Adam Lambert Should Not Have a Lesbian Following
I read somewhere — and I’m too annoyed to link to it — that a gay man who simulated oral sex on stage, and is typically shallow and flamboyant as showbiz people, and especially gay male ones, are, has a huge lesbian following.
Well this lesbian wants nothing to do with him. Queers need to get their act together. Sorry, but it’s true. As long as gay men, a) discriminate against, ignore, or have a contemptuous or exclusionary attitude toward lesbians, and b) behave hedonistically, promiscuously, or exhibitionistically, I refuse to support them in any way.
Similarly with queer culture in general. So much about queer culture grosses me out — the hedonism, the disrespect for family values, the obsession with phalluses which is purely inherited from a patriarchal, phallus-worshiping attitude — that I can hardly bear to identify as queer. But let me put it this way:
I am a moderately conservative, intellectual, family-loving and family-values respecting, chaste and monogamous lesbian who does not party or go to bars. And I’m damn proud of it. Hopefully, some day, all queers will have the sense to follow this path.
Quick Remarks on an Article I Found
I have an assignment to write, so I’m going to quickly jot down some thoughts I have on this article, on Scheler’s idea of ressentiment:
- Scheler’s idea of ressentiment is relevant to the modern day, perhaps even more than Nietzsche’s. For example he says that moral value does not come from utility, but from the spiritual flourishing of the individual, with flourishing being marked by a maximum of love in the individual. This is relevant to a modern, ‘rational’ society so unfortunately consumed by the consequentialist and deontological mindsets, that measure the goodness or rightness of actions in terms either of utility or the adherence to a rule. That moral value comes from the presence of love, security, and inner health/cleanliness, and not from utility or conformity to a rule, is not only a correct message, but one that is desperately needed in this modern era. Think of its implications for welfare, among other things.
- Scheler’s distinction between true Christianity as coming from the positive value inherent in individual spiritual flourishing (or the maximizing of love among men, as he put it) rather than as an ‘institution of charity’ is a truth forgotten by Christians for most of history, including by hippies and ‘Jesus Freaks’. The earliest disciples sold their goods and gave the money to the poor, not because that was the morally correct thing to do, but because they thought the world was going to end any day then.
What is gained, spiritually, by merely spreading things and money? Something may be gained from a utilitarian point of view, or some variant of a virtue ethical pov, but I cannot for the life of me understand why a spiritual philosophy that talks of closeness to God should be socially ‘progressive’. Is it because we are told to love our neighbour as ourselves? Or that generosity takes us to the Kingdom of God? As for the latter, I do not in fact believe that is correct, and though I am not a theologian, I do not believe it is a dictate of Christianity either (I am not Christian, it should be noted). As for the former, there is value in that idea, but to pretend to love by merely engaging in a generous act is no better than to be honest about your lack of love and refuse to engage in the act. At the end of the day nobody can be commanded to love anyone or anything: love is spontaneous, it comes from within, and neither social engineering nor the Bible can produce love where there is none.
There is no spiritual benefit to ‘justice’, which is in any event only a human mental invention. There is no spiritual benefit even to charity. There is spiritual benefit only to one’s own ascension or emergence, which has the consequence of making us love everything more. From a more spiritually advanced perspective wrong will simply not be committed, nor will anybody be allowed to experience hunger or poverty. It is not because alleviating poverty is inherently spiritually good, but because it is the inevitable consequence of the accomplishment of something else that is inherently spiritually good.
This is what Scheler was trying to convey, and it amazes me that Nicolas Birns couldn’t appreciate such an obvious point. His views are remarkably applicable to this day and age, but Birns is too thick to realize it. Based on what I’ve read so far of his article, I see a complete lack of substance, and the presence only of pretentious name-dropping.
Ok gotta go take out the cat litter and start that assignment.
Why I Am Not Nationalistic About Canada
Because this country won’t give me a goddamned job.
I don’t like normal people.
I Adore Eddie Izzard
Not only is he hilarious, but he has a sweetness and ‘lesbian-ness’ that I totally get. I have such affection toward him I can’t even express it.
Why I Do Not Use The Christian Label
- I do not agree with the Standard Christian Story™.
- It’s too difficult explaining the difference between spirituality and humanism, and people commonly make the assumption that Christianity is humanistic. I am decidedly not a humanist, for reasons best articulated by Max Scheler in his book ressentiment (which I highly recommend to everyone). Thus, I repudiate the Christian label so that people do not lecture me on how ‘good Christians’ are supposed to be hippies.
- Christianity has become too focused on Jesus, and not enough on God. People have become overly attached to Jesus, which verges on idolatry.
- I do not believe in organized religion.
PS - I can’t stand hippies and pagans! Aah, I had to get that out of my system 
I was depressed today for the first time in a long time. I’ve become tamasic and more enslaved to everyday worldly events. I can feel the worldly waves now, can feel their ‘qualities’. Ugh. My mind feels less subtle and more gross, like I’m literally becoming more material.
As a result of this, and some frustrations in my everyday life (namely my sickness, and my inability to do what I need to do, such as get a job or get good grades), I ended up ’snapping’ today, in the presence of my friend. It did no good whatsoever, so I’ve returned to my usual pathetic state. Now I’m trying to have faith and be optimistic, but I don’t seem to have any faith left.
I’ve fallen into ignorance and feel completely abandoned by God. I just wish I could remember…
I Won’t Comment
But I will paste: an article on the Secret Gospel of Mark. I honestly have no idea what this is about but enjoyed reading it anyway.
“The first fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, meant to be inserted between Mark 10.34 and 35, reads:
They came to Bethany. There was one woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and spoke to him. “Son of David, pity me!” But the disciples rebuked her. Jesus was angry and went with her into the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going up to it, Jesus rolled the stone away from the door of the tomb, and immediately went in where the young man was. Stretching out his hand, he lifted him up, taking hold his hand. And the youth, looking intently at him, loved him and started begging him to let him remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave him an order and, at evening, the young man came to him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. And he stayed with him for the night, because Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And then when he left he went back to the other side of the Jordan.
[...]
Thus, the new theory summarized in his 1973 book for general readership displeased practically everyone:
[. . . F]rom the scattered indications in the canonical Gospels and the secret Gospel of Mark, we can put together a picture of Jesus’ baptism, “the mystery of the kingdom of God.” It was a water baptism administered by Jesus to chosen disciples, singly and by night. The costume, for the disciple, was a linen cloth worn over the naked body. This cloth was probably removed for the baptism proper, the immersion in water, which was now reduced to a preparatory purification. After that, by unknown ceremonies, the disciple was possessed by Jesus’ spirit and so united with Jesus. One with him, he participated by hallucination in Jesus’ ascent into the heavens, he entered the kingdom of God, and was thereby set free from the laws ordained for and in the lower world. Freedom from the law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union. This certainly occurred in many forms of gnostic Christianity; how early it began there is no telling.”
I’ve had the intuition since childhood that animals are compelled to suffer lack of consciousness to an even greater degree than humans. Humans have an unfair advantage, and I used to feel sorry for animals for this reason. Now, I wonder, will animals receive their salvation too? I wish I could ask Sri Aurobindo this question. It must be true, though: I can’t imagine why there would be Inconscience in a perfected Earth.
I Could Just Read the Bible All Day
It really grows on you. I especially like how much weeping and gnashing of teeth there is. Anyway, here’s something I just found, in Matthew 21:
28“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29” ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.
