So I have no peroration or clarion note on which to close. Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the "transcendent" and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives , and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you. I shall leave you with a few words from George Konrad, the Hungarian dissident who retained his integrity through some crepuscular times, and who survived his persecutors by writing Antipolitics and The Loser, and many other lapidary essays and fictions. (When, after the emancipation of his country and soceity, they came to him and offered him the presidency, he said "No, thanks.") He wrote this in 1987, when the dawn seemed a good way off: Have a lived life instead of a career. Put yourself in the safekeeping of good taste. Lived freedom will compensate you for a few losses.... If you don't like the style of others, cultivate your own. Get to know the tricks of reproduction, be a self-publisher even in conservation, and then the joy of working can fill your days. May it be so with you, and may you keep your powder dry for the battles ahead, and know when and how to recognise them. -Christopher Hitchens in his Letters to a Young Contrarian

How Do I Know Whether God Exists?

The problem is that belief in God does not seem to rest on any particular foundation. Most likely, you were raised with that belief, taught it as a child, and encouraged in it as you grew to maturity. You were taken to church or temple and naturally came to assume that the deity to which everyone referred, and to whom you yourself had often prayed, exists. But what is the evidence for that belief? How can you prove that your natural assumption is justified? A few people claim to have had God speak to them, but they are few and far between and are not always the most reliable witnesses. One popular proof of God's existence is the fact that the Bible tells us, over and over again, about God. But appealing to the Bible as evidence of God's existence presupposes just that sort of belief that is at issue, a logical fallacy often called "begging the question." Believing in God and believing that the Bible is the revealed word of God are two aspects of one and the same belief, and one cannot be used to prove the other. You may have "felt" God's presence, but feelings, too, must be justified, because sometimes they can be misleading. Sometimes you sense danger when there is no danger, and, in the same way, it is possible to have a religious feeling without that proving the feeling refers to anything outside of you. Indeed, the very nature of God, according to many theorists and theologians, is such that God "transcends" the world and is outside of our experience. God cannot be seen or sensed as such, and that is why it is necessary to believe in God. If God could simply be presented to us, like a statue or a person, such a powerful notion of belief would not be necessary. A different way of putting the same point is to say that believing in God is a matter of faith and not a matter knowledge. But many believers have refused to accept the idea that this most important belief is not part of our knowledge in the strongest sense. How can our most important belief not also be the best known? Accordingly, much of the history of theology has been devoted to the project of proving God's existence. The idea is not to replace faith or undermine the need to believe, but rather supplement faith and belief with a demonstration that they are indeed justified and based on knowledge of the most secure kind. -from Twenty Questions by Bowie, Michaels, Solomon

Murderer's Montage

Murder Murder Murder Kill Kill Kill 현장엔 흥건한 피 피 피 가족에 눈에 내리는 비 비 비 남겨진 유품들 Let me see see see 수집한 증거물 Let me see see see 증거물일 술 담배를 권하는 손 많이 죽여야 사는 전쟁 게임을 만드는 손 어린 소녀의 볼을 쓰다듬는 나이든 손 인터넷 댓글란에 쓰레기를 투척하는 손 자식의 상처를 외면하는 무관심한 눈 약점을 샅샅이 찾아내는 비상한 눈 가벼운 병도 암으로 만드는 마법의 눈 능력과 외모로만 상대방을 심판하는 눈 영양이 파괴된 음식을 간 보는 입 예쁜 그녀를 수술침대로 꼬시는 입 사랑할 때 장갑을 끼지 않는 생식기와 거식과 폭식을 유발하는 잘빠진 bodyline 이 많은 살인도구 그러면 범인은 누구 조각해볼까 이 미친 살인마의 몽타주 술에 떡이 된 채 운전대를 붙잡은 손 아내와 자식들의 뺨을 세게 때리는 손 인생을 건 화투패를 돌리는 떨리는 손 황급히 뇌물을 숨기는 더러운 손 세상의 치부를 못 본척하는 합리적인 눈 친구의 고통조차 외면하는 이기적인 눈 동료를 짓밟고 올라서는 교활한 발 외국인 노동자를 걷어차는 잔인한 발 사람을 따돌리고 상처주는 혀 진실을 빼돌리고 사기치는 혀 본심과 다르게 눈치를 보며 끄덕이는 목 뒤틀린 이념의 헛된 이상을 노래하는 목 이 많은 살인도구 그러면 범인은 누구 조각해볼까 미친 살인마의 몽타주 용의자 1 그 불결한 두 손은 너의 것 용의자 2 그 역겨운 두 눈은 너의 것 용의자 3 그 냄새 나는 입은 너의 것 말해봐 나머지 증거물들은 대체 누구 것 나의 것 남을 찌르는 가시 같은 혀 나의 것 쉬어버린 목과 더러운 발 나의 것 너의 것 그들을 죽였던 완성된 몽타주의 주인공은 우리 나와 너

For years, when I went to renew my annual pass at the United States Senate, I was made to fill in two forms. The first asked me for my biographical details and the second stipulated that I had signed the former under penalty of perjury. I was grateful for the latter form, because when asked to state my "race" I always put "human" in the required box. This led to a yearly row. "Put 'white,'" I was once told-- by an African-American clerk, I might add. I explained that white was not even a color, let alone a race. I also drew his attention to the perjury provision that obliged me to state only the truth. "Put Caucasian,'" I was told on another occasion. I said that I had no connection with the Caucasus and no belief in the outmoded ethnology that had produced the category. So it went on until one year there was no race space on the form. I'd like to claim credit for this, though I probably can't. I offer you the story, also, as part of my recommendation that one acts bloody-minded as often as the odds are favorable and even sometimes when they are not: it's good exercise. -Christopher Hitchens in his Letters to a Young Contrarian

Karl Marx

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo which is religion. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower. -in his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right