands and doing other things normal inasmuch as the natural masochism god-given to the female gender intermingling with a six year old's iconic representation of self and world produce transference and whatnot other well discussed and reasonably understood patterns of thought and behaviour, but actually raped and pillaged like men do, notwithstanding they have neither mental nor physical penis ;

    Or else that men are the only bad thing in the world and all hail herdemocracy, vote Hillary!

    I would say it's rather obvious why the Western world went to shit once it swallowed the "death of the author" Jesus bullshit : the seeds of pantsuit are right fucking there, in the discussion of Sodom. The attempt to interpret god, however undertaken, necessarily yields soup. That's why original commentary was written by prophets, not by some dude named Phelps, or Fish, or however else. Scripture doesn't work by "just the facts" procedures.

  7. The little girls were indeed wicked, as is indicated by the preceeding chapter.

    Genesis 18:22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. 23 And Abraham came near and said, “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? 25 Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

    26 So the Lord said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”

    27 Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: 28 Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?”

    So He said, “If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it.”

    29 And he spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose there should be forty found there?”

    So He said, “I will not do it for the sake of forty.”

    30 Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?”

    So He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

    31 And he said, “Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?”

    So He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.”

    32 Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?”

    And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.” 33 So the Lord went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

    The city is destroyed after Lot's family escapes. His wife dies in the process because she disobeyed God by looking back. That's all it takes to be wicked. The little girls need only to lack belief in order to deserve death.

  8. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 2 August 2017

    Ah, because during oral arguments the standard moved from overt homosexuality to a more abstract worthiness. I see.

  9. It says the men were homosexuals. Perhaps it means men as in humans (men and women) but in any case it's clear that most if not all who died in Sodom were wicked, be they homosexual or not. That some were children is not a point of concern. Or else I would have thrown it out when God ordered the Isrealites to kill all the babies of some city that they conquered.

    1 Samuel 15 Samuel also said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

    This is not troubling to me; Christ says that He creates the wicked for destruction, in order to show His wrath. The infants and little girls have souls; they get destroyed forever in the lake of fire. What they don't have is "free will" -- that is, the ability to act outside of God's will.

  10. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 2 August 2017

    Yeah, I'm satisfied the above proposed trilemma is resolved.

    I'm entirely unconvinced "divine interpretation" can work in general as an endeavour, but that's a different topic.

  1. [...] being, like many other films these past few years, suffering a divide between negative reviews from Anglophone critics and glowing reviews from lay viewers. Of course we live in a time where through mass market rent [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.