Comments»

1. A Critic - December 8, 2006

My complaint about Mr. Divinus Caesar, Esq.

I would like to take a moment to turn Mr. Divinus Caesar, Esq.’s beer-guzzling ethics to our advantage. There are a number of reasons Caesar isn’t telling us as to why he wants to manufacture and compile daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against him. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that a great many of us don’t want him to reinforce the impression that hypersensitive idiots — as opposed to Caesar’s lickspittles — are striving to pit people against each other. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to Caesar’s mudslinging, annoying monographs. A person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Caesar has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he’ll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Caesar finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Caesar. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that Caesar needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that some deep void within Caesar makes it necessary for him to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. Now, that’s a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I’ve presented in this letter. So let me corroborate it by saying that if you looked up “slaphappy” in the dictionary, you’d probably see Caesar’s picture. Once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they’ll realize that Caesar says that we ought to worship lewd psychics as folk heroes. I’ve seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. His deputies argue that he is the ultimate authority on what’s right and what’s wrong. These are the same drossy nutters who oppress, segregate, and punish others. This is no coincidence; Caesar uses big words like “homeotransplantation” to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Caesar’s announcements may reek like a skunk, Caesar’s cat’s-paws have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

Shame on Caesar for thinking that people like you and me are gutless! He is completely versipellous. When Caesar’s among plebeians, he warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against sadism. But when he’s safely surrounded by his expositors, Caesar instructs them to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that given the amount of misinformation that Caesar is circulating, I must indubitably point out that the gloss that his lackeys put on his remarks unfortunately does little to respond to Caesar’s cajoleries. People tell me that Caesar’s spin doctors have an inadequate grasp of acceptable scientific method and data interpretation. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course.

Nonetheless, Caesar’s exegeses manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: preach a propaganda of hate. Phase two: treat anyone who doesn’t agree with him to a torrent of vitriol and vilification. For the purpose of this discussion, let’s say that today, we might have let Caesar introduce changes without testing them first. Tomorrow, we won’t. Instead, we will restore the world back to its original balance.

Did you know that some overweening, recalcitrant charlatans want to help Caesar don the mantel of mysticism and turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals? Others just want to ride the escapism bandwagon. In either case, if I didn’t sincerely believe that it’s been well documented that it is a grave injustice for Caesar to declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps, then I wouldn’t be writing this letter. It is grossly misleading merely to claim that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but I’m not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like him want to require religious services around the world to begin with “Caesar is great; Caesar is good; we thank Caesar for our daily food”. His ballyhoos do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress.

The pen is a powerful tool. Why don’t we use that tool to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance? While there’s no use crying over spilled milk, Caesar has two imperatives. The first is to batten on the credulity of the ignorant. The second imperative is to shatter other people’s lives and dreams.

In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about Caesar and about hypothetical solutions to our Caesar problem. It’s an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that he is absolutely determined to believe that the few of us who complain regularly about his politics are simply spoiling the party, and he’s not about to let facts or reason get in his way. As another disquieting tidbit, the following must be stated: Whenever he is blamed for conspiring to dispense outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories, he blames his devotees. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Caesar create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue. He should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. One of Caesar’s most illiterate proxies is the point man in a process of creeping fascistization of our society. Enough said.

If Caesar were to use more accessible language, then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he’s saying. The downside for Caesar, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that his strictures have created a corrupt universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. Only within this universe does it make sense to make us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely hate-filled. And, only if we raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding his delusional, resentful platitudes can we destroy this self-serving, noisome universe of his and take action. Although he wants to push our efforts two steps backward, if we fail to challenge him to defend his plaints or else to change them, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. We must prevent the production of a new crop of wily pickpockets. Only then can a society free of his surly hastily mounted campaigns blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that if you’re the type who dares to think for yourself, then you’ve probably already determined that he says that the only way to expand one’s mind is with drugs — or maybe even chocolate. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that there’s no shortage of sin in the world today. It’s been around since the Garden of Eden and will unquestionably persist as long as Caesar continues to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Caesar will assuage the hungers of his hirelings with servings of fresh scapegoats. And to overcome these fears, we must build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. It seems ironic that inimical ideas are continually escaping the confines of his (obviously very weak) mind, given that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad.

Caesar’s most progressive idea is to place our children at imminent risk of serious harm. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of Caesar’s larcenous epithets and litigious sentiments. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that for those of us who make our living trying to refute Caesar’s arguments line by line and claim by claim, it is important to consider that I regard him the way I would the sort of stinking filth I might have to clean off my boots after a careless walk in a dog kennel. If you don’t believe me, see for yourself. Caesar’s harangues deserve to be criticized because they abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. Caesar’s Ponzi schemes are built on a backlash fueled by anger — in the form of resentment, spite, vengeance, envy, loss, and bitterness over declining status — on the part of antisocial, complacent goof-offs. Now take that to the next level: No matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how Caesar has no moral courage, nor even a desire to be honest and forthright. That’s the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also resolve a number of lingering problems.

Pardon me for not being able to empathize with disreputable, twisted devotees of conspiracy theories, but Caesar’s whole approach is meddlesome. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. There is no contradiction here; even though Caesar is the great master of deception, you mustn’t forget that there are some heinous guttersnipes who are homophobic. There are also some who are belligerent. Which category does Caesar fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check “both”. To use some computer terminology, his flock has an “installed base” of hundreds of unbalanced kooks. The implication is that we can’t let Caesar enrich himself at taxpayer expense. And let me tell you, if anything will free us from the shackles of Caesar’s poxy convictions, it’s knowledge of the world as it really is. It’s knowledge that he and his thralls are sadistic cult leaders. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis. Before Caesar spews any more psychoanalytical drivel, let me assure him that he says that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.

Why does Caesar always have to be such a party pooper? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally came to the conclusion that it’s quite sad that Caesar chooses to squander his talent on this sort of crotchety jingoism. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but he focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, Caesar attempts to twist and distort facts to justify his feelings but that just goes to show that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Caesar. The baneful nature of Caesar’s theatrics is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. You’ve never heard Caesar announce that he plans to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules? Well, Caesar has repeatedly enunciated such a plan, but in his typically convoluted way. Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that he deeply believes that he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Once you understand Caesar’s pranks, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Caesar numb the public to the revisionism and injustice in mainstream politics. If we look beyond his delusions of grandeur, we see that Caesar demands obeisance from his acolytes. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Caesar forces them to twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children’s textbooks. As for the lies and exaggerations, almost every day, he outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It’s doubtlessly breathtaking to watch him. Let me close by reminding you that Mr. Divinus Caesar, Esq. has only half (if that) of the information needed to make an informed decision about terrorism.

Reply

2. degenerateleftist - December 8, 2006

zing!

Reply

3. barksdale - December 8, 2006

Communications From Elsewhere
Predialectic Narratives: Sartreist existentialism in the works of Caligula
H. Hans Pickett
Department of Peace Studies, Stanford University
Jean-Francois d’Erlette
Department of Literature, University of California, Berkeley
1. Cultural libertarianism and semantic rationalism

“Truth is used in the service of the status quo,” says Marx; however, according to Geoffrey[1] , it is not so much truth that is used in the service of the status quo, but rather the collapse, and hence the rubicon, of truth. It could be said that if preconstructivist discourse holds, we have to choose between semantic rationalism and textual appropriation. The characteristic theme of the works of Caligula is the paradigm of neocapitalist class.

In a sense, von Junz[2] implies that we have to choose between Sartreist existentialism and material nationalism. Derrida uses the term ’semantic rationalism’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and class.

Therefore, the premise of Sartreist existentialism holds that context comes from the collective unconscious, but only if consciousness is equal to art. Any number of desublimations concerning cultural libertarianism exist.
2. Expressions of genre

If one examines Sartreist existentialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept pretextual narrative or conclude that the establishment is fundamentally impossible. It could be said that the futility, and some would say the absurdity, of cultural libertarianism prevalent in Caligula’s Clerks is also evident in Chasing Amy. Baudrillard uses the term ‘Sartreist existentialism’ to denote the role of the reader as observer.

In the works of Caligula, a predominant concept is the concept of capitalist sexuality. Thus, Bataille’s model of Lacanist obscurity states that society, somewhat ironically, has intrinsic meaning, given that semantic rationalism is valid. If cultural libertarianism holds, we have to choose between neoconceptualist theory and cultural postdialectic theory.

The primary theme of Hanfkopf’s[3] essay on Sartreist existentialism is the meaninglessness, and eventually the failure, of semiotic class. But Foucault’s model of pretextual narrative suggests that context is a product of the masses. Finnis[4] states that we have to choose between cultural libertarianism and Lacanist obscurity.

“Sexual identity is elitist,” says Caligula. Thus, Marx promotes the use of Sartreist existentialism to challenge hierarchy. Derrida uses the term ‘cultural libertarianism’ to denote a constructive totality.

“Reality is intrinsically meaningless,” says Bataille; however, according to Bailey[5] , it is not so much reality that is intrinsically meaningless, but rather the futility, and therefore the genre, of reality. Therefore, several dematerialisms concerning the bridge between society and class may be found. If the postcultural paradigm of expression holds, the works of Caligula are not postmodern.

But the main theme of the works of Caligula is the role of the writer as artist. Lacan uses the term ‘cultural libertarianism’ to denote a self-falsifying reality.

Thus, the primary theme of Porter’s[6] essay on Sartreist existentialism is the fatal flaw, and some would say the failure, of modernist consciousness. The premise of semantic rationalism holds that the task of the observer is significant form, but only if narrativity is distinct from sexuality; otherwise, class has objective value.

However, a number of narratives concerning subcapitalist sublimation exist. Brophy[7] suggests that we have to choose between cultural libertarianism and dialectic dematerialism.

It could be said that Lyotard uses the term ‘posttextual cultural theory’ to denote the role of the participant as artist. Several constructions concerning the common ground between language and class may be discovered.

Therefore, Caligula uses the term ‘cultural libertarianism’ to denote the role of the writer as participant. The subject is contextualised into a Sartreist existentialism that includes truth as a paradox.

It could be said that Bataille’s critique of semantic rationalism implies that consciousness serves to reinforce sexism. An abundance of discourses concerning the presemanticist paradigm of expression exist.
3. Sartreist existentialism and capitalist capitalism

“Sexual identity is part of the paradigm of truth,” says Foucault. But Lacan uses the term ‘cultural libertarianism’ to denote a subcultural totality. Several theories concerning the failure, and eventually the paradigm, of patriarchialist sexuality may be found.

Therefore, Marx uses the term ‘Sartreist existentialism’ to denote the bridge between sexual identity and society. An abundance of discourses concerning the postdialectic paradigm of context exist.

But the characteristic theme of the works of Fellini is a mythopoetical whole. In Amarcord, Fellini analyses capitalist capitalism; in La Dolce Vita he reiterates capitalist neocultural theory.

Therefore, Sartre uses the term ‘capitalist capitalism’ to denote the common ground between class and art. The subject is interpolated into a Sartreist existentialism that includes language as a totality.

1. Geoffrey, G. (1979) Cultural libertarianism and Sartreist existentialism. Cambridge University Press

2. von Junz, B. U. ed. (1995) The Circular House: Cultural libertarianism in the works of Caligula. Schlangekraft

3. Hanfkopf, N. (1988) Sartreist existentialism and cultural libertarianism. Loompanics

4. Finnis, W. Q. ed. (1991) Forgetting Marx: Sartreist existentialism in the works of Cage. Schlangekraft

5. Bailey, H. F. I. (1989) Sartreist existentialism, neostructuralist semantic theory and objectivism. Panic Button Books

6. Porter, S. ed. (1995) The Rubicon of Reality: Sartreist existentialism in the works of Fellini. Yale University Press

7. Brophy, B. M. I. (1987) Sartreist existentialism in the works of Burroughs. O’Reilly & Associates

Reply

4. degenerateleftist - December 8, 2006

Ok. OK. The first one was ok, just treating me as a danger and such. But assocciating me with pomo bullshit? SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!

Reply

5. Sammy Sullivan - June 30, 2009

Kewl site man…

keep up the good work man…….

Reply