On the war against happiness (a post on Catholic nihilism).

On the war against happiness

I don't normally write about crime news. I don't care because the number of crimes committed has been decreasing over time for a decade now, so crime has become a form of pornography: it's for those who want a quick fist. And to the newspapers, if there is a difference.

But the case of the two boys killed "because they were happy" deserves a post.

It deserves it because I believe that the interpretation given by the media (envy) is completely wrong and misleading. Italy (but with it all the countries that come from a pre-Lutheran culture) is the victim of two taboos. One is against pleasure, the other is against happiness.

I would like to explain how Catholic nihilism works, giving the example of the sex / pleasure couple, and then move on to the success / happiness couple by analogy.

Sex, to say, is now everywhere. I remember a war fool on Usenet who spoke of "sex pollution", and although he was a Catholic war fool the definition could also have some contact with reality. Sex is everywhere, but the reason why sex is everywhere lies in the fig leaf it constitutes, against the heavier taboo, which is pleasure .

There is and never has been a Catholic taboo towards sex itself, whatever the Enlightenment may say: what existed is a taboo towards pleasure . If we imagine an hour of sex education in Italy, in fact, the public's requests would be:

  • that the professor is upright. In short, that he is not asexual and completely aseptic. Better if ugly / a.
  • that during the lessons is aseptic and medicalized. We will talk about vulva but not cunt, we will talk about fellatio but not blowjobs, and so on.
  • that no mention is made of the "pleasure" theme, but only of the biological reproductive theme, exposed in a medical manner.

Obviously this mummy (better if decomposed) that explains sex from inside a diving suit can also explain what sex technically is (as doctors and biologists see it) but the aseptic representation of sex does NOT impact the taboo, on the contrary it reinforces it: the fact that sex is explained WITHOUT ever talking about pleasure only tells us one thing: sex is the fig leaf that covers pleasure. And the taboo against pleasure is strengthened.

The fact that a sexologist, no matter how attractive, is explaining sex in the newspapers and not just any person having a good time (a playboy? A porn star? A cheating housewife? A single who changes many partners? Immanuel Casto?) precisely of the obstinate medicalization of the thing.

It means that someone has noticed how a mummy inside a diving suit is NOT credible, and since it was too aseptic and medicalized, they put a person who is equally aseptic and medicalized, but medicalizes issues closer to pleasure, while taking care of to medicalize them and to technicize them, to the point that yes, now we talk about orgasm , but we talk about it in technical and medicalized terms. The explanation approaches the theme of pleasure only in appearance, but taking care to use science to make that aseptic and impersonal too. And the cleavage of the sexologist on duty does not improve the situation, it is just another diving suit where the breasts are called "breasts".

In the way we deal with sex, and sometimes even pleasure, no taboo is ever touched or undermined, because the underlying taboo towards pleasure is left intact if not reinforced by the spasmodic efforts to medicalise and technicize the matter.

In short, sex is used against pleasure.

Let's keep this concept in mind, because now we go to the analogous concept produced by Catholic nihilism, namely the use of success against happiness.

Italian society, being poisoned by the presence of the Vatican's Catholic center of gravity, has a terrible taboo towards happiness, to the point that it could be described as a society at war against happiness. A person who openly displays his happiness is considered obscene, destabilizing and antisocial, at least as much as a person who openly displays his pleasure. Being happy in public is considered to be the same as masturbating in the park, because in both cases the pursuit of pleasure as an end in itself is not acceptable.

Now let's imagine doing a happiness education course at school. First of all, who would the choice fall on? If the taboo of sex produced a mummy in a diving suit talking about sex medically, all we would get would be a manager talking about financial success. Because being the taboo on happiness similar to the taboo on sex, the purpose of aseptic education is to prevent strange fantasies from remaining in the student's mind.

Since the student must finish the hour without fantasizing about the subject, both in the case of sex education and in the case of happiness education, describe success in terms of Capital Gain and joy in terms of Break Even would achieve the result very well. Other would not be tolerated, because if we described happiness as the situation in which we are young, in love and do what we want, from that moment on the boys would start fantasizing. Just as they would fantasize about sex if the sex education teacher was handsome and talked about pleasure.

the aim of Catholic nihilism is to suppress the use of the imagination as an engine or tool for the pursuit of pleasure and happiness.

This makes Catholic culture a culture that is always and in any case at war against pleasure and happiness. In Catholic culture, happiness is always shifted to someone else's happiness, and then the good Catholic must not seek happiness for himself (that he will have it in heaven) but that of someone else (charity, volunteering and more). In this way it seems that the pursuit of happiness is a value, but at the same time it is forbidden that happiness is YOUR OWN.

Even this trick, the displacement of the subject in the object, simply serves to use a simulacrum instead of reality. The person who wants to be happy cannot, as it is only allowed to make someone else happy. Similar PsyOp operations have also been carried out in sex, to the point that the good partner seems to be the one who favors the other's pleasure. Since the 70s it seems that the purpose of the fuck is to bring the woman to orgasm, an absolute great achievement. The pleasure of the male is obviously irrelevant or secondary, to the point that if we did a survey the list of commonly known erogenous points of the male body would be reduced to ONE point. The result is that millions if not billions of males in the world continue to fucking without feeling anything , as if they were the volunteers of a non-profit organization that aims to help women reach orgasm.

This continuous operation of replacing pleasure with sex and happiness with success, aimed at building a taboo of universal significance, has now shaped Italian society.

Italian society is a society at war against pleasure and happiness. Every day, tens of millions of people wake up wondering how to make someone else's day unpleasant and unhappy.

In Italy, happiness is taboo. It is subversive. The most subversive thing you can say is not "kill a policeman" (which by now all rappers sing it, or almost) but it is "today I'm happy".

Try it. Go to the office and tell everyone to be happy. You will immediately notice an effort by everyone to try to sadden you. To ruin your day. Especially from your superiors.

This is not "envy", because it is an individual feeling. Here we are talking about an entire society devoted to the unhappiness of others. Here we are talking about tens of millions of people targeting an unpleasant and unhappy world. The Italian society aims to take away any pleasure and happiness from its members, and although this tendency does not appear explicitly in the institutions, the institutions relate to the citizen in precisely this way. And the trend is repeated in every office, every house, every street.

In German there is a word, schadenfreude , to indicate the sense of personal fulfillment you feel when things go wrong for someone else. In Italy this word could not exist, for the simple reason that words serve to distinguish what is such from what is not. The word white distinguishes what is white from what is not. But in Italy schadenfreude would literally describe every single thing, person, action. The whole society is devoted to the schadenfreude so it is not possible to distinguish what is from what is NOT, and consequently the word is useless, as is a term that can refer absolutely to everything you indicate.

Obviously there is a deviance: as in any large group there are those who are more in line with values, those who are less, and those who excels in values ​​that society considers positive. Antonio De Marco, who confessed to killing Eleonora and Daniele, excelled precisely in the dedication with which he perpetuated the purpose of society as a whole, that is not to allow happiness to exist. "They were too happy" is the excuse with which he killed, but it is exactly the same excuse with which your colleague ruins your day if you appear happy .

The only difference between De Marco and your colleague lies in the means: certainly De Marco is an extremist, and we could call him an "Italian extremist" as we speak of an "Islamic extremist", but he was simply the extreme superior of a behavior that the Italian company assigns to ALL its citizens.

The zero commandment of Catholic nihilism:

"You're not going to let anyone be happy."

Because happiness is not of this world, ERGO is the duty of every good Catholic to eliminate heresy from the streets.

De Marco is, as such, a fundamentalist of Catholic nihilism, or if we prefer he is a fanatic of the Italian way of life, that is, always ruining someone else's day .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.