Op. 36



(From an autobiographical journal by Christopher James)


Long Prose


Copyright © 2011 John O'Loughlin





Chapters 1-6





I was always different from others - more sensitive, careful, thoughtful, kind, graceful, persevering, and, above all, truthful.  I don't deny that fate marked me out for a unique destiny, the fruit of the tree of my various gifts and inclinations.  I have not so much as kissed a girl in over thirteen years, not since 1971, when I briefly 'went out' with a cuddly dark-haired girl by name of Martine.  More accurately, for three weeks, and we didn't 'go out' except in the sense of paying twice-weekly visits to each-other's addresses.  She lived with her parents, I remember, in a large detached suburban house with a grand piano in the front hall.  I would play the piano in those days and spent more time sitting in front of hers than with her.  Don't get me wrong; she didn't throw me out or give me up because of this.  But it inevitably saddened her.

     So too, I suspect, did my guitar-playing, when she came to visit my humble bedsitter and discovered that I had more interest in music, my own included, than sex.  I had an acoustic guitar in those days, an old classical thing which someone sold me cheaply when I was still at school and which I carried over into my clerking adulthood (youth really, but never mind), despite its manifest decrepitude.  Nevertheless, I would knock a classical piece or two out of it, obscure Spanish masters for the most part, and Martine would be obliged to listen to that, together with whatever folk songs I had recently picked-up from a Bob Dylan or a Neil Young album.  She listened to records too of course, mainly my own, and watched a little television with me.  But the most I ever gave her sexually, apart from a few formal kisses, was a forefinger's worth of tentative vaginal probing.  To be honest, I didn't really fancy her all that much, which was why I gave her up after three tepid, though highly musical, weeks.  To put it frankly, she was insufficiently attractive to me.  I needed someone beautiful but, as usual, beauty was a rare commodity, particularly in Sutton!

     However, there wasn't much to be found when I shortly moved into a friend's house in another part of urban Surrey and then subsequently moved with him, his two younger brothers, sister, and parents, to a comparatively rural part of it, namely Merstham.  I was even more of a loner there than I had been in Sutton, and gradually, encouraged by David's avid collecting of men's magazines, I developed a taste for pornography, if only on the soft-core level.  I still had it when I was obliged to move to north London, two years later, and I still have it today, after more than ten years' solitary living.  Literature doesn't like the truth, but this isn't literature, nor is it a Milleresque 'gob of spit', etc.  It's a kind of poetry.  Therefore I can allow myself to speak or, rather, record it, if only for my own benefit.  I'm not a democrat but a highly radical theocrat, perhaps the only one of my kind at present.  Solitude has its drawbacks, but it also has its advantages, of which pornographic indulgence may be accounted among them.  My own preference is still for the soft-core variety, but then a man of my imaginative scope requires suggestion rather than explicit exposure, and likes, besides, to have something interesting, though not necessarily sexual, to read, like the kinds of articles one finds in the better men's magazines.  I avidly read everything, or almost everything, on offer.  When I first started buying such magazines I was only interested in the girls.  Then, after I had sated my voyeuristic curiosity, I would throw the magazine away, as if it were something dirty and of no further interest, my reading material being confined, at that time, to books, and only to what I considered to be the most choice books too - usually classic novels which I bought in paperback.

     Well, if that was my youth, then my adulthood is almost the reverse; for not only do I read virtually the entire contents of such men's magazines, but I retain them as well.  So I have quite a collection developing and, needless to say, at the expense of books, which, in any case, I regularly borrow from the local library in the form of hardbacks, some of them rather expensive ones, too!  Why, my last round of 'sublimated Vikingism', as I like to think of such periodic visits to the library, resulted in my gathering-in over £64 worth of books, one of the six permissible borrowings amounting to £21 alone!  Not bad for a guy who can't afford to buy books any more.  With a service like that, you can't be blamed for regarding the purchase of books as a habit for fools.  (There I go again, speaking frankly, not liable to serve a publisher's best interests; never have, was always too much of an artist, a law unto myself!)  A great advantage too, being required to return the books, not having to burden one's bookcase or whatever with additional weight.  Most books are never re-read anyway, just clutter-up the place to gather dust, mould, and insects.  So much superfluous matter!  Merely a custom, a bourgeois habit, to retain books, as if to prove one's literacy, show off one's culture, reinforce one's ego, or, worse still, justify one's expenditure!  Not easy to dispose of a book which cost £8-9.  Easier to get rid of a paperback, irrespective of the increases in price that have more than trebled the cost of classic paperbacks and classics in paperback during the past decade.  I got rid of most of mine at any rate, preferring to retain only my very favourite; though even they mean less than nothing to me, now that I have a budding collection of magazines and the freedom of the library.

     From being an avid paperback-collector in my youth, I have become a despiser of paperbacks in my early adulthood, my own more mildewed and creased examples not excepted.  One of these days I shall probably remove even those few remnants of my literary youth from the bookcase and fill up the space thus created with new magazines, which will surely by then be unable to repose on the one shelf now available to them for want of adequate space.  I don't envisage any radical change in my circumstances, you see.  Like the prospect of a different type of accommodation with more room for bookcases or whatever.  I am used to single-room accommodation, with only limited space for books and things.  That doesn't mean to say I like it.  But unless I come into a small fortune, one way or another, I'm bloody-well stuck with it!  Not likely to become the author of a number-one best-seller, you see.  Never went in for that kind of thing.  Always too independent-minded and self-consciously 'the artist/thinker' to want to write in a commercial vein - romantic or spy or thriller or war novels kind of thing.  Hate them!  Never could read that sort of popular trash, even as a youth.  Wondered how people could be so stupid.  But there you are, the world was meant for them, they flow with it, we against it.  They are democratic, like the novel genre itself when most true to itself.  Not I!





Used to write novels or, rather, antinovels at one time, slightly influenced by James Joyce and Henry Miller; left-wing kind of novels, I suppose you could call them.  No fictions, all characters either based on myself or on people I had once known, maybe still knew to some extent.  No plot or story-line, more American than British, Britain still producing conventional novels by the cartload, ever bourgeois and traditional.  Can't read any of them!  Only a little Lawrence Durrell and Anthony Burgess from time to time, 'best of a bad job', so to speak.  Still novelists, but capable of anti-novelistic tendencies, more intelligent than most of their contemporaries.  Still bourgeois of course, no real possibility of truly revolutionary chaps coming through in England, where the rule of slavery is the norm, slavery, above all, to the state-hegemonic class-bound status quo.  Did like snatches of Beard's Roman Women though, much healthier than Earthly Powers, what with all that Catholic priestly talk, making a leading character out of a priest, a kind of bourgeois revolutionary, desirous to reform Christianity on the basis of a unification of the denominations rather than to abolish it altogether, as I would, given half the chance!  I wonder how Burgess managed to persevere with that character over so many hundreds of pages, not the only trying one by any means (the homosexual protagonist I found even more so at times), but certainly one of the most obnoxious with whom I, even if only as a reader, have ever persevered!

     No, my characters were more usually extensions of myself, variations on an autobiographical theme, you could say.  I have never been enough of a novelist, thank goodness, to create pure fictions, like a bourgeois would do in his relatively objective stance before the world.  Indeed, I would even go so far as to say that the better and more evolved the artist, the more he'll identify with his work, finding in it but a reflection of himself.  It is only in bourgeois literature that there exists a lacuna between creator and creations, author and fictions, as between the private and public selves - the former true, the latter false.  Even the petty-bourgeois antinovelist disdains such a lacuna, preferring, if anything like Henry Miller, to write about himself and/or his thoughts.  How much more so must that apply to a writer like myself, intent on producing a radically theocratic mode of writing in the formal framework of philosophical literature, something a bourgeois novelist  would never do, given his atomic materialism.  I reject relativity, the lacuna between fact and fiction.  I promote a truthful absolutism, suitable to this level of writing, the writer at one with his creations, the private made public and therefore negated.  I have nothing to hide from anyone, everything to reveal.  Truth transcends the individual.  I have no need of relativities, different characters, and frictions.  Radical theocratic writing focuses on the absolute, if not on the Ultimate Absolute then, at any rate, on the absolutism of the individual writer, who can invent a world of his own peopled by his own selves, former or current, as well as by the selves he can anticipate (future projections) through a process of illusional abstraction from the truth that guides him and is his creative essence.  He can also concentrate on other selves, as I have just done with regard to Anthony Burgess.  Selves are everywhere and many, but he can absorb them into his oneness as an absolute writer.  He doesn't even have to get out of bed to do this.  Selves come to him in his sleep, abstractions of real persons or imaginings of the mind.  Sometimes, when awake, he fantasizes with these abstractions, creates scenes or romances, becomes their voyeur or participates in their diverse proceedings.  Was he the gynaecologist who had a young woman lying naked on a high couch with her legs unconventionally forced apart and back by a clamped horizontal bar while he probed her sexual crevice with long, shiny instruments?  Or was he the young mother's infant son looking on, while the doctor forced gynaecological sex upon her as he slid a sopping wet gloved hand backwards and forwards inside her dripping trench?  He was everything and anything - father, mother, and son by turns or simultaneously.  He had projected a younger father onto a younger mother, a pre-marital coupling, and had himself slept with his mother in the father's role.  There was no incestuous barrier in the mind, no barrier on anything imaginative.  He was totally free, within the biological limits of his brain, to do what he pleased, whether as actor or spectator.  Free, too, to admit the moral validity of pornography in the supersession of fantasy - that old-brain/subconscious-mind indulgence.  After all, I'm no fool; I can see perfectly well the moral superiority of the contemplation of, say, a model in a men's magazine to the actual indulgence of sexual fantasy.  I spend more time contemplating such models than fantasizing about either them or anyone else.

     Indeed, outside of soft-core pornography, I don't really have a sex-life at all.  As I said at the beginning, I haven't kissed a girl in over thirteen years, not having access to anyone in particular, the move to north London kind of further isolating me from congenial company, making me more self-reliant, sharpening my taste for men's magazines, upgrading my sublimations.  Living where I do, a kind of intellectual outsider blown in from the provinces, I was obliged, at an early date, to regard soft-core pornography not merely as a substitute for sex, but as an alternative to it, my aversion to working-class girls partly conditioned by a suburban background, partly by my sophisticated culture, partly even by knowledge of my father's experience in marrying a woman - my mother - who turned out to be anything but his idea of compatible and whom he quickly left, ultimately obliging her to drag a tiny me away with her from Galway, Ireland, into problematic exile in Aldershot, England.  I didn't want to make a similar mistake, so preferred to keep away from women whom my instinct and culture told me were essentially frivolous or likely to be ethnically incompatible.  Besides, there were also financial constraints to bear in mind, a consequence of officially being unemployed.  In all honesty, I couldn't have afforded to date a woman on a regular basis, scarcely even on an irregular one.  Neither did I want to reveal my actual position to anyone, more humiliating, I dare say, than would otherwise have been the case, given my literary pretensions.  My secret was my own affair and I intended to keep it so.  If I had resigned myself to voyeuristic admiration of women in the flesh, the actual flesh itself was taboo.  A few years ago I would have said beyond my grasp.  Now I will say beneath it.  Yes, for I have come, as I intimated earlier, to regard my soft-core pornographic indulgences of certain men's magazines as my sexuality, as complete and logical a sexuality as any straight heterosexual behaviour.  I will call it a theocratic as opposed to a democratic sexuality, supernatural rather than natural.

     Supernatural?  Yes, a relativity, as in heterosexual naturalism, between model and admirer.  In natural sex a man inserts his penis into his partner's vagina and makes love to her.  In supernatural sex, however, a man concentrates his attention on the vagina of his selected female model and masturbates himself to a climax in voyeuristic partnership.  He indulges a sublimated heterosexuality, his eyes focusing on his 'partner's' sexual orifice while his penis responds both to it, through his mind, and to his own masturbation.  This is why I prefer soft-core pornography to hard-core pornography, where, by contrast, there is invariably a sexual relationship between models (participants), and one is forced into the necessarily passive role of voyeur or, more usually, perverse onanist, one's masturbation accessory to the actual coupling.

     For me, a one-to-one relationship is essential between myself and the female model, to which I make love on a sublimated and inevitably one-sided basis.  A supernatural sex then, as much a norm for certain people on a given evolutionary psychic level as natural sex is for those who live on a lower, more bourgeois psychic level.  In fact, I have developed a scale of equivalents between sex and politics, and I firmly believe that one's sexuality and one's politics should be on approximately the same level, that the former will to some extent condition the latter.  My own sexuality I would describe as fascistic, which accords with my Social Transcendentalist ('Social Transcendental' would be too adjectivally parallel and therefore loose) ideological bent, though, in point of fact, I visualize Social Transcendentalism as post-fascist and more a religion than a mode of politics in reaction to Communism, the strict sexual equivalent to which would be late-teenage juvenile pornography, an equivalent more suited, I would think, to the masses than to their leaders!

     Be that as it may, the theocratic, supernatural essence of my sexuality cannot be denied.  Sex is not simply a thing of the body; it's conditioned by the evolutionary status of one's psyche, which in turn conditions one's level of politics or, at any rate, ought to do.  That the psyche is partly conditioned by the nature of one's environment, I will not deny.  But other factors - temperamental, hereditary, educational, cultural, social, ethnic - are also responsible, in varying degrees, for the psyche's current status, a status which is continuously changing.





Returning to sex and politics, I have come to regard male-dominated heterosexual relations as ... liberal and their female-dominated counterparts as conservative, both of which bespeak an atomic naturalism.  The reason I say male-dominated heterosexual relations are liberal is that, traditionally, the Liberals are to the left, if only just, of the political spectrum, and it is the left wing which suggests to me a male bias leading, beyond the Liberal level, to antinatural and thus, by implication, antifemale behaviour.  I am of course referring to both Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy, and if intermittent anal intercourse with women may be described as loosely Democratic Socialist, then the bisexual alternation between women and men by men could be ascribed a loosely Social Democratic significance, the sort of more radical relativity that should lead, in due course, to the most radical antinatural relativity of all - namely, the homosexuality of the Communist mind.

     Ah, so there it is!  If the antinatural begins with the sodomizing of women (though one might justifiably contend that the male domination of women in liberal sex is the real beginning of the rot), then it most definitely culminates with the sodomizing of men on an absolute as opposed to a relative, or intermittent, basis.  And if the political rot begins with Liberalism, it most definitely culminates in Communism.  Prior to all that ... the natural in Conservatism, and subsequent to it ... the supernatural in Fascism and/or its more radically theocratic (supra-natural?) successor - my own Centrist ('Centerist' would, I fear, be too clumsy a term) Social Transcendentalism.  Before the natural, there was of course the pro-natural, a Whiggish lesbianism or lesbian Whiggishness, and before that, or rather beneath it, the subnatural autocratic sexuality of erotic sculpture, which was more a pagan than a Christian affair.  Hence the evolution of sex from its autocratic beginnings to its theocratic endings.  Although I ought perhaps to mention oral sex, fellatio suggesting a female domination, cunnilingus a masculine one; the former arguably Republican (in the American party-political sense of that term), the latter Democratic (again in the specifically American sense).  Not that it really matters all that much, at least not to me, since I never have a woman to 'go down on' - the masculine equivalent of 'giving head'.  And I wonder that if I did by any chance have a woman, whether I would practise cunnilingus on her, given my supernatural bias, a right-wing tendency to allow the female element to dominate one way or another, as happens during the practice of my masturbatory sexuality, in which the voyeuristic contemplation of the woman (model), elevated to the abstract status of a photograph, induces frictional stimulation lower down, the masculine side subordinated, as it were, to the higher, spiritualized primary stimulus coming from above.  I imagine that if I were to enter into palpable sexual relations with a woman, she would have to be the dominant partner, if not on the level of traditional conservative copulation then, at any rate, on the more evolved level of 'Republican' head.  Either way, a kind of female domination would ensue, which could only be guaranteed if the woman was of a sufficiently-dominating nature in the first place.

     I seem to recall having fallen in love with such a woman some years ago, though nothing came of my love since, she being otherwise sexually engaged, it remained unrequited.  But what a woman!  The most sexy rump I had ever seen, one of those small but highly seductive rumps which suggest a pear-like bulbousness when evaluated from the bottom up, so to speak, the lower part of it kind of hanging over the thigh, seemingly resting flaccidly on top of it but, in reality, jeans or no jeans, a most compact overall impression!  Yes, I fell in love with Sophie early-on in my clerical career (it was to last just six years), and I remained in love with her long after I had abandoned it.  Doubtless she also played a part, if paradoxically, in keeping me celibate, solitary, and disdainful of other women.  And she was very classy, very cultured and well-spoken.  University-educated and all that, the daughter of a vicar.  Ah, how seemingly few-and-far-between are such women!  Attractive and intelligent!  Not just a pretty face or, worse still, an academic brain.

     But I shouldn't regress like this to such nostalgic traps.  I ceased being a victim of unrequited love some time ago and thereafter became more of a free man than I had ever been ... before the emotional enslavement struck me.  I began, in consequence, to hope that I would encounter a modelling Sophie in one or another of the men's magazines that I regularly purchased.  Never did, largely, I suspect, because she was one of those women who are too middle class to offer their services in that way, the magazines in question not usually functioning on the plane of university-educated middle-class academics, no more, for that matter, than do the vast majority of novels.  Rather, a titillation for the broad masses, the bourgeoisie included, which people like me may or may not look-in upon from our 'Steppenwolfian' lair.... Not that I wish to disparage such magazines, since, as already remarked, I derive much pleasure from them.  But there are certain things you don't encounter between their pages, and the type of woman I have in mind is one of them.  I might also mention reviews of new Modern Jazz/Fusion releases from musicians like Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, John McLaughlin, Jean-Luc Ponty, Al DiMeola, Larry Coryell, and George Duke.  Plenty of Rock reviews, but I grew out of rock music some years ago and now regard it as a largely youthful craze.

     Are these magazines therefore intended specifically for youths?  It may well be, though certain of the journalistic articles therein incorporated suggest an appeal to maturer tastes, particularly where politics is concerned.  What one comes back to, I suppose, is the desire of these magazines to appeal to as wide a spectrum of the public as possible, in order to remain commercially viable.  After all, this is still a harsh, cut-throat world, and you don't survive in it, least of all on a lucrative basis, without making some concessions to its harshness.  Such magazines are inclined to do that and, well, who is to grumble if they can't please everyone everywhere all of the time?  Idealism, as the British see it, is specifically an Irish disease, one which the hale down-to-earth Anglo-Saxons fight shy of in their commitment to realism.  Men's magazines are, after all, in the entertainment business, not the educative one, and Rock is probably more entertaining, for the broad mass of people, than sophisticated and sometimes pretentious Modern Jazz.  I shall stick to my idealism and leave the English, not to mention Americans, to their realism/materialism, including the sexual variety.  Their world is declining, but not too fast, whereas my world is rising, if only slowly.  The theocratic ideal beckons to me through the psychic medium of my intelligence, and I defer to it in my writings.  Defer to it in my life as well, an absolute supernaturalism my sexual ideal, an ideal most Englishmen are as yet incapable of upholding, even if they are disposed to intermittent sublimation.  But the chances are that one day the ideal will become the rule and the real, by contrast, the exception - nay, a disease, to be shunned by all right-thinking idealists.  The supernatural, or rather supra-natural, will prevail over the natural and the antinatural, the pro-natural and the subnatural.  For the supernatural would seem to be a kind of fascistic, petty-bourgeois precursor of the more radically theocratic supra-natural, National Socialism as opposed to Social Transcendentalism, adult pornography instead of late-teenage juvenile pornography, magazines as opposed to computer discs, the latter sexuality conferring a supra-natural distinction from the former on account of the sexual distance between adults and juveniles, the fact that juveniles, even when in their late teens, are not naturally sexual objects for adults but if, through the medium of pornography, adults were obliged to regard them as sexual objects, then the resultant sublimated relationship, focusing voyeuristic/masturbatory attention on the juvenile's sex (vagina in the case of females, penis in the case of males - the one intended for masculine appreciation, the other for the appreciation of women), would constitute a supra-natural sexuality appropriate, in its radical sublimation, to a Social Transcendentalist age and society, but only to such an age and society, not to the worldly present!

     Of course, I can imagine the outcry of 'pervert!' or 'perverted!' that would rush from the mouths of realists, whether at the bidding of a realistic demon or not ... I leave for others to decide.  And some will assert that recourse to such radical pornography would lead to the actual molestation of children, never mind teenagers!  Well, that accusation I can dismiss as reflecting a realist's psychic limitations, while the assertion following it could just as easily be applied with regard to women, where the use of adult pornography obtained; though there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of women are any more vulnerable to rape on that account than they would be if such pornography had never existed.  Probably the availability of pornography reduces the number of rapes by sublimating the rapist impulse and seducing the potential rapist out of his sperm.  Maybe, on the other hand, there is no connection between pornography and rape, that the man who intends to rape a woman will do so anyway, irrespective of whether or not he buys pornography on a regular basis.  There are any number of possibilities here, depending on individual behaviour and circumstances.  A man may rape after having been released from a long spell in prison; he may be drunk, deranged, insufficiently civilized, or derelict.  The vast majority of men never rape and will never do so.  The nearest they may ever come to it will be in the forceful, precipitant removal of their girlfriend's or wife's clothing for mutually-acceptable impulsive sex.  That is something which often turns the female on just as much as the male.

     But teenagers are, of course, a different proposition, and I have no doubt that the availability of juvenile pornography on a widespread, absolutist basis would presuppose a very different kind of society than the one in which most people are currently living, namely a closed society in which children/teenagers lived apart from adults in special rearing and educational institutions, and adults, for their part, lived fairly secluded, solitary lives in bedsitter-type accommodation; a society, in other words, in which sexual coupling of any description was the exception to the rule - indeed, a taboo subject, given the absolutist integrity of that age and the availability of sperm banks/artificial insemination for purposes of sex-free reproduction.

     It might of course transpire that young girls of, say, 16-19 years of age would be available on a semi-prostitutional basis at certain times for a limited duration, and it could be that 'sex' with such girls would constitute a mode of supra-naturalism.  But such a procedure would also presuppose a radical transformation in the adult attitude to juveniles, turning the latter into somewhat disreputable, unripe human beings whose low spiritual standing in comparison with adults permitted of relationships which, by then, would be considered demeaning for a woman; though evolutionary progress all along the line would suggest the possibility that men, too, would not wish to indulge in particularly strong sexual appetites and would accordingly be disposed to comparatively tepid relationships with young girls, a sexuality of petting and kissing merely, not, by any means, a full heterosexual approach to what, after all, might well be an insufficiently accommodating vagina!

     Thus if kissing and petting of adult women was taboo on account of their equal status and more sublimated integrity, then a vent for such fleshy desires would remain open where juveniles were concerned, though on a relatively low-key, tepid basis.  A large adult erect penis thrusting into a young girl's vagina would be akin to something out of Lautréamont's Maldoror, with consequences no less painful and bloody for the child.  Exceptions may arise, but, in the main, I envisage sexual satisfaction for men - as for women - coming in the future through recourse to juvenile pornography - a truly supra-natural intercourse for a radically absolutist age, such a might arise sometime in the twenty-first century.  Not, of course, the kind of pornography that involves coupling or philandering partners, since a one-to-one relationship would be difficult if not impossible to establish in that context, quite apart from the initial difficulty of getting juveniles to pose in an adult way, as though indulging in actual heterosexual copulation.  All relative pornography, as we may call the partner-embracing variety, would then be taboo, and not simply on ideological grounds but also on moral grounds, since encouraging sexual perversion of one kind or another, the voyeuristic not least of all.  With a single frontal model, vagina to the fore, there is adequate incentive for a supra-natural copulation of the type I have already outlined to take place, and this would constitute a legitimate form of theocratic sexuality - what one might call supersex, for want of a better term.

      But the actual pornographic spectacle of copulating couples would inhibit this development, inducing, if not mere voyeurism, then the worse outcome of perverse accessory masturbation, the modern form of Onan.  Adult pornography would be taboo by then in any case, so it is unlikely that there would be much temptation for the indulgence of this more sublimated kind of antinaturalism, probably a fascistic equivalent, if the truth were known.  There is plenty of adult medium- to hard-core pornography about these days, and most of it involves copulating couples.

     One should, I suppose, distinguish between soft- to medium-core absolute pornography (if 'pornography' be the right word here) and this other more relative variety, the former embracing one model at a time, the latter ... two or more.  If one is given a glimpse of vagina in the soft-core singles pornography, the vagina will be clearly and openly on display in the medium-core variety, thereby facilitating supernatural sexuality.  If one is given a clear view of vagina and/or penis in the medium-core couple’s pornography, the sexual parts will be partly or deeply involved in copulation in the hard-core couple’s variety.  One might chart a progression, with regard to these four stages of pornography, from, say, a typical Penthouse or Mayfair model of soft-core singles vaginal exposure ... to the more overtly sexual medium-core singles vaginal exposure of a typical Playbirds model.  Since this latter magazine embraces both singles and doubles, one can regard it as of pivotal medium-core status in between the soft-core singles and hard-core doubles, since the modelling couples are photographed well-short of actual sexual penetration on the male's part, the vagina of the female model usually quite clearly displayed and thus not debarring supernatural masturbatory participation.

     Indeed, it seems to me that one of the main reasons why the female model is so often photographed on top of the male one, in these doubles shots, is to promote maximum voyeuristic and/or masturbatory participation, her sex more accessible, in this position, than would otherwise be the case, were the male on top and thus an obstacle in the way of the vagina, only attractive, one may suppose, to men of homosexual persuasion.  Nevertheless, I still maintain that masturbation induced by simulated copulation will fall short of true supernaturalism, being accessory to the actual coupling implicit in the modelling and thus, by implication, an intrusion into their heterosexual relativity.  Still, not so much antinatural as unorthodoxly supernatural.

     The truly hard-core pornography, in which the models (participants) appear to be more overly and literally involved in copulation, and sometimes to the extent of covering or hiding their sex organs, will place the viewer in a more accessory, purely voyeuristic relationship, and if he chooses to masturbate in response to the heterosexual stimulus vouchsafed him by the spectacle of coupling bodies, not necessarily very erotic in view of their hidden or partly-obscured sexual parts, then his act will acquire the status of a sublimated antinaturalism, a sort of perversely theocratic sexuality in between the antinatural and the supernatural, which may well be the sexual equivalent of Fascism.

     Be that as it may, I need not hesitate in informing the reader, who will probably have guessed by now in any case, that I never indulge in such a sexuality, not having bought any really hard-core pornography (though I have seen enough examples of it to know what I'm writing about).  The nearest I ever get to it is with magazines like Playbirds which, as already remarked, has a medium-core status, and if I take a fancy to any particular model in that, whether she is on her own or accompanied by a partner, usually one of her own sex, I make love to her on my own supernatural, and hence sublimated, terms.  The apparent lesbian activity of the models provides ample scope for masturbatory appreciation of the vaginal stimuli displayed, one or both models' sex clearly on view.  Yet, ideally, I prefer the single models, partly on moral grounds but also partly as a consequence of long acquaintance with magazines like Penthouse and Mayfair, which almost invariably specialize in the single model per photograph.  Some people would hesitate to use even the term soft-core pornography in regard to such publications, and I have no doubt that certain readers will already have found fault with me on that account.  But whilst I appreciate that a men's magazine can embrace a lot more than girls, and that the girls themselves are, as a rule, very modestly posed (not to say composed), I fail to see how photographic reproductions of scantily-clad or nude females can possibly be other than pornographic.  After all, they are not modelling clothes, so they are hardly models in the usual, commercial sense!  On the contrary, they are exposing a part or all of their body, and while this may enter into the realm of aesthetics in certain contexts, it most definitely constitutes a mode of eroticism in others, if only on a very soft-core and therefore moderate basis.





Fundamentally, pornography has to do with obscenity or, more accurately, with the erotic evocation of a sexual response.  Now although most of us may not find the spectacle of a nude girl emphasizing either breasts or vagina or, if attention is focused on her face, the simulation of sexual abandon particularly obscene, nevertheless there are people who would be shocked or revolted by such a spectacle (not to mention the phallic response it may be inducing), and not only among the ranks of the elderly, either!  Certainly, there would have been plenty of moral indignation over such, to us, tepidly erotic poses in, say, Victorian England, where the natural was so much more prevalent, to the lasting detriment of both supernaturalism and antinaturalism alike.  Were there no sexual, and hence pornographic, connotations in most of the photographs we encounter in men's magazines, very few of us would continue to buy them, aesthetics alone being insufficiently entertaining to warrant our regular curiosity.

     So a sexual element does enter into much of the modelling of females and thus, by implication, a degree, no matter how tepid, of pornographic obscenity, since, despite the considerable evolutionary progress which supernatural sex signifies over the natural sexual tradition, sex can never be rendered holy and innocent, must always, in the very sensual nature of the subject, remain suspect and even contemptible from a spiritual point of view.  We are not pagans, and neither should we allow an acknowledgement of the essential goodness of temperate nature to inhibit the growth of a supernatural bias.  Too much theological emphasis on the Father detracts from the Holy Spirit.  Temperate nature and, by implication, gentle sex for reproductive purpose are good, healthy, ordained (in a certain, if limited, sense) by the will of the Creator.  But the supernatural signifies a higher good, the ultimate good (unless, however, one prefers to recognize a distinction in regard to the supra-natural), spiritual rather than sensual, and so demands our allegiance to a much greater extent than the natural - certainly, at any rate, if we are disposed, in consequence of environmental, ethnic, hereditary, and class factors, to progressive life.  For only through the supernatural, whether in sex or art, do we draw nearer to the Holy Spirit, to the goal and destiny of evolutionary striving.

     Yet supernatural sex is still sex, and thus a matter of pleasure rather than the cultivation, through meditation, of pure awareness, even if, in the context of pornography, a much sublimated, intellectualized pleasure co-exists with the more sensual, brute pleasure of orgasm.  Social Transcendentalism could no more overtly encourage supernatural sex than Christianity overtly encouraged natural sex.  But it would have to acknowledge the legitimacy and inevitability of such sex, face-up to it as a fact of life, the least objectionable of a number of alternative sexual practices, the best kind of sexual indulgence from a moral point of view.  In fact, one could argue that, in turning against natural sex, Christianity-proper, meaning Christ-centred Protestantism, indirectly encouraged antinatural sex and, hence, the gradual revolt against natural good that we may characterize as antinatural evil, the negative decadence following upon the heels of the positive classicism of pagan/Catholic naturalism.  Even now, in the late-twentieth century, the Catholic Church sides with the natural against the antinatural - propagative sex against contraceptive sex, birth against abortion, heterosexuality against homosexuality, marriage against divorce, love against promiscuity, intercourse against Onan, and so on.  What Protestantism began, Communism has since continued, and doubtless to the furthermost point of antinaturalness!

     The destiny of the truly Catholic peoples, and their overseas equivalents, lies less in abandoning the natural good for the antinatural evil ... than in progressing from the natural good to the supernatural good, the ultimate good, in accordance with the spiritual requirements of a  truly radical, post-fascist theocracy, so that the sublimation of the natural becomes the sexual norm and propagative responsibility is accordingly transferred, in the course of time, to the supernatural realm of the sperm bank/artificial insemination of Centrist supervision, the utilitarian side of sex separated from its aesthetic or pleasurable side, and the latter elevated, through supernatural/supra-natural pornography, to an absolute status in private sublimated satisfaction - the orgasmic outpourings which may result from this supernatural/supra-natural sexuality to be collected and subsequently donated to sperm banks, where they will be analysed and, if found acceptable, stored for future propagative use, pending the choice of a prospective recipient.  In such fashion the sin of Onan will be avoided, not to mention through the supernatural nature of the sexuality itself, the pornography, whether adult or juvenile, owing nothing to the antinatural.

     For it should not be forgotten that much contemporary pornography is antinatural, a sublimated evil as opposed to a fleshy, palpable evil, the photographic reproduction of sodomitic intercourse being the principal mode of this sexual deviance, with anti-supernaturalism, or warped spirituality, the deplorable result.  As I said earlier, the antinatural begins with the male domination of the female in left-wing heterosexuality.  What I didn't do then, as I now realize I perhaps ought to have, was clarify and define the nature of this male-dominated sexuality, with its liberal overtones.  The same, of course, applies to straight, or female-dominated, heterosexuality, which I defined in terms of a Conservative equivalent.  I dare say that some readers are still puzzling the implications of these omissions.

     However, taking what I believe to be the Liberal equivalent first, I shall define male-dominated sexuality as one in which the male 'takes' the female from behind, so that she is at his sexual mercy, unable to contribute any caressive sexuality to the act - her hands underneath or in front of her, her face turned away from the man, her legs knees downwards and therefore unable to curl round the male's back.  In this belly-downwards position, she is but a passive victim of the male's copulation which, entering her from behind, might almost suggest an anal violation; at any rate, it is the nearest approach to overt antinaturalism, bearing in mind the prominence of the female's rump in this position, the fact that it is directly exposed to the male's assault and inevitably plays a part in erotically stimulating him.  Furthermore, there is no reason why the male should not extend his domination of the female in this position by simultaneously caressing her breasts from behind, as well as kissing and/or biting her nape, earlobes, etc.

     This taking from behind, whether the female be on her hands-and-knees, standing upright, or flat-out on her stomach, constitutes the first, or loosely liberal, stage in the degeneration of sexuality from the classical norm of female-dominated and/or balanced heterosexuality to the most perverse manifestation of the antinatural in communistic homosexuality - the most male-dominated lopsidedness conceivable, the nadir of sexual decadence.  The sexual liberal may not be as evil (antinatural) as the sexual radical, but he is still less than good!  He has revolted against the natural heterosexuality of the female-dominated relationship, which I described as Conservative and which, contrary to superficial impressions, does not imply the riding of the male by the female, i.e. a kind of female copulation, but, on the contrary, the riding of the female face upwards by the male face downwards - in short, a stomach-to-stomach copulation that enables the female to enfold the male with her arms and/or legs and directly inflame his passion, as required.  It is as if, despite the show of male activity, the female has ultimate control and is able, by subtle shifts and endearments, to modify his behaviour according to her desires.  She is also free, if not subject to approaching orgasm, to mould her lips to his and make positive use of her tongue.  She will also be able to stimulate her nipples against her lover's chest, his hands usually being otherwise engaged.  And she will know that the changing expressions on her face will contribute their part to the domination of the male, making him a willing servant of her manifold endearments.

     Well, it may be that this kind of sex is now out-of-date or taboo for many people, but it is still the classical norm wherever civilized naturalism holds sway, a right-wing atomicity favouring the female.  Sexual decadence, by contrast, signifies the gradual ascendancy of the male element to a point where, at its most antinatural, nothing female remains, and only men take part.  Traditionally, this decadence was stigmatized by the denigratory epithet 'queer', and there are still people, even in this extremely decadent age, who are more disposed to its employment when describing homosexual activity in others than to the use of the trendy euphemism 'gay' - a testimony to the extent of the current decadence of, in the main, Western civilization, meaning, of course, the predominantly Protestant civilization of nations such as Britain, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway, the United States, and, paradoxically, France - a nominally Catholic but, for many decades, typically Western nation (as opposed, for instance, to Eire).





In the contemporary West, then, the whole gamut of antinatural sexuality is permissible, and homosexuals - the most radically decadent category of sexual degenerates, with the possible exception of child molesters and paedophiles generally - are entitled to a respect under the law that Oscar Wilde never received and would, no doubt, greatly envy them if he could see their activities from the other side of the grave.  Even the Protestant Church, that bastion of antinatural behaviour, is increasingly disposed to the endorsement and protection of homosexuals, perhaps seeing in them the radical fulfilment of its centuries-old struggle against the natural.  Now 'gays' are considered as 'natural' as everyone else, which, to say the least, is a radical distortion of the truth, considering that, from any objective point of view, they are the most consistently antinatural of all sexual deviants, for whom the uncorrupted, whether heathen or Catholic, have rightly reserved the unflattering epithet 'bent', meaning divorced from the natural and, hence, 'queer' - the sort of word more likely to spring to the lips of a catholic Irishman than a liberal Englishman!

     Be that as it may, I want to make one point particularly clear - namely, that being 'bent', or antinatural, stops at homosexuality, does not and cannot go beyond homosexuality except on sublimated terms, as implying recourse to an antinatural mode of pornography which, in a sense, is less morally degenerate than the actual perverse indulgence of the flesh; though whether as a successor or an alternative to it ... is an open question.  At any rate, I want to make absolutely clear that recourse to naturalistic pornography does not constitute a mode of perversion, but, on the contrary, is the logical antithesis to natural sexuality, being the supernatural sexuality of sublimated heterosexuality, about which the reader will have already learnt enough.  This supersex is the truly progressive, classical, and radical sex of the age, a theocratic sexuality in which the emphasis is on the spiritual, in sublimated sexuality, rather than on the flesh, as in straight, or bourgeois, heterosexuality.  Even the relative variety, making use of two models, is sexually valid, if more as an inducement to voyeurism than to actual masturbation.  Provided the sexuality being simulated is natural rather than antinatural, we are on supernatural territory, if only just.  There is nothing decadent about heterosexual pornography, not even the relative variety, but there is surely a clear manifestation of decadence in the homosexual, male-dominated type, whether involving the sodomization of women or its male-centred counterpart, both of which modes of pornographic antinaturalism must nevertheless be accredited a superior status to the actual fleshy violation of anuses, if only on the basis of their photographic sexuality, the result a sublimated evil, less immoral or obscene than the literal perversions, but still a reflection of sexual decadence.

     The man who makes use of such anti-supernatural pornography for masturbatory purposes is still 'bent', his attention focused on the anus - if visible - of the preferred model, whom he intends to violate subliminally, a more intellectualized decadence, the furthest reach - if one discounts the anal violation of juveniles - of the antinatural, though less evil, paradoxically, than the literal fleshy violation of the excretory organ and simultaneous degradation of the penis, whether in regard to women or men.  The user of homosexual pornography is more like a right-wing Communist than a Fascist, on account of his sublimated antinaturalism, the antinatural ever a left-wing, and hence socialist/communist, phenomenon, but its sublimation in pornography drawing it closer to the supernatural - the truly right-wing fascistic sexuality of heterosexual pornography.

     From the converse point of view, one might argue that recourse to hard-core heterosexual pornography, in which a simulated coupling forces the voyeur into an accessory position, would constitute a left-wing fascistic sexuality, the nearest thing, albeit still nominally supernatural, to the antinatural.... Not the kind of pornography that I use, but still morally preferable to the overtly antinatural variety, with its sublimated evil; just as natural sex is morally superior to antinatural sex, a plus as opposed to a minus.  Nevertheless, anyone who habitually indulges in supernatural sex is unlikely to have much time or inclination for the natural, even though the two kinds of sex, corresponding to conservative and fascist levels of politics, are not mutually exclusive.

     The more a man sublimates his sexual instincts, the less he actually copulates, to paraphrase Baudelaire.  Supernatural sex can be indulged to the exclusion of natural sex, and the same, I dare say, may apply to the distinction between anti-supernatural and antinatural sex.  Admittedly, such extremes will be the exception to the rule at present, particularly in countries with a strong naturalistic and/or atomic tradition, but they are possible.  If, in the future, a supra-natural sex, involving juvenile models, takes over from the supernatural variety, then the likelihood of one's regressing to the naturalistic level will be extremely remote, the supra-natural being beyond the pale of natural relativity.  A Fascist can become a Conservative and/or Republican (in the American party-political sense) in his sexuality and vice versa, but no Social Transcendentalist could become one, since, by that time, natural sex would be taboo.  The natural leads to the supernatural, but the supra-natural belongs to an altogether more absolute part of the evolutionary spectrum!

     Indeed, one could argue that, while the above may hold true in theory, in practice the supernatural could not be attained to without the antinatural coming in-between, since the natural, pertaining to a sensual classicism, is complete in itself, the embodiment of a specific class/environmental ideal.  Few Conservatives are ever likely to become Fascists, since the latter politics reflects a different class-stage of evolution - one more relevant to petty-bourgeois theocrats than to bourgeois democrats.  You don't just evolve from Conservatism and/or Republicanism to Fascism.  Fascism only arose in reaction to Communism and the correlative threat of a Marxist-Leninist take-over - in other words, after the antinatural had undermined the natural and suggested, to right-thinking men, the possibility of supernaturalism as the next logical step, one necessarily hostile to the antinatural.  Thus, as a dialectical materialist would argue, the natural gave rise, as thesis, to an antinatural antithesis, the fusion of which led to a supernatural synthesis, a process which should lead, in due course, to the latter becoming a new thesis against which an anti-supernatural antithesis will arise, to bring about, one way or another, the supra-natural synthesis of the ultimate politics and/or sexuality.

     Such a triadic logic certainly has its appeal, though I cannot quite reconcile myself to a synthesis arising out of two mutually antagonistic theses, as though they would somehow come together and form this new whole when, in point of fact, they are frictional and mutually exclusive, indisposed to fusion but ever antithetical, ever apart.  You cannot derive a synthesis from a friction!  How, then, can you expect the natural and the antinatural, heterosexuality and homosexuality, to combine to form the kind of heterosexual supernaturalism I have been describing on previous pages?  Not for me this dialectic, nor its application to religion, where Father plus Holy Spirit equals Son (though there is a certain paradoxical logic to it, as to so much else).  What I was attempting to underline, before succumbing to this dialectical intrusion, is that whilst, in theory, it may appear that the natural leads to the supernatural, in practice the latter cannot arise before the antinatural has discredited the natural and thus indirectly paved the way for a new, higher classicism - one centred on the spirit rather than on the flesh.

     It is less that the supernatural arises out of the antinatural than as a revolt against it, the desire for a new naturalism now that the old one has been sufficiently discredited by its romantic antagonist, an antagonist which, whether as homosexuality or communism, leaves much to be desired!  Men of good will who revolt against the antinatural evil, though not in the name of the traditional good.  Men of sufficient intelligence and moral calibre as to perceive, amidst all the evil and friction, the possibility of a superior good, appertaining to the supernatural.  And to perceive it precisely because they live in the more artificial environment of the big city and therefore aren't disposed to naturalistic criteria, like a provincial or suburban classicist.

     The antinatural may be evil fools, but they signify a superior evil to the pre-natural variety; they are more akin to perverse electrons (neutrons?) than to absolute protons, pseudo-electrons as opposed to the free-electron supernaturalists who signify the higher possibility - that of a new, ultimate good - and must consequently turn against the antinatural in the name of this new classicism, either Fascist or, on the later and more evolved level, Social Transcendentalist, with a supra-urban bias and a supra-natural sexuality.  A direct link there may be between the supernatural and the supra-natural, but not between the natural and the supernatural!  The antinatural must come in-between, and, to be sure, I find that my own political and, to a limited extent, sexual evolution passed through or, at any rate, paid tribute to the antinatural, if from an essentially supernatural point of view.

     For although I was never a Communist, my 'Socialism' being supplemented by a Neo-Buddhist level of petty-bourgeois transcendentalism, a pro-communist phase came in-between a sort of negative Nietzschean Conservatism (lamenting the destruction of natural values, lamenting, like Spengler, the decline of the West), and a more intensely transcendental fascist phase, during which the national, in relation to Eire, came to supplant the international, and the ground was at last prepared for the subsequent leap from Irish Social Nationalism (not to be confused with bourgeois nationalism) to supra-national Social Transcendentalism, and the eclipse of Socialism by Centrism, the truly theocratic ideological position of what I like to think of as potentially an ultimate world religion - a revolt, in part, against Socialism.

     So Capitalism plus Socialism does not equal Centrism, but, on the contrary, Centrism, signifying the Centrist (theocratic) trusteeship of the means of production for the Truth within a Social Transcendentalist context, emerges as a revolt, in part, against the public ownership of the means of production by the people.  To the extent that the means of production are not owned by the people, the broad masses, Centrism has something in common with Capitalism.  But no more than supernatural sex has in common with natural sex.  If the plutocratic ownership of the means of production is natural, derived from the galactic-world-order of dominion by the strongest, then the meritocratic trusteeship of those means is supernatural, the bureaucratic ownership coming in-between as a kind of antinaturalism, that is to say ownership by the weak and/or stupid rather than, as with theocratic Centrism, trusteeship by the most intelligent.  Capitalism and Socialism, like the natural and the antinatural in sex, can and do exist side-by-side, as in atomic Britain (a neutron control of bound-electron equivalents), but neither of them could co-exist with Centrism in a Social Transcendentalist society.

     Likewise Catholicism and Protestantism can and do exist side-by-side in an open society, the one naturalistic and the other antinaturalistic, but neither of them could co-exist with Social Transcendentalism in a Centrist society.  Neither, needless to say, could natural sex and antinatural sex co-exist with supra-natural sex in such a closed society, the upholder of a theocratic absolutism.  The supernatural variety of sex can and does co-exist, in open-society contexts, with the natural and the antinatural, not to mention the anti-supernatural.  But the supra-natural would be above and beyond the adult pale, and never again could adults, least of all women (become quasi-supermen) be regarded as sexual objects!

     My own sexuality does not extend to the level of teenage juvenile pornography; I am quite resigned to a petty-bourgeois supernaturalism which, as already intimated, I did not get to from a natural base but, on the contrary, from a kind of indirect antinaturalism, or perverse supernaturalism, in which my voyeuristic attention was often focused on the rump of a given female model, and I might well have imagined myself climaxing into her rectum.  This would have corresponded to my pro-Communist phase, though, being pro-Communist from a transcendental point of view, I was also pro-antinatural from a supernatural vantage-point, with regard to female models.  I have never completely abandoned the theocratic, and it is inconceivable that I ever shall, even if I were to acquire myself a female companion in life and became partly naturalistic.





No more than a few days after having written about natural classicism implying a female-dominated heterosexuality, it now occurs to me that I was probably wrong to suppose the classical should be conceived of in this way.  For today I'm a different man, in a manner of speaking, from the one I was then, my subconscious in sleep and conscious mind in wakefulness having reconsidered the contentions put forward, and now, coming to grips with my intellectual honesty and absolutist literary integrity, I am disposed to offer the reader a fresh insight - one that I touched upon but did not expand. (Remember about the selves within the self, the frictions within the absolute?)  I am of course referring to the mention of a balanced sexual relationship between the male and the female, and surely, if anything corresponds to a classical norm, it must be such a balance.

     Well then, how should we conceive of it in relation to heterosexuality?  Simply, I maintain, as implying the passivity of the female while the male proceeds with his copulation, the posture belly-to-belly but not necessarily involving the woman in overtly endearing and/or caressive contributions.  On the contrary, permitting her no more than a vaginal response to the male's thrusts, as she lies fairly limp in his arms and gives herself up to the almost contemplative experience of her pleasure.  Naturally, her facial expression betrays this pleasure, and she makes various complementary sounds.  But it is the male who is forcing them upon her, sexually activating her.  Only her vagina seems to have a contribution of its own to make, in muscular response to the copulative thrusts of her partner's phallus.

     Ah! so a classical heterosexuality, one that every 'good' girl or cultured lady is supposed to uphold.  For too much action on the female's part, too great a contribution to the sexual act, whether with arms, legs, hands, or tongue, would be vulgar, indeed a falling below the classical mean - a kind of pre-classical sexuality in between straight lesbianism and straight heterosexuality, the female-dominated forerunner of the classical balance.

     So now we are beginning to understand the nature of the classical in greater depth and can see that if it corresponds to a Conservative ideal, then female-dominated heterosexuality must correspond, by contrast, to a Whig or Whiggish ideal, the successor to a more overtly lesbian sexuality.  For as soon as women ceased to play a dominating role and became classical, the way was open for men to begin asserting their own domination, a thing they surely did in terms of a liberal taking of the woman from behind, the first stage on the road, as already described, to the eventual absolutist culmination of this trend in communistic homosexuality.

     Of course, the lesbian and the homosexual extremes are still fundamentally relative, involving the participation of two bodies, and are thus, in a limited sense, atomic, though on the basis of a pre-natural and a post-natural or, alternatively, a pro-natural and an antinatural sexuality.  If homosexuality falls short of the genuinely theocratic, then lesbianism must be above and beyond the genuinely autocratic, a kind of autocratic relativity corresponding, in political terms, to a Cromwellian pseudo-tyranny.  Now one could argue that just as the degeneration of sexuality from a classical heterosexual balance went through three stages prior to the homosexual, viz. a male-dominated heterosexuality, a homosexual heterosexuality (anal violation of the female), and a bisexuality (or alternation between men and women), so the regeneration of sexuality from lesbianism passes through lesbian bisexuality (the woman alternating between females and males), a lesbian heterosexuality (the woman riding atop the male), and a female-dominated heterosexuality (the male on top but the female still very active), this latter corresponding to a mature Whiggish right-wing sexuality, the previous stage to an early kind of necessarily left-wing Conservatism (so that, despite my recent rethink, what I wrote about female-dominated relationships being Conservative still stands, if only with regard to the very early Conservatives, or Tories), and the first stage to the original right-wing autocracy of the early Whigs, many of whom were not partial to Cromwellian democracy.

     So it seems that we can plot the evolution of the pro-natural no less than the devolution of the antinatural, and with more or less approximate political correlations, the one leading from early to late Whiggism via Conservatism, the other leading from early to late Liberalism, or Social Democracy, via Fabianism, or Democratic Socialism - the former beginning in a kind of Western subnaturalism of Puritan lesbianism, the latter culminating in a kind of Western supernaturalism of Communist homosexuality, the natural balance of Conservative heterosexuality coming somewhere in-between.  And I say 'kind of' advisably, since, as already indicated, the subnatural and the supernatural extremes must correspond to genuinely autocratic and theocratic sexualities respectively, viz. erotic sculpture and pornography, whereas the Western equivalents to these pagan and transcendental absolutes are rather more democratic, whether on the pseudo-authoritarian level of Cromwellian Parliamentarianism or on the quasi-dictatorial level of Leninist Communism, the latter no less a theocratic democracy than the former was an autocratic democracy, both of them distinct from the genuinely autocratic and theocratic extremes which, in a sense, pre- and post-date Western civilization.

     Of course, pornography - using that term in a general way - exists in abundance in the contemporary democratic West.  But pornographic sex is not truly characteristic of the West, having an outsider's status akin to Fascism, and pornographers, or those who prefer to masturbate with the help of a photographic model, are still the exception to the rule, to be denigrated by the democratic majority as 'wankers' or 'jerks', and this whether we are dealing with liberals or radicals, Protestants or Socialists.  For the West is essentially a democratic civilization, a relativity in between autocratic and theocratic absolutes, the one pagan and the other transcendental.  Even Russia is linked to this civilization as an extrapolation from it which stands between the democratic tradition and the theocratic future, stemming from the former whilst indirectly intimating of the latter.  We can no more regard Soviet Communism as theocratic than ... Catholic Christianity as autocratic; though it stemmed from a pagan tradition which, particularly in its Greek manifestation, placed considerable emphasis on erotic sculpture and, unlike Catholicism, could hardly be described as encouraging natural sex!

     Neither, for that matter, could early Indian civilization, with its highly erotic temple sculpture, a truly autocratic mode of sexuality.  How chaste, by comparison, are the innumerable Catholic sculptures of the Blessed Virgin!  We cannot conceive of their giving rise to lewd thoughts or actions, even though a sculptural link exists with the pagan past.  Sculptures are usually single, not in groups, whereas paintings - the principal manifestation of democratic art - prefer the group to the individual, some of them to the point of excess, the canvas crammed with tiny figures, as in Bruegel.  Democratic sex and politics likewise prefer the group or, at any rate, the couple to the individual, and this no less in an absolute age than in a relative one.  If a correlation exists between Parliamentarianism and lesbianism on the one hand and ... Communism and homosexuality on the other hand, then such a correlation must also exist between Conservatism and heterosexuality - the democratic balance of an atomic classicism.  Compared with this heterosexual classicism, the homosexual one is surely decadent, since stemming, like Communism, from the same democratic tradition.  But it does conform to a new classicism, a new balance, the antithesis of the lesbian classicism of post-autocratic Parliamentarianism.

     I am, as the reader will already have gathered, a Social Transcendentalist and, hence, a radical theocrat, not someone who intends to further his cause in Britain, where democracy holds sway, but in theocratic Eire, where it doesn't, at least not to any appreciable extent, compliments, traditionally, of the Catholic Church.  Despite having lived for some thirty years in England, I haven't really become an Englishman, and neither am I ever likely to become one, given my ethnic constitution and hereditary influences.  I despise democracy and shall continue to despise it, whether in its liberal or radical, genuine or 'pseudo' manifestations, until I die, by which time Eire may well have grown accustomed to a Social Transcendentalist dispensation and, paradoxically, the democratically-engineered supersession of democracy, not to mention obsolescent theocracy (rather more autocratic than theocratic in essence, and thus pre-democratic).  As I have repeatedly emphasized, democracy, like Protestantism, furthers the antinatural, particularly on its left-wing side, and thus signifies the rule of 'the weak', who are, as often as not, also 'the bad' and 'the stupid'.

     One could even distinguish, chronologically, between 'the weak' and 'the stupid', taking the former as applying, particularly in its bourgeois manifestation, to a liberal democracy, and the latter, as proletarians, to a radical democracy, 'the weak' superseding the rule of 'the strong' in aristocratic autocracy, 'the stupid' preceding the lead of 'the clever' in meritocratic theocracy, 'the weak' corresponding to a plutocratic democracy, 'the stupid' to a bureaucratic democracy, the two co-existent within modern Western liberal democracies, the extremism of 'the strong' and 'the clever' outside the establishment pale, assuming they exist at all.  Certainly, republics are supposed to be free of the autocratically 'strong', even if they contain elements of the theocratically 'clever', who are more likely to be outsiders than anything else, and no less in their sexual preferences than in their ideological ones.  If 'the weak' are lesbian and 'the stupid' homosexual, then 'the clever' are almost invariably pornographic, meaning voyeuristic and masturbatory.  Yet not necessarily on too frequent a basis!  Over-indulgence is more usually a scourge of 'the stupid' than of 'the clever' who, by contrast, are disposed to moderation.  And why, you may wonder?  Simply because they perceive sex to be a comparatively low indulgence, with depressing and humiliating overtones.  In other words, a bum experience, both during and, in particular, after the act.

     You have doubtless heard of post-coital triste, or sadness, and most of you will surely have experienced it!  And worse: not simply a feeling of sadness, but a kind of headache, a numbness and washed-out feeling which seems worse the following morning than the previous night.  And this no less the case whether the flesh had been indulged with another person or independently of another.  Certainly, masturbatory orgasm is not immune from consequences both depressing and humiliating!  You might even fear that you had strained something down there, brought about or put yourself on the road to a hernia.  Whatever the case, you're almost bound to feel washed-out and numb the morning after.  So you recognize the fact that sex isn't only a pleasure but, like most pleasure-inducing phenomena, something with painful consequences, too.  Not wise to indulge the flesh every day, then!  Better to limit such indulgences to once a week or twice a month, as you prefer.

     This I do, since I'm fairly sensible and indisposed to the cultivation of a bum experience.  I drink wine - white as opposed to red - but infrequently and in moderation, and the same applies to sex.  I don't smoke, finding in tobacco the means to a depressing end.  I like to cultivate a clean feeling in my head, to get high, in the best sense, through intellectual or spiritual preoccupations.  I know this has to do with me as the product of various positive hereditary influences, not to mention a temperament that fights shy of vulgarity, an intellect second to none.  I am, as you may have guessed, one of 'the clever', and thus I refrain from sensual excesses, finding greater mental satisfaction in the spiritual life, disliking the bum overtones of bodily indulgence.

     But there are a whole host of people - 'the stupid', as we may call them - who are less well-constituted and more given, in consequence, to sensual indulgence.  Not only do they regularly fuck and/or wank; they regularly drink and smoke, to boot!  Thus they are more or less permanently enmeshed in a bum state-of-mind, unable to break away from it but, as if to compensate themselves for this misfortune, only too disposed to take it for granted as their, nay, the human condition.  What comes out of their mouths, as vulgarity, is but a reflection of what is in their heads as a bum condition, a permanent depression.  We cannot be blamed for regarding them as lower class.  The quality of their lives and minds leaves something to be desired - at least from our more elevated point-of-view.  We would not wish to drag our peace-of-mind down to something approximating their level through over-indulgence of the body.  We prefer being sober to drunk, clear-headed to muggy, alert to lethargic, impressed to depressed, 'high' to 'down'.

     But 'the stupid' know no better, being unable to appreciate and indulge in higher things, for which, after all, one must be clever.  As I say, they take their condition for granted or, at any rate, most of them do.  For whilst a few may envy their betters, the majority prefer to disparage and slander them in the interests of their own mundane integrity.  We need not expect things to change very much in this respect, over the coming decades.  There will continue to be a distinction between the clever minority and the stupid majority, the meritocratic leadership and the democratic led.  Paradoxically, however, it is from the ranks of 'the led' that the candidates for evolutionary transformation will emerge, subject to Centrist stipulation.  Yet that is a subject for another work, and I have something more to say about sex and its relation to decadence, before I contemplate any such departure.

     We have noted that promiscuity is a scourge of 'the stupid', since it results in their becoming ever more stupid as time passes.  But such quantitative maximization is the inevitable corollary of the qualitative minimization commensurate with sexual decadence of a radical degree.  For once the qualitative side of sex is reduced, as it must be the more antinatural practices are supplanting natural ones, it follows, as night the day, that the quantitative side will be stepped-up in order to compensate, in some sense, for the reduction of quality.  In other words, sex must be indulged in as frequently as possible to make up for the absence of real quality - at least, in a certain necessarily quantitative way.  Sex is thereby degraded from its former qualitative height to a mere materialist, sensual thing devoid of emotional commitment ('no strings'), the participants mere 'bonking' automata on a never-ending roundabout of lacklustre promiscuity, whether male or female, so-called heterosexuals or homosexuals.

     Yet this runs parallel, after all, with the political decadence, the degeneration, I mean, from a Church/State dichotomy to a State absolutism, from Christianity to Communism, from the heart to the flesh, from a distinction between quality and quantity to a quantitative absolutism.  If the natural are faithful and chaste, then the antinatural are most assuredly unfaithful and promiscuous.  This is the quantitative decadence.  Yet, paradoxically, this trend, in rebelling against a former norm, brings its own qualitative decadence in train, which results in further quantitative decadence in due course, so that the process gathers momentum as it heads towards the nadir of sexual degeneracy.  If formerly, during the heyday of qualitative sex, people were generally moderate in their sexual indulgences, preferring no more than one or two encounters a week, with the freedom of the quantitative, on the other hand, they are more likely to be disposed to one or two encounters a day, and not necessarily with the same partner, either!  But this promiscuity, whilst it may be free from emotional attachments, is far from being free from adverse consequences, not only in the sense I outlined earlier ... with regard to headaches and the like, but in terms of the atrophying of the male's seed, the absence of spermatic maturation attendant upon the greater frequency of the sexual act.

     For like any other seed, sperm has to be cultivated, and it won't become mature if subject to too frequent an ejaculation!  On the contrary, the promiscuous sperm that enters the woman's vagina will be thoroughly immature, that is to say weak and ill-formed, and if conception occurs (which is not guaranteed in a society partial to maximum contraception, seemingly with good reason!), the consequence will almost certainly be a weak or ill-formed child, indeed someone who will subsequently become an immature adult, a veritable cretin or moron, for whom the only possible course of action, aside from vulgar and violent antisocial behaviour, will be greater promiscuity, and so on, in a process leading not merely to the nadir of sexual degeneracy, but to the nadir of racial degeneration as well - in short, to the corruption and ultimate destruction of the race.  For you don't breed a healthy, strong, and morally upright race from atrophied sperm, nor, for that matter, from mothers whose age at conception is below the adult, indeed scarcely above the age of consent!

     If immature sperm is a significant factor in the production of moral cretins, it is by no means the only one!  An immature female is no-less likely to contribute to the degeneration of the race, her offspring destined to become a real greenhorn in adult life, or what may purport to be such.  Inevitably, when the process of degeneration is taken far enough, the race in question will either destroy itself or be destroyed from without by a stronger, less decadent people.  Some of it may be salvageable, and in that event interbreeding with more naturalistic, comparatively uncorrupted peoples will lead to a racial regeneration or, more probably, to the creation of a new race, morally superior to the old one.  Perhaps such a process is already under way in contemporary Britain, where sexual decadence is approaching the nadir of promiscuity and it only remains for pederastic paedophilia to be legalized ... for it to reach rock bottom?  Probably that won't happen, at least one hopes not.  But there is no guarantee that the age of consent won't drop further and the frequency of fornication rise to a point where almost anyone and anything will do for a quick 'bonk'.  If emotional ties are no longer obligatory in sexual relationships, then there would seem to be no reason why children - boys as well as girls - should be excluded from the ever-widening range of promiscuity, with or without a thorough grounding in Freud.  When that happens, there is arguably justification enough for the dissolution of what remains of a once-proud race!  Better that it should be bastardized through interbreeding with peoples of a morally superior race ... than allowed to degenerate any further, assuming, of course, that it hadn't been killed off in a nuclear war or through enslavement to the nadir of antinatural behaviour, AIDS running riot!

     In Ireland, by contrast, it would not be interbreeding with the antinatural but their exclusion which would permit of a supernatural upgrading of the true Irish people, in accordance with theocratic allegiance.  As Communism includes, in the name of a radical democracy, so, like its Fascist forerunner, theocratic Centrism must exclude, in the name of radical theocracy, those people who could not, at this point in time, be radically upgraded in such a way.  The Catholic Church in Ireland, particularly in Eire, has long opposed and inhibited the development of antinaturalism, and thus, in its paradoxical way, saved the people for the possibility of supernatural and/or supra-natural upgrading ... with the advent of theocratic Centrism.  Unlike Britain, Eire is not partial to homosexuality, and neither is it greatly democratic.  A time will come when what the Church began, the Centre will finish.  When the progression to a truly theocratic supernaturalism will be in order, and nothing democratic or homosexual be encouraged.  Such a progression won't, however, come about without a struggle, particularly with democratic interests, but it must come eventually, if justice is to be done and the true Irish people duly be saved to the true religion of Social Transcendentalism.



LONDON 1984 (Revised 2011)






AddThis Social Bookmark Button