“Invention” which would like to separate religion from its economic usefulness. The stake is not in support of faith or supply of proof for or against, it is only a demonstration of so far “inexpressible” forms of the subject.
Granting a human being a status of a victim brings him to his animal substance. As a victim he is not better then an animal, a victim becomes the animal. This animal is indeed worthy of contempt and one disdains it instead of eliciting compassion.
Barbarity of the situation is seized exclusively in categories of “human rights” while it is really about political and economic practice.
Identification of a man as a victim around the idea of good in such project becomes a source of only evil and huge misunderstanding. A man leans on what doesn’t exist. A victim is a negative definition of a man, it has to do only with a possibility of given situation. DOG leans on identification of falsified subject (which the pig is), and not on identification of a victim. At the end of this process a “human animal” becomes a symbol of second category. If we recognize a victim here, then we must change a name, such as the “truth” about it. After the victim nothing is left, a defect, changed into a virtue, which is to seemingly work, but no one knows on which basis and doesn’t give anything in return, only an economy of the absurd is transparent.
What is the exchange value of desecration to our depth? Even from purely economic point of view a black-white or color projection doesn’t change the condition, and this (color) and that (black & white) is negative and helplessness here becomes necessary. So the victim in religion, and not only, is void of sense, even if it has and has only an economic aspect.
This is not an accumulation of moral or immoral achievements; there is no need for sense, because in this case we’re not that different from animals (not in the negative sense).
In this case, all instincts prove to be a driving force, an experience that initiates a state of proper balance. Nature cannot be an illness. The DOG is a decrepit and sluggish “vagabond” under the influence, yet inert. It’s an incredibly vigorous “movie” about losing energy. Everyone is almost certain that the real image and sense is hidden from them, and therefore we are unfamiliar with it.
The DOG’s assumption that by dying it can again become part of “indivisible” life, vitality, etc., and all that other “hogwash”. Sharing in all of that is “what you leave behind you”. The “vicinity” is saturated with aversion to everything that we’d call religion, redemption or faith. We expect that reality will act rather decently, yet reality keeps blowing it. It’s playing a game that it lost a long time ago. It seems that truth is more perverse than falsehood. The DOG being eaten by sharks is to serve for the circulation of energy. We see how nature has dealt with our DOG or PIG. We say PIG (ought to be DOG) when someone has played a dirty trick on us. I decided to use this Polish term literally. Sharks don’t care at all about the human distinction between good and evil. Nature functions outside of those concepts, and therefore comes out ahead. And that’s that, the end, no more, be it the end of some religion or such; nature gets along on its own without that and without us. The DOG adores every experience; death is an immanent feature of nature; there’s no fight for existence here and cruelty as we define it turns out to be the optimum rather than cruel. It used to seem that religion gave sense to life. But that interest in sense was pointless. Everything was predetermined. If the DOG is responsible for such a state of affairs, it means that it botched things up. Our general condition should focus more on the unexpected. A process as a game in which the score is neither known or unknown, but rather unresolved. An “action” that should seek and “conjure up” its own reasons. A PIG is that way. The worst thing is that the DOG has squandered its own capital of cruelty. It looks and feels like misconception, and that’s a contemplation of twilight (which it tries to push on people so that they can savor it...).
The DOG is a conceptual character just as is GOD.
The DOG has to die; not to enable any communication with anything, but because there is no transcendental DOG (GOD) as the target of communication. The sacrifice is senseless; it is not an act of exchange, but rather an unjustified gesture. The sacrifice is essentially fake. It’s an attempt to find someone, someone else, to whom the DOG or ourselves make a sacrifice. The purpose of the sacrifice is to prove that there’s someone who can respond to our gesture. The lie consists of hiding the fact that there’s nothing to sacrifice and there’s no offering. (Out of love, we give something we don’t have, and in a crime committed through love, we steal something that the object of love doesn’t have). The falsehood of a sacrificial gesture.
The biggest scam of this undertaking is that we not only consider its failure, but we regularly plan it. The object, or what we desire, appears via the gesture of loss.
Also, the purpose of the “sacrifice” is not to receive something from someone, but to convince that person that we still need that “something”. A false sacrifice in order to deceive someone else by making them think they need something.