A Respectful ‘Leave-Taking’ from Nietzsche

(addressed to his Spirit – if it still exists and reads)

Dear Maestro Nietzsche,

As you have fallen in and out of love with Schopenhauer and Wagner on the way to falling in love with yourself, I, too, have fallen in and out of love with you before falling in love with myself. While your constant tone of uncompromising tenacity and self-celebration remains pleasant to my ears, some of your key specifics are simply offensive to my slightly more exacting judgement.

I can’t deny having suffered many hells and indulged in many ecstasies where only your voice (particularly as expressed in Thus Spake Zarathustra) made any sense to me. But there were also many moments where even your voice seemed absurd and forced me to embark on life-threatening journeys of exploration – journeys on which, once again, you were my most inspiring, if slightly imperfect, companion.

The fundamental oversight (according to my judgement) which pervades and, thus, pollutes your philosophy, is the very same notion which repulsed you in most previous philosophers – namely that of mistakenly worshiping one’s own feelings and preferences, which, by virtue of being experienced directly, always posses the illusion of greater authenticity and absolute superiority.

Your subjective instincts and preferences were indeed shared by a small minority and therefore seldomly defended – not to mention celebrated – by the masses. Indulging in your nature required tireless and merciless war, most of which would have been unnecessary had ‘dice-throwing’ nature provided you with more peers. This ill-fated luck of numbers necessitated an exhausting defensive on your part (i.e. the destruction of the endless sanctions with which your instincts were constantly bombarded), which, I believe, caused you to overlook the fact that your instincts could have been justified without having had to label them the “noblest” and “healthiest” to be found amongst men. Indeed, the motto you liked to quote from The Society of Assassins – “Nothing is sacred! All is permitted!” – eliminates the need to distinguish and discriminate between instincts – since they are all equally permitted.

In defending the superiority of your instincts you point to your heroes (whom only your instincts make you want to emulate) who shared those very instincts with you. You point to civilizations and cultures, including your own cold-loving Gothic forbearers (which your instincts cause you to consider ideal) who cherished the same values as you do. This obvious inherent cyclicality consistently eluded you and, as embarrassing at it is, I’m forced to believe that you, one of the only philosophers to have ever entertained me (and, thus, one of the only philosophers to have any value for me) were capable of believing your culinary tastes – created by the molecular structure of your little taste-buds – to be the “noblest” of all tastes to have been produced by the human (or animal) experience. Perhaps you’d even consider your body-odor – which only time has taught you to tolerate, or love – to be the “noblest” and “most refined “of all human repugnances.

There are many philosophers, artists and poets, myself included, who share your hatred for repression and the stinting of human instincts. Yet, perhaps in no small part due to your groundwork, we remain free of the need to sanctify, or even glorify, our individual instincts and preferences. One can celebrate and pursue sexual freedom without labeling their own sexual preferences of the moment anything more than – “preferences.” Many of us have even been lucky enough to discover pleasures and beauty developed precisely by people possessing instincts different from our own – indeed, instincts which you considered primitive without noticing that they were full of the very life and energy which you so desperately sought in Europe (e.g. Jazz, African art, music, dance, etc.). Indeed, we remain free of the entire search for any ideal instinct(s) – realizing that any proof, or support, of those ideals would eventually come back to depend on our very own preferences. (A similar phenomenon can be found amongst religious people who glorify the notion of “faith” as opposed to constant decision-making and judgement-calls without realizing that it only their own judgement which tells them which of the “faiths” are the most authentic.) I, for one, would ‘instinctually’ wipe out your heroic, aggressive warriors, to allow for peaceful meditation, sexual and intellectual experimentation, sun-bathing, love-making, etc., much as they would have cleared their habitat of animals of prey to ensure a peaceful night’s rest before raiding their neighboring villages.

The same holds true for all other human instincts and pursuits, including art, ideal climate, war, pain, cruelty and even power in general. In describing the most universal impetus, I would replace your “Will to Power” with the “Will to Pleasure” (which would also have to include those pleasures which most people consider painful, i.e. the pleasures labeled “Masochistic”). Of course there are those for whom power is a great, or perhaps the greatest, pleasure. But there are also those, including myself, whose pride allows them no pleasure from power over people – much as you would have derived no pleasure from power over goldfish. (Perhaps the “Will to Power of Attaining Pleasure”, would have better described the universal impetus. But aside from having been redundant, you would have considered it – in line with your instincts – effeminate.)

I assume you’d be horrified at the thought of me finding so much pleasure, and even support, in the bulk of your writings. And that is the very point which I count as your one, regrettably dominant, philosophical oversight.

I often indulge in the fantasy of having been able to challenge you in person, and delighting in the sight of one of us being forced to relinquish a certain measure of pride. Unfortunately, however, you are as dead as the Gods you so delighted in eulogizing, and it is only figuratively that I address these thoughts to you. It is mainly to my contemporaries who agree with any number of your ideas, that I write this.

With best wishes for peaceful eternal rest, if that is indeed what follows our lives as humans.


Sir Tijn Po

P.S. And what’s all this talk about the “Eternal Recurrence,” and “Whatever could be, must be?” How could you have over-looked the simple possibility of several variants repeating themselves endlessly. Theoretically, a die can be thrown over and over again for all eternity and always land on the same number! And the same must be true for all die-like particles of our universe! Thus, while it is certainly possible that every possible variation will eventually play itself out, I can’t see the logical necessity in believing that they all must play themselves out!
And just as a little riddle, the family of which you so adored, I present you with this question: If every possible universe must have existed, or does exist, etc. what about the universe in which only several variants keep repeating themselves endlessly for all eternity? How can both of these realities co-exist? If all possibilities were to play themselves out, it wouldn’t contain the possible version of eternal Repetition of several variants. Thus, it seems to me, that it is actually impossible for every possibility to play itself out!
If only you were still alive to answer me! I swear that I’d be willing to walk across the earth to be able to indulge in that opportunity! But, unfortunately, nothing currently lures me out of my little hamlet.


Dear Fellow Human,

Below you will find excerpts from the Qur’an which make it very hard for me to believe that anything short of cowardice, i.e. the fear of being killed first, can lead a Muslim to being ‘Moderate.’

The excerpts were selected from an English copy of the Qur’an which I bought in an Islamic bookshop in Istanbul and I therefore don’t suspect that it contains any deliberately incriminating distortions. While I certainly don’t consider myself a scholar of Islam, I do understand English and the following excerpts convince me that moderate, or tolerant, Islam is simply an oxymoron.

If you, the reader, are a “Moderate Muslim” I genuinely request that you explain to me how you can reconcile the following passages with tolerance for peaceful agnostics, atheists, believers of polytheism (Hindus, Native Americans, Voodoo Practitioners, Shamans, etc.), democratic governments (i.e. any government which allows people to decide if and how they would like to worship God), women believing in total equal rights with men, gays, nudists, swingers, etc., all of whom add up to the majority of the world population!

Even if you have some way of reconciling all this, I can’t see how you can call suicide bombers and other terrorists ‘absurd’ or ‘fanatic.’ Their actions seem to adhere quite logically with the following passages.

Please share your thoughts about this with me.


Sir Tijn Po


(as translated by Marmaduke Pickthall)


Surah 2 – AL-BAQARAH (The Cow):

23: “And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witnesses beside Allah if ye are truthful.” 24: “And if ye do it not – and ye can never do it – then guard yourselves against the fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones.”

109: “Many of the People of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is able to do all things.”

216: “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you: but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.”

228: “And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is mighty, Wise.”

251: “And if Allah had not repelled some men by others the earth would have been corrupted.”

Surah 3 – ALI-IMRAN (The Family of Imran):

60: “(This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not of those who waver.” 61: “And who disputeth with thee concerning him, after the knowledge with hath come unto thee, say (unto him): Come! We will summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves, then we will pray humbly (to our lord) and (solemnly) invoke the curse of Allah upon those who lie.”

157: “And what though you be slain in Allah’s way or die therein? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass.”

169: “Think not of those who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living. With their lord they have provision.”

184: “…The life of this world is but comfort of illusion.”

Surah 4 – AN-NISA (Women):

34: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.”

47: “O ye unto whom the Scripture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed confirming that which ye posses, before We destroy countenances so as to confound them, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbathbreakers (of old time). The commandment of Allah is always executed.”

56: “Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, we shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.”

88: “…Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou ( O Muhammad) canst find road. 89: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them until they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend or helper from among them.”

Surah 5 – AL-MA’IDAH (The Table Spread):

38: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is mighty, Wise.”

49: “So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee. And if they turn away, they know that Allah’s will is to smite them for some sin of theirs. Lo! many of mankind are evil-livers.”

51: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrong-doing folk.”

Surah 6 – AL AN’AM (Cattle):

151: “…And that ye slay not the life which Allah hath made sacred, save in the course of justice. This He hath commanded you, in order that ye may discern.”

Surah 7 – AL-A’RAF (The Heights):

157: “Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong…”

158: “…So believe in Allah and his messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His words and follow him that haply ye may be led aright.”

189: “He it is Who did create you from a single soul, and therefrom did make his mate that he might take rest in her…”

Surah 8 – AL-ANFAL (Spoils of War):

12: “When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.” 13: “That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. Who opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment.” 14: “That (is the award), so taste it, and (know) that for disbelievers is the torment of the fire.”

39: “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is seer of what they do.”

Surah 9 – AT-TAUBAH (Repentance):

5: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, Merciful.”

38: “…Take ye pleasure in the life of the world rather than in the Hereafter? The comfort of the life of the world is but little in the Hereafter.”

111: “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.”

123: “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto him).”

Surah 18 – AL-KAHF (The Cave):

74: “So they twain journeyed on till, when they met a lad, he slew him. (Moses) said: What! Hast thou slain an innocent soul who hath slain no man? Verily thou hast done a horrid thing …78: “He said: I will announce unto thee the interpretation of that thou couldst not bear with patience.”… 80: ‘As for the lad, his parents were believers and We feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.” 81: “And we intended that their Lord should change him for them for one better in purity and nearer to mercy.”

Surah 22 – AL-HAJJ (The Pilgrimage):

15: “Whoso is wont to think (through envy) that Allah will not give him (Muhammad) victory in the world and in the Hereafter (and is enraged at the thought of his victory), let him stretch a rope up to the roof (of his dwelling), and let him hang himself. Then let him see whether his strategy dispelleth that whereat he rageth!”

Surah 24 – AN-NUR (Light):

31: “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornments. And turn to Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.”

Surah 33 – AL-AHZAB (The Clans):

23: “Of the believers are men who are true to that which they covenanted with Allah. Some of them have paid their vow by death (in battle), and some of them still are waiting; and they have not altered in the least;”

50: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand posseseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father’s side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother’s side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage – a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers – We are Aware of that which we enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands posses – that thou mayest be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.”

60: “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while.” 61: “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” 62: “That was the way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old; thou wilt not find for the way of Allah aught of power to change.”

Surah 47 – MUHAMMAD (Muhammad):

3: “That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood and because those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus Allah coineth their similitudes for mankind.” 4: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.” 5: “He will guide them and improve their state,” 6: “And bring them in unto the Garden which He hath made known unto them.”

Surah 98 – AL-BEYYINAH (The Clear Proof):

6: “Lo! Those who disbelieve, among the people of the scriptures and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings. 7: “(and) lo! Those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings.”



Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Dear Fuckface Fans,

Greetings from Prague!

I’ve been extended the honorable invitation to be one of the guest-bloggers while Fuckface is out Fuckfacing Europe, and I finally accepted the challenge after some deliberation. The main reason for my initial doubt was the fact that I haven’t yet met Fuckface (I hope to have the honor sometime in August) and am not sufficiently familiar with his work and readership. Contributing to his blog would be like showing up at a party full of strangers and being asked to make a speech without knowing who’s there, what’s been going on before you got there, who you may unwittingly offend, whose jokes you may unwittingly repeat, etc. A pretty trippy blind date!

But although I don’t yet know Fuckface personally, we do share two friends whom I trust deeply, the painter Hawk Alfredson and his beautiful photographer wife, Mia Hanson.

Just having these common friends wouldn’t have been that convincing in itself, since they are a very popular couple and have a mind-boggling array of acquaintances. But Fuckface and I apparently also share a fascination with a specific group of Hawk’s paintings known as Circlings – a unique breed of seductively frightening creatures. Fuckface and I have both gravitated to these images from distant continents and have decided, independently of each other, to incorporate them into our own work. This isn’t a question of putting too much faith in coincidences, crossed fates, etc. but it simply convinces me that our tastes and sensibilities are close enough for me to feel at home in his, and your, world, (similar sentiments must have caused Fuckface to invite me in the first place?) and I hope I won’t wear out my welcome too soon.

My second cause for hesitation was the fact that I’m not a writer. I’m not even formally educated at all! I slipped through the cracks of modern civilization and roam through ‘the great cities’ as a sort of foreign native. In the 60s it was quite common for artists to go live with ‘primitive’ tribes in search of untainted stimuli, and my natural possession of some of that ‘untaintedness’ is my only real distinction. I’ve picked up some skills here and there, and express my thoughts and feelings in as many ways as I find stimulating – sometimes through writing, sometimes through collages and sculptures, and most often though filming. (If at any point you become curious about my world, you can visit it at www.sirtijnpo.com. Be informed, however, that it is a very sexually explicit world.) While I’m not ashamed of my lack of formal education, and, at times, I’m actually quite proud of it, I was a bit weary of a blind date with the audience of a literary artisan. So here’s the disclaimer: If you’re looking for ‘real’ culture, please skip my entry! If you’re looking for some zany alternative thinking, there’s a chance you’ll find a satisfying dose of it here.

In Fuckface’s invitation, he wrote: ‘You may blog about whatever you want to blog about, whether serious or not-so-serious topics. Whatever is on your mind.’

My mind is currently dominated by zoophilia. I’m in a very happy inter-human relationship right now, but for the past 15 months I’ve been working on my first feature-length film which documents the trials and tribulations of a Czech group of zoophiles who have begun fighting for their rights, equality, etc. (NOTE: zoophiles distance themselves from bestialists who just use animals for pleasure. True zoophiles, they explain, engage in sexual acts with animals ONLY as ultimate expressions of love.) The group, which calls themselves E.F.A. (short for Equality For All – www.equalityforall.net) see themselves as liberators of all non-human creatures, and intend to take their revolution worldwide.

Every film dominates you for the duration of its production, but this project has been increasingly dominating me as it nears completion.

The project is entitled COMING SOON, and the reason for this title was to inform the audience before they watch it that although it may look and feel like a real documentary, it’s all fake and is only meant to be a sketch of what the future may hold for us – sort of like a trailer for civilization’s next great debate. The freaky thing is that I no longer know how much of the film is fake and how much is real! In order to lend authenticity to the film, we included several real characters, experts in their respective fields, who comment on the group’s efforts, dreams, etc. But as far as I knew, the people playing the group’s members were all acting. Over the course of making the film, however, these people started confessing things to me which made me doubt my very senses. I let most of the characters improvise, and even develop their stories themselves in order to produce more realistic ‘performances’. I knew some of these people beforehand, but I met most of them in the course of the project, as they heard about it through mutual acquaintances and offered their services. As their confessions started pouring out – confessions about fantasies, dreams, experiences, plans, etc. – I started fearing that I stumbled upon a group of people who were far more subversive than I initially hoped for. They seemed to feel that if I was directing this film, as tongue-in-cheek as it seemed to me, they were able to talk openly, confession style. But I was only using this as a metaphor. Wasn’t it blatantly clear to them?

Are they just playing with me? Or were they playing with me before we began filming? Did they coax me into telling their story by claiming it was all a great joke, or are they yanking my chain now? Or did it start out as a joke and, perhaps due to the film’s influence, slowly become real? Did their year of joking unleash hidden tendencies? I swear to you that I can no longer tell!

Prague is notorious for practical jokes. But Prague is also notorious for its atheism, experimentalism, decadence, mysteriousness and who knows what else. I initially came out here 8 years ago to work for my favorite filmmaker, Jan Švankmajer. I ended up staying here because of a gorgeous genius who’s been letting me seduce and love her. The first six years here were an absolute, and primarily unpleasant, mystery. I simply couldn’t find my bearings in this society. I’ve traveled my fair share and never had trouble finding my little niche in any culture I encountered. Not that I immediately understood them all, but I was able to figure where I do and don’t belong. Prague is a creepy puzzle. People here are very intelligent, cultured, creative, etc., and the artist’s life is more the rule than then exception. Yet, I’ve never been anywhere that seemed as dysfunctional or chaotic. I’ve been shown the most intense kindness as well as the harshest cruelty – oftentimes within one act. At times you feel as though you’re roaming through Bohemian heaven, only to suddenly discover hellish streets full of human-looking devils. For six years I couldn’t figure out what system these people live by. Had that one exquisite creature not loved me, I’d have been off long ago.

Over the past few years, however, I started feeling as though I was getting in on the joke. I didn’t understand the system or patterns, but I was increasingly able to at least intuit my way through the madness. My command of the language was increasing, as was my knowledge of the local history and folklore, and I actually started enjoying the mess.

But now I’m totally confused again. The people whom I finally thought I ‘got’ are now as mystifying as ever. I finally have my first film ready and instead of rejoicing, I find myself trying to figure out exactly what it is that I have.

I showed an unfinished version of the film at a festival here this past April, and the audience kept asking me how much of it was real? I laughed to myself and was proud of my ability to create a perfect illusion. The Student Jury awarded us with a Special Award, citing the film’s originality and defense of suppressed, and I laughed at how seriously they took the film. And now I’m beginning to wonder if the joke isn’t on me! I tried demonstrating that all groups can argue their right to acceptance and equality, but now I feel as though my demonstrative arguments really worked. People seem to be taking this so seriously to the point that they are coming out of the closet – a closet which wasn’t supposed to really exist. A fake revolution may actually be forming. And maybe it’s a good thing! Maybe zoophiles really do deserve the same rights as everyone else. Perhaps they’ve been persecuted and suppressed only due to millennia worth of stigma which no one ever bothered to address, or fight. Who would have dared to do so? They themselves are too small a group to fight for themselves. Perhaps it needed an uneducated filmmaker to come along and unwittingly make their plight palatable enough for it to finally end?

It’s getting late in these parts of the world and I have to go, but this is what I have on my mind right now. I’ve been compelled to search my own soul for clues and hidden impulses which may have led me to this subject-matter in the first place. I’ll continue with my thoughts on that next time. Until then, Indulge!

Yours truly,

Sir Tijn Po

*In 22 (2006 according to the Jesus system) I was invited by a writer of some intelligence, talent and repute to take over his daily blog for a while, as he traveled through Europe. I accepted the invitation for three entries, since he was a friend of a good friend, but since he and his wife treated me like shit – they just wanted to get to Švankmajer through me, but when they found out that he was on holiday and I wouldn’t be able to introduce them, they and their kindness just disappeared without a trace – I wouldn’t want to give him any publicity here, and I’ll simply refer to him as ‘Fuckface’.



Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Dear Fuckface Fans,

In my last entry I promised to share the results of my soul-searching, trying to find clues and hidden impulses behind my latest (cinematic) foray into the world of zoophilia.

I intend to keep my promise, since I’ve dug up some insights which some of you may be able to relate to.

But I’ve been slightly distracted by the latest re-eruption of the Middle-East conflict which has been going on for the last 3,000+ years, ever since Moses got the idea that he finally discovered the one and only truth for ALL of mankind.

I’ve written a little poem which helped me articulate my own feelings about the crisis. Perhaps you’ll enjoy it too:

The Mono Plague

Peace is heresy,
Before gods demanding victory!
Ancient Greece,
Had a few who liked peace,
Like Venus,
And Bacchus…
But Jehovah,
The jealous god of the Jew,
The Christian,
And the Slave
(The world ‘Muslim’ means slave),
Turns his worshippers
Into warriors,
Seeking only victory,
Since Peace be heresy.
Truly sad!
And I’d be so glad,
To see
More heresy,
Of Peace
And Multiplicity!
And thus I shout a quote from Nietzsche,
‘Is not just this godlike,
That there are gods, but no God?’

In my youth I’ve had to support myself with some of the strangest professions around, including an extended stint as a gigolo (for women only). This wasn’t a very unpleasant profession, and had my youth not disappeared so soon, I may have stuck with it.

In any event, I’ve had the good fortune of servicing women of nearly every race and background (except for the ultra-poor who were unable to afford my services), and got to know them quite well, both inside and out. I had Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu clients. I was hired by Voodoo practitioners, Wicca witches, Satanic Priestesses, Shintu believers, Feng-shui practitioners, and obviously the good old aging atheist.

My various clients obviously had different preferences and skills, but I never experienced any proof of one nation being ‘chosen’, or superior, to the next. I’ve thus come to believe that ALL people are created equal. Lust is lust. Love is love. Cash is cash. Discretion is discretion. Disease is disease. Etc.

Thus, when I see wars erupting and re-erupting, I take NO sides. People are people. Dying children are dying children. Dying women are dying women. Dying soldiers are dying soldiers. Dying animals are dying animals. Crushed homes are crushed homes. Etc.

I believe that EVERY race and nationality has fractions which would love to live peacefully with each other, and EVERY race and nationality has fractions which believe in their own superiority.

The Middle-East, however, is really up the creek since it is dominated by three branches of the same monotheistic plague which has essentially attempted to destroy any notion of pluralism, tolerance and compromise. Ever since Jehovah announced that he is the ONLY God and that he will tolerate no other gods before him, his followers have been doing their best to do away with any semblance of competition – alternately using violence, proselytization, the buying-power of charity, etc. In short, whatever’s available and feasible at the moment.

This is a plague which was set into motion over 3 millennia ago and will never end – at least not voluntarily. While your typical racist, sexist or bigot has the potential of changing his or her ways after some pleasant experiences with their ‘adversaries’ (and in this increasingly globalized world these experiences are becoming increasingly inevitable), those accepting the commandments of Jehovah will never feel permitted to tolerate, accept, or respect; their intolerance is not a question of personal preference, but rather a commandment from their Almighty which supersedes any personal ‘enlightenment’ (at least in the mind of the believer). The Bible (both Testaments) and Quran are full of threats against those who would like to accept other lifestyles as equal to Jehovah’s. Even the ‘loving’ Jesus insisted that (and like the apostles, I paraphrase), ‘The path to God is ONLY through me.’

I’ve met, and even serviced, many loving and tolerant worshipers of Jehovah who don’t take his word that literally, and just see it as a source of flexible inspiration. But, unfortunately, there is no shortage of people who take his commandments very literally, and for them true peace is simply heresy!

This is a very sad reality and every time I’m reminded of it through new eruptions of bloodshed, I weep.

Sir Tijn Po

*In 22 (2006 according to the Jesus system) I was invited by a writer of some intelligence, talent and repute to take over his daily blog for a while, as he traveled through Europe. I accepted the invitation for three entries, since he was a friend of a good friend, but since he and his wife treated me like shit – they just wanted to get to Švankmajer through me, but when they found out that he was on holiday and I wouldn’t be able to introduce them, they and their kindness just disappeared without a trace – I wouldn’t want to give him any publicity here, and I’ll simply refer to him as ‘Fuckface’.


Dear Fuckface Fans,

I hope you’re all doing well and managing to survive without Fuckface’s regular Blogging!

As I mentioned in my last two entries, I’ve recently been forced to examine my soul and subconscious for clues as to why I’ve recently dedicated over a year of my life to writing, producing and directing a film about an upstart Zoophile-rights organization. Obviously, there were the creative challenges, as well as the attraction of an as-of-yet unsaturated subject matter, but how on earth did I get to this topic to begin with?

I recently remembered a relationship I had in my late teens which I think laid the foundation for this project. The reason I want to share it with you is that I think almost any human can relate to these feelings at some point or another.

Yes, professionally I had to support myself by any means necessary, and that included a lengthy stint as a gigolo (for women only). But in between all of my professional dates, I did manage to experiment with my own feelings and preferences. It took me about 30 years of life to find my true big love, but until that time I searched every nook and cranny that was at my disposal. One of these crannies was a not-really-super-model, but a model nonetheless. She was gorgeous. Had she been a bit taller and a bit more breasted, she would have graced the great runways of the world, and would be familiar to you all. But she wasn’t taller or more breasted, and, thus, was confined to print. Nevertheless, she was beautiful enough to turn every head she passed, which, in my late teens, made me quite proud to have her on my arm.

The catch was that her intelligence was sub-human. And the surprise for me was that it didn’t bother me at all! She was able to speak, and that’s what convinced me that she wasn’t an actual ape, but her thought-patterns and areas of interest were stuck somewhere along the ape-to-human evolutionary scale. I even considered presenting her to various Darwinian scientists who are constantly being challenged by creationists screaming, ‘Why don’t we see monkeys giving birth to humans today?’, etc. This B-Model of mine would have silenced all those arguments, as she was definitive proof that there was indeed a slow progression between apes and humans. Our relationship didn’t last long enough for this plan to materialize, and, thus, she never became a Darwinian poster-girl, and just continued pushing cosmetics, hair-products, etc.

I remember thinking at the time, albeit more superficially than now, that this relationship certainly bordered on zoophilia. I had to admit to myself that even if she’d been less intelligent than she was, it wouldn’t really have mattered much to me. The sex was perfect, and we even enjoyed taking very silent walks together. My clients provided me with ample stimulating conversation, and I was more than glad to be able to indulge in some quiet romance every now and then.

This experience, coupled with my recent year-long obsession with the topic, forced me to contemplate the fate of the very first humans ever. If we believe the Darwinian view, namely, that species are constantly mutating and producing new varieties waiting for natural selection’s stamp of approval, then in the very early days of humanity, and, indeed, even today, the borders between species are not very firm.

Imagine the very first humans, i.e., the very first creatures to be able to speak… Aside from being very lonely and not having very many people to speak to, they would probably have to be defined as ‘zoophiles’, since they were most likely sexually attracted to their speechless neighbors, and probably indulged in whatever sexual opportunities arose with them. The first humans most likely copulated with their Neanderthal neighbors, and one of the cameramen who worked on COMING SOON claimed to have read a National Geographic article proving that theory. The question is, at exactly what point does a new species become its own category? When does an ingenious Neanderthal cease to be a Neanderthal and become part of the next category called ‘Humans’? Does it have to utter one word, or two? Or perhaps seventy three words?

My favorite book ever is Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which is full of references to the ‘Overman’, or ‘Uber-mentch’. The Nazis took advantage of the fact that very few people actually read these books and were successfully able to convince the masses that Nietzsche considered Aryans to be the new Overmen. Whoever actually reads the book, however, immediately realizes the absurdity of this claim, and, thus, I won’t go into it here. But Nietzsche clearly explains his notion of the ‘Overman’ as something which we should all aspire to become! It’s not an existing race at all, but rather something more evolved than humans. He argues that if we evolved from apes to where we are now, why can’t we keep evolving to something much higher. He stresses over and over again that this evolution is open to all races and has nothing to do with Aryan superiority. (Nazis would have killed me for many reasons, but they can’t stop me from loving Nietzsche!)

If Nietzsche is right, and logic is certainly on his side, then we’re still evolving today. Amidst the billions of humans roaming the planet, there must be a certain percentage that have mutated in different directions. Natural selection will kill out the ineffective ones, but some of these mutants will survive, and slowly, through many stages of natural selection, spawn a new species which doesn’t have a title yet (just as the first speaking apes didn’t know that they would one day be called ‘Humans’) but certainly belong to a different category than humans. Once they grow numerous enough, they’ll probably start keeping humans in zoos and circuses, and if any of them become sexually attracted to humans, they may very well be sneered at by their peers, just like zoophiles are sneered at today.

This is certainly a tricky concept, but it’s almost certainly very real. The boundaries between humans and other species – both inferior as well as superior – are very grey and gradual. The trickiest part is that you never know who’s who. The average Neanderthal had no idea as to what the first speakers were speaking about. And most humans have no idea what their intellectually superior (‘mutated’) neighbors are talking about (and maybe they don’t even talk, maybe they communicate in an entirely new way). To think that we have evolved to the maximum of nature’s potential is pretty absurd. My own gut feeling is that most intelligent humans are literal ‘apes’ in comparison to future species. Just consider how miniscule the greatest human memory is in comparison to your average computer. Isn’t it possible that future species may even put computers to shame?

Haven’t you ever looked at the human mainstream and wondered, ‘Am I really part of this species?’ Haven’t you ever looked at a human beside you on the subway and wondered, ‘Are we really part of the same species?’ I’ve had many moments in life when I felt like a mutant waiting to be naturally selected. Am I alone? Hawk Alfredson has some of the trippiest opinions about himself and I suggest you contact him directly for more info!

I feel as though humans are just a tiny step along the evolutionary line, and to define all of nature through human eyes would be as short-sighed as the great jumbles of the Dark-Ages. I see all of nature as one big ever-evolving and constantly-overlapping family whose individual members posses various skills, instincts, levels of intelligence, etc. Some members are more similar to each other than others, but I find it very self-destructive to establish insurmountable barriers between the various sexes, races, ages, species, etc.


Sir Tijn Po

*In 22 (2006 according to the Jesus system) I was invited by a writer of some intelligence, talent and repute to take over his daily blog for a while, as he traveled through Europe. I accepted the invitation for three entries, since he was a friend of a good friend, but since he and his wife treated me like shit – they just wanted to get to Švankmajer through me, but when they found out that he was on holiday and I wouldn’t be able to introduce them, they and their kindness just disappeared without a trace – I wouldn’t want to give him any publicity here, and I’ll simply refer to him as ‘Fuckface’.


…The idea I wanted to share with you is something closer to some of your more recent work concerning wealth, wealth distribution, charity, etc.

There is a deceptively-titled video of you on YouTube from a debate at Oxford Union called ‘Peter Singer: It is NOT immoral to be a billionaire’. In the video you focus more on the wording of the proposition, but seem to imply that you are not convinced of the morality of systems that allow for this type of wealth accumulation and disparity, especially while there are billions of people who are still languishing in poverty and suffering from preventable and curable diseases.

Complete socialism and communism – systems that rule out all competition, risk and reward, individual agency, etc. – never seem to work out well, and always seem to end up in autocracy. While there doesn’t seem to be an inherent connection between sharing all money and a lack of freedom of travel, expression, dissent, etc., it does always seem to go hand-in-hand. My personal theory is that complete sharing and trust may be a beautiful ideal, but is so against human nature – at least for the majority, and at least as we are currently constructed – that to enforce this system always entails force, suppression, suspicion, paranoia, etc. And having lived in Prague and East Berlin for decades, and having met hundreds of people who tasted those systems, I would never join that side of the argument.

Unbridled capitalism, on the other hand, with no limits at all, also seems unsustainable. Which leads many reasonable people to discuss 100% taxation after a certain threshold, or what Roosevelt proposed as a maximum wage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage

People get easily frightened by these ideas, and quickly start screaming that any limit is socialist, etc. (and even the poorest will often join this chorus, since socialism = communism = godlessness…). But we already have limits similar to these, e.g., patent and intellectual propert rights, we offer rewards for innovation, but not without limit, and no one seems to be calling to abolish those limits.

Even the whole Giving Pledge, while being better than nothing, doesn’t seem perfect to me, since why should these people be allowed to amass and live with unlimited wealth (there could conceivably be an innovation that makes one endlessly richer than Bazos, like a medicine everyone needs, or a new source of energy…) and then give it away before death? That’s not very different from an Estate Tax?

And then not all billionaires even take or respect this pledge. 

On the other hand: a) some positive innovation is produced by individuals who would never continue working and risking unless it helps them compete for primacy and superiority; the bigger yacht, spaceship, higher up on the Forbes list, etc. Vanity is indisputably a driving force for many innovators, researchers, etc.; b) there is the argument that you make in the Oxford video (and shared by Zuckerberg in this somewhat surprising video: https://youtu.be/3lVATuAM60g), namely, whether we can really be sure that money will always be spent in ideal ways by governments – you mention Trump’s government building walls – as opposed to private innovators, entrepreneurs, etc. 

So my idea was a system that wouldn’t tax 100% after a threshold, as that would funnel all ‘surplus’ to governments, but would still impose a maximum wage after which everything must go into a foundation or charity that is managed by the one who earned it (or in cases like Buffet, who gave his money to the Gates Foundation instead of starting a Buffet Foundation, managed by others, but chosen by the one who ‘earned’ the money). This would still allow for plenty of vain competition, and Forbes could still have a list of biggest foundations to inspire those who need it to keep working and innovating, etc., but it would at least keep the majority of money focused on benefitting society at large. 

Exactly what these foundations can spend their money on will always be controversial, and there will always be plenty of hank-panky, but that’s an eternal part of the human condition and challenges any system. The imperfect I.R.S. and other regulators would just have to modify their mandate a bit, and then do their thing – however imperfectly – monitoring these foundations, chasing down hidden money, etc.

Of course, this would still give the (former) billionaires outsized influence on research, philanthropy, etc., but every system has individuals with outsized influence. Even it were 100% taxation, the smartest and smoothest-talking politicians would still have more influence than others on spending priorities – and I don’t even mean through corruption, but simply through convincing oratory, effective community organizing, etc. 

I know you spend a lot of time thinking and writing about these issues, and I thought perhaps this idea – or a variation thereof – might be interesting for you and help hit a sweet spot between morality and practicality…

  • JULY 19, 2021


…it seems so simple, yet I never hear it being mentioned. But, alas, sometimes ‘simple’ ideas take a while to be discovered and formulated. And I think it will require a simple idea – one that can be easily articulated and comprehended by the masses – if it is to garner the necessary support for implementation. That’s one of my favorite things about MLK – in addition to his courage and oratory skills, or course – that I discovered in the course of the festival I did in Pisa a few years back, namely, his brilliance at finding small actionable solutions to specific solvable problems and articulating both the problem and strategies in simple terms that everyone could understand. He also wanted it to be easy for anyone to measure the progress being made and see when victory was achieved. Within the massive, more general injustices of the time, he found individual ‘bite-size’ issues to focus on, and then created highly-specific campaigns and strategies that were then picked up by the masses and carried through to success: bus boycotts, sit-ins, marches, etc. I’m really in awe of that, and especially today, with our shorter attention-spans and more focus on sound bites, I think it is the simplest ideas that have the biggest chance of success.

I like looking for these cracks and finding ways to articulate them. I particularly like trying to decouple ideas that shouldn’t be coupled, e.g., antisemitism and anti-Zionism, zoophilia and animal abuse, limits on personal wealth and socialism, etc. That’s what led me to E.F.A. while thinking about social mores, or New Jewish State while thinking about Jewish survival, or ‘Rubber’ (my life-long project about abolishing religion) … or my film about the next level of evolution (not unrelated to questions of speciesism), or this economics idea that grew out of another film of mine, Flux, that deals with all sorts of hierarchies in society and nature. But then implementing those ideas in the real-world seem to be a bit outside my of skill-set. So the EFA idea is now being championed by the Germans) … and this economics idea, as well, would have to be developed, spread, fought for and implemented by people who are far more strategic, grounded and practical than I am (I am painfully aware of the ‘real-world’ limitations and challenges I posses as a poet-artist-philosopher hybrid), and by those who are more educated in the fields of law, economics, taxation, and – let’s be honest – revolution (the Eric Princes of the world won’t willingly hand over their billions to any foundations…).

Thus, if one were to ask “Would the threshold be income, or wealth?  And, whichever you answer, how would you set the level”, I would have to confess that I haven’t really thought those through in detail, since I don’t think my efforts in those areas would add anything that others couldn’t do far better than me. But I did spend yesterday thinking about them, and this is what I came up with:

1) Beginning with the second one first, since it’s a bit easier to tackle: a) I don’t think a specific number would be the ideal threshold, since ‘a billion dollars’, for example, varies from currency to currency, and from time to time based on inflation.  I think a better threshold would be based on the GDP, or average per capita income of any given country/region in question. So as currencies and overall wealth fluctuate, the percentage of the total available wealth would remain constant, and at no point would any individual be able to own more than the established maximum percentage.

Regarding an amount based on our status quo, my gut tells me that a number that would garner widespread support would be a cool billion dollars. I personally think that 100 million would get a lot of support, too, since it’s hard to argue that one would could ever need more than that (especially when we have studies like this about the magical 75,000 happiness salary: https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WHB-3576), but in America at least, I feel as though a lot of people enjoy seeing their stars get very rich, and a campaign to cut off wealth at 100 million – with athletes signing 250-million-dollar contracts every day – wouldn’t muster the overwhelming widespread support necessary to make this idea a reality. Perhaps in the future, if such a threshold is ever instituted, it could come down somewhat, but I think initially it would have to be higher. I think a billion-dollar cap could get massive support and rolls off the tongue quite easily. Even the Oxford debate was worded that way as opposed to “Ultra-Millionaires”, etc., even though there is no mathematical or moral basis for differentiating between billionaires and 500-millionaires…

2) Regarding income or wealth, I would say both. By ‘wealth’, I think you mean property, stocks, etc., and if so, I would say both. This obviously introduces a lot of questions with regard to determining the exact value of properties, art, stocks, etc., but those challenges already exist when it comes to taxation. Values are never fixed in stone (see Weisselberg…) and it’s never a perfect science, but there are already mechanisms in place when it comes to property taxes, or for deciding which tax bracket one is in, etc., and these same mechanisms could be used to determine if someone is above or below the threshold. There would obviously be endless attempts at evasion and undervaluing, but those have always existed and will always exist, but at least those games would only be played around the determined threshold. Most people, by definition, are far below that threshold, and whether Bezos is forced to give 204 billion to his foundation, or 203 if he can manipulate the values of his first billion, wouldn’t be that big a tragedy considering that at least 203 would now be going towards the common good. A few days ago he gave away 200 million, so less than 0.1% of his net worth, and he left some perpetual chatterboxes speechless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rli9ZRvemh0 So just imagine what 203 billion could do! thus, I think that the inevitable tricks and games around the edges of any threshold are not enough to discredit the merit and value of the overall initiative.

Some would obviously burn money or give it away to family and friends before reaching that threshold. OK. But a) people do that anyway to avoid entering higher tax brackets; and b) the gifts would be taxed, if done legally, and then said family members would also soon reach their thresholds, and then the rest would go to the foundation. Again, even if Bezos gave all of his family members the maximum amount, he would still have at least 180 billion in his foundation. Not too shabby…

Companies and corporations will most likely have to exist over that threshold, but the ownership of those companies would either be in the hands of more shareholders, each of which would have to be below the threshold, or the companies can be owned by the foundations – many billionaires currently give their shares to foundations which, in turn, rise and fall according to the share prices. So if Elon Musk, for example, used his money to found a new company and the company then earns more than a billion, he can hold onto to a billion-worth of ownership and the rest would be owned by others, or by the foundation. He could continue managing it, expanding it, with his ego and glory rising and falling according to the size of his foundation, but his private ownership would remain at the threshold. Many charities, foundations and endowments already work this way, with principal being invested with hopes of gains and expansion.

Many will inevitably argue that any limits on wealth create slippery-slopes towards socialism, which leads to godlessness, etc. (I mentioned this in my last email, and just saw it again on TV today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOL_uVrz6Yg, where the idiot claims that giving healthcare leads to Marxism, i.e., the destruction of the family unit, churches…???) But, as I also mentioned, we already have so many limits on earning potential – limits which everyone seems to embrace: patent and copyright expiration, anti-trust laws, price-gouging laws, etc. We also already have limits on how people can spend that money (lobbying, political donations, bribery, gifts, pump-and-dump schemes, etc.). So limits on earning and spending are a necessary part of any system, even though the specifics of these laws will be fought over for all eternity, as would any maximum threshold for private property.

We also used to have systems – and many countries still do – where some individuals had more rights than others – monarchies, gentry, caste systems, sex-, race- and religion-based rights, etc. – but we in the West have pretty much abolished those, which essentially meant taking away some rights and power from some and expanding the rights of others. This opened opportunities for many while making others have to work and compete harder than they were used to. This process isn’t new, even though every step in this process requires a new revolution of sorts…

Some of the wealthy might not even fight this initiative, e.g., Buffet, who seems to enjoy the thrill of investing, and if he were investing the foundation’s money as opposed to his own, I think he might be as content as he is now. Or people like Carnegie, who was famously against leaving huge inheritances to one’s children, might also accept that what is harmful to one’s children, i.e., excessive wealth, may not be ideal for the parents either… But most billionaires would probably fight this initiative like crazy, with many even using violence. But we have seen that before with Apartheid, slavery, or voting rights for women and blacks (which are just other forms of minimizing the power of a few), or when overthrowing dictators or monarchies… Rarely do people relinquish power willingly, but if the masses are sufficiently convinced and mobilized, nothing can stop them, especially in the States, where we have seen so much drastic change recently with gay rights, marijuana legalization, etc. I already feel new groundswells of support surrounding gun laws, as well as the issue of income inequality and I believe that once an effective message is produced, with clear actionable strategies, things can move quite quickly…    

So those are some thoughts based on my layman’s knowledge of economy, law, taxation, etc.

I think that a proper expert or think tank could have fun developing a more robust blueprint or white paper on the subject, and it would be my honor. Aside from a brief post on my website, as well as a very abstract treatment of these concepts in my animated film ‘Flux’, I don’t think I will be developing it any further on my own – at least not in the foreseeable future, as I genuinely don’t feel equipped to do a good job with it. If a robust proposal is developed, and it gains traction amongst the experts and policy makers, a more watered-down version can then be presented to the public, along with some easy-to-understand  and easy-to-quote statistics, and then I can imagine it gaining wide support.

I think the word ‘tax’ scares people, so when you say 100% taxation after the threshold, it’s less effective than ‘charity’ or ‘philanthropy’. And it’s also so much harder for the ultra-wealthy (perhaps ‘grotesquely-wealthy’ can be a useful catchphrase) to fight against: they can easily argue that the government is corrupt, wasteful, incompetent etc., and therefor unworthy of more taxes, but they can’t say – or would never say – that they themselves would be incompetent at giving charity, or that they absolutely need another twenty jets/yachts/islands/castles, etc. In the Zuckerberg video I sent, what would he be able to say against this initiative??? …

  • July 22, 2021