Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera (credo equidem), uiuos ducent de marmore uultus, orabunt causas melius, caelique meatus describent radio et surgentia sidera dicent: tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (hae tibi erunt artes), pacique imponere morem, parcere subiectis et debellare superbos.
This bit of rampant -- but for its rampancy no less offensive -- knavery is simply put a proposal that "steal ye from the mighty (for they're the ones who have things to steal in the first place) ; and give ye to the lowly (for they're the ones most liable to suck your cock for it)". The paranthetical explanations elided, of course, because what'd be a frank knave in this world ?! Not a lowly pleb, that's for damn sure!
Such course as there advised might even "work", in whatever carefully curated context ; on whatever painstakingly maintained short term indeed this inane "populism" might even deliver some semblance of profit, however brieflyiii. Yet it is unmistakably wrong, which in the end is what actually matters.
It is wrong thoroughly, in every which way and to any analytical approach available. It follows purported purpose rather than actual causeiv, it's self-seeking in the superlativev, it's simply put the cornerstone of evil in the world.
The downtrodden are downtrodden for a reason. Step on their faces.———
- The man who harps endlessly and falsely at the outskirts of sexual behaviour was in daily lived reality not even man enough to make a decent faggot.
I don't know to best convey this tediously palludic, Proustian cvasi-sexuality other than snailfuck, frogfuck or other such slimefuck. Perpetually ambiguously "nobody could be sure" whether Villiers' dog references actually meant anything substantial or just Madeleine-bullshit, whether they're kissing because what the hell... it's just not a way to fucking live, at least not for mammals, not under the sun, not outside caves and sewage pipes.
God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.
- Pretense to "religion" hurr durr is not obviously any less inappropriate than the ludicrous pretense to "sovereignity" assorted tabletop larping dorks keep sprouting mechanically. Yes, perhaps the fellow was just retarded and what he meant really was "sit ye down and think for a minute". Then again, "I am king because god said so" is precisely the sort of petulant half-assery that gets fat preteens bullied and "early modern" kings executed. [↩]
- After which fleeting moment, of course, the usual tard blinders can come on, and "nobody can... have predicted", retroactively & anachronistically like that. Nobody CAN now, HAVE predicted, in the past, nobody can now have predicted in the past, what's the problem ?
to take but one simple example: suppose you thought of the new millennium when you wrote your application back in 1972 -- not only wouldn't you be invited to the party, those who knew you had done it right from the start and who probably laughed at you at the time would positively hate you now, and they sure as hell wouldn't tell people about you. and the more stupid they are, the more important it would be to pretend that nobody was smart enough to see the next millennium coming.
Incidentally -- if alf weren't so fucking retarded such that his blog is still broken today, I'd have linked his article -- first by very far on any search on the topic (as downstream on the temporary, and crumbling, benefits of Trilema illumination) -- in lieu of quoting the snippet. But alf is this fucking retarded, his blog is still broken, and in general the world's what it is rather than what it could actually be, with the least of effort and cost (but a lot of yielding its miserable inferiority to the plainly superior). [↩]
- When the king beheads the noble because that noble wore the wrong kind of hat, you're dealing with one kind of situation. When the king beheads the noble because he thinks beheading that noble will get him money, you're dealing with another kind of situation. I can be friends with the former, and forever have been ; but I have absolutely no interest in the latter, nor could I. Because there's no way to have anything to do with the latter, they're not human in any sense -- the thorough establishing of which point is actually Kant's chief claim to fame. [↩]
- Go ahead, draw the distinction. How is it different ? [↩]