Is life worth living? Yes for the alpha bitches, and no for the pseudo-omega sons-of-bitches; no for the pseudo-alpha daughters-of-bastards, as it were, and yes for the omega bastards on both noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal, upper- and lower-class planes. It's really as simple as that. Life is only worth living for the hegemonic gender, whether in the alpha (female) or in the omega (male), not for the subordinate gender, whether as pseudo-omega (pseudo-male) or as pseudo-alpha (pseudo-female). So there is a sense in which the 'once born' or sensual life of the heathen is worth living from a female point of view, and the 'reborn' or sensible life of the Christian worth living from a male standpoint. There it is.
The British and the English in particular have often been praised, usually by themselves or by people akin to them, for their moderation, exemplified, not least, by parliamentary compromise and a refusal to entertain extremism, whether of the left or the right, but this, I am confident, has a lot to do, over and above historical experience, with the non-gender nature of the English language which, fighting shy of female and male alternatives either side of a neutral (or neuter) middle-ground, tends to condition an almost androgynous perspective which can result in the much-vaunted liberal moderation upon which the British would seem to pride themselves. It is almost inconceivable that the situation that arose in Germany in the 1920s and '30s, when society was torn asunder by communist (female) and nazi (male) antagonism, could have happened in Britain, where Communists and Fascists would have been more likely, in the long-term, to come to some kind of parliamentary arrangement, comparatively few and far between as their numbers were, whether because of genuine female/male ideological opposition or, more likely, because political extremism, like other forms of extremism, simply wasn't germane to a mindset conditioned, over several generations, by the gender-neutral nature of the English language. The well-documented incapacity of the British and the English in particular for ideology or, more accurately, for ideological idealism and transcendentalism, which even Nietzsche was aware of and drew attention to, must owe something if not everything to the want or, if you prefer, absence of gender from the English language, the androgynous relativity of which, deeply atomic in character, precludes a truly male aspiration and orientation towards ideological radicalism from transpiring, in consequence of which the concept of 'fighting the good fight' of male idealism against female materialism is either non-existent or reinterpreted to suit a more gender neutral disposition partial to parliamentary democracy and, more specifically, to a right-wing orientation favouring private enterprise at the expense of all forms of socialism, including the non-Marxist (republican socialist) variety, as well as to any threat to that parliamentary bias posed by either unrestricted autocracy or papal theocracy, neither of which would be acceptable to a mindset whose concept of what is 'good' and constitutive, moreover, of 'the good fight' never strays very far from the benefits accruing to private enterprise within a polity, characterizable as parliamentary, more partial to that than to anything else. This, however, is not my concept of 'the good fight', and whilst I am no advocate of papal theocracy, with its claim to infallibility, I most certainly regard such a fight in relation to religion and, most especially, to what I term Social Theocracy (as the means to Social Transcendentalism), to which, as the reader may know, I have dedicated a not-inconsiderable proportion of my writings for several decades past.
What is more important work or health? Health, of course. No health, no work.
What is more important play or health? Play, of course. No play, no health. There is unquestionably a gender distinction of sorts between work and play, but only in the sense that one conceives of work somatically, or in relation to soma (body), and conceives of play, by contrast, psychically, or in relation to psyche (mind). Then a gender distinction can be said to exist, though one also has to allow for play of a workful nature, so to speak, and for work of a playful nature, the former pseudo-somatic and the latter pseudo-psychic, as if intended for and/or reflective of gender subordinate positions conditioned as such positions tend to be by the hegemonic gender's bias, be that bias somatic (and properly workful) or psychic (and properly playful), with female and male gender implications that point to pseudo-male (workful play) and pseudo-female (playful work) corollaries, including, no doubt, physical sports like football in the one case and mental tasks like bookkeeping or shorthand typing in the other case, as between footballers and secretaries, the great majority of whom, in each case, will be what I have described as pseudo-male and pseudo-female respectively.
Some would argue that both fusion music, or jazz-rock and/or blues-rock, and rock classical are subversive of rock proper, meaning rock 'n' roll-derived subgenres, as it were, like hard rock, soft rock, progressive rock, punk rock, heavy metal, and, to be sure, there may be some truth in such an argument. But the fact remains that, axially considered, jazz-rock is no less axially preferable to jazz than rock classical to so-called classical music from a rock 'n' roll point-of-view, since not really identifiable with the upper and lower polarities of state-hegemonic axial criteria (northwest to southeast poles of the intercardinal axial compass) but, rather, peripheral to the lower pole, in lapsed Catholic/republican socialist vein, of the church-hegemonic axis (southwest to northeast poles of the intercardinal axial compass) whose upper pole can only be some form of superclassicism like electronica. Therefore to have what can be inferred to be the Protestant, or lapsed Protestant, proletariats 'on board', as it were, of a type of music more readily identifiable with a proletariat of Catholic descent, no matter how subversive of the latter the former may appear in each of their effectively antithetical manifestations, is surely preferable to not having them 'on board' at all, but to being confronted, instead, by a jazz/classical polarity which is not so much axially subversive as diametrically inimical to rock 'n' roll. It is to be expected that in the future event of a collapse of state-hegemonic axial criteria (presumably brought about by a radical modification of church-hegemonic axial criteria), the proletariats who have rejected jazz in favour of jazz-rock (fusion) and classical music in favour of rock classical, whom I have theoretically contended to be of Protestant descent, would be more likely to serve justice, or to support the serving of justice, on the prime movers up and down the state-hegemonic axis than would anybody more closely and therefore axially aligned with such movers, whether in relation to jazz or to classical or, indeed, to anything else recognizably state hegemonic, and to serve or support the serving of such justice in the interests of their own subsequent middle- and lower-tier amalgamation, as ex-Nonconformists and ex-Anglicans, with the upper-tier ex-Catholics, so to speak, on what would be a 'stepped up', or resurrected, church-hegemonic axis commensurate with 'Kingdom Come' and, more specifically, to what has previously been described, in certain earlier books, as the Triadic Beyond, a largely self-explanatory term for what lies beyond the present structures of society. Such justice, brought to bear on the prime movers of state-hegemonic somatic licence and the profiteering from the financing of said licence by their polar counterparts, would be a precondition of their subsequent entitlement, these ex-Protestants, to church-hegemonic status, whether on the middle tier under the saved (and for females counter-damned) from rock proper, as presumably for people who had been chiefly instrumental in the production of rock classical, or on the bottom tier, as presumably for people who had been chiefly instrumental in the production of jazz-rock (including blues-rock), whom I would incline to suspect were more Anglican than Nonconformist in what had been their Protestant allegiances, and therefore traditionally closer to mainstream jazz than to mainstream classical. Be that as it may, all this is of course merely speculation about a hypothetical scenario and should not be taken as gospel, even though I believe it corresponds to the overall ethnic reality of how things actually are, or should be logically inferred as being, irrespective of exceptions to the rule or illogical associations on the part of various individuals whose cultural preferences, for one reason or another, do not necessarily follow from an ethnic precondition. One thing I will say for sure is that if any one type of music could be said to have been really subversive of rock 'n' roll, not least in its hard rock and progressive rock permutations, it would surely have been punk rock, which was not merely peripheral to rock proper but, rather, a direct assault on it, as though from persons of a hard-line republican tendency who simply spat on the remaining vestiges of Catholic sensibility or ethnicity in mainstream rock in the interests of a descent into the musical equivalent of socialist anarchy, with an unbridled instrumental and vocal energy that reflected the youthful ardour of a generation at loggerheads with the rock norms of their parents.
What can be said of a man coming along the street in pleated trousers? All sorts of stupid things, of course, but more insightfully and even obviously: that he would not appear to be somebody who has been down on his hands and knees hammering or drilling or plastering or scrubbing or whatever. There is a good chance that he may even be a gentleman, nurturally if not naturally averse to any kind of manual labour. Which would indicate that he was less working class than middle class, would it not?
Generally speaking, 'the bad' die young of unnatural causes, and 'the good' die old of natural causes. And this contrary to the 'accepted wisdom' of fools.
My books have always emphasized content over form, for the are essentially books of ideas that strive toward contentment, or psychic self-satisfaction, through truth, the subjectivistic 'objective', as it were, of philosophy. If I feel I have 'got it right', or accurately described and/or defined something, be it ever so intangible and requiring whatever modifications of existing terminology, I am happy, that is to say, intellectually and morally content. But such contentment only comes in relation to the type of books I write, and would not be true of writers whose 'objectives' were less subjective.
When I was a youth, back in the late 1960s, guys with short cropped hair (and Doc Martin boots, turned-up denims, braces, etc.) were normally regarded as skinheads. Now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, guys with short cropped hair wouldn't 'cut it' as skinheads (except perhaps in the conventional or traditional sense) because many guys choose to shave their head (in addition to their face and possibly even body hair), and such shaven heads, strange to say, are not regarded as the mark of skinheads, since distinct from the culture that sprang up in the late 'sixties and was the antithesis to the long-haired culture of 'freaks' or 'hippies', and a kind of counterpart to that between mods and rockers of the mid-sixties which had automotive motivations in the distinction between scooters and motorbikes, a factor less relevant to the skinhead phenomenon, with its closer association with football hooliganism, neo-nazism, and a general yobbism that, in some respects, presaged the punks of the late '70s. But even if a contemporary shaven head is literally more 'skinhead'-like in the physical sense than were most of the so-called skinheads of the late '60s, with their closely-cropped hair, it is still a distinct category and even culture in its own right, and should not be confounded with either cropped hair or baldness, since whereas the former is traditionally the preserve of the so-called skinheads, even if less culturally identifiable with them these days than before, the latter is due to hair loss, usually though not invariably through the process of ageing, and a guy who shaves his head, whilst he may look bald to others, is not necessarily somebody suffering from hair-loss but may well be and in the more youthful instances almost certainly is somebody given to an overzealous attitude to shaving which may well reflect a masculine or even macho contempt for hair and, especially in the case of long hair, for the effeminacy or cultural irrelevance, going back to the late '60s, often associated with it. Obviously, the commercial availability, these days, of home shaving kits, complete with clippers, trimmers, scissors, and all the rest of it, has contributed enormously to the trend for shaven heads, as has the ready availability of well-lined hoods on zipper jackets of one type of another, and I can see no reason why this should not continue to be the case well into the future, since inventions cannot be undone, and once they come into common usage the trend is set on an irreversible course that will appeal to those for whom hair is either a nuisance or an anachronistic irrelevance having a variety, depending on the style, of undesirable connotations, if not both.
You cannot have all predators and no prey or all prey and no predators, for then the predators would be no more predatory than the prey prey, or objects for predation. Likewise you cannot have all advantaged and no disadvantaged or all disadvantaged and no advantaged, for then the advantaged would be no more advantaged than the disadvantaged disadvantaged. You always have a combination of both, with more disadvantaged than advantaged, more prey than predators. Otherwise there can be neither. Such is the distinction between 'the Few' and 'the Many' the predatory or advantaged upper class and the preyed-upon or disadvantaged lower class, the latter necessarily being far more numerous, as masses, than the former, as elites. The masses are not morally superior to the elites. On the contrary, it is the elites who hold the high ground, both literally and metaphorically. Such moral superiority as does exist is rather more between one type of elite and another or one type of mass and another, with the sensibility of inner values counting for more than the sensuality of outer ones in the moral estimation of those who hold to some form of sensibility under what normally transpires to being a male hegemony, whether ethereal or corporeal, noumenal or phenomenal, theocratic or plutocratic, metaphysical or physical.
They say the exception proves the rule, but it is also the case that the rule necessitates the exception, like the artist, philosopher, seer, etc. Otherwise what a boring and predictable state-of-affairs! Don't trust triangles! The triangular, in whatever walk of life, is in a pact with the Devil, that is, with all aspects of metachemistry, including the objective beauty of free will, whose criminal nature or, more correctly, supernature, in metachemical free soma, is intentional. Some regard mainstream life, that euphemism for what has been co-opted (one way or another) to the triangular, as sacrosanct. I don't. Greatness has always stood out from the crowd, feared and worshipped by the Many as the prerogative of the Few.
Intentionality wars upon intellectuality as instinctuality upon emotionality, albeit on axially polar as opposed to inter-axial terms. One could call this a direct albeit gender differentiated as opposed to an indirect kind of warfare. In overall axial terms, intentionality indirectly combats intellectuality through a subordinate pseudo-emotionality, whereas instinctuality indirectly combats emotionality through a subordinate pseudo-intellectuality. Conversely, from the standpoint of the sensibly 'inner' as opposed to sensually 'outer' values, intellectuality indirectly combats intentionality through a subordinate pseudo-instinctuality, whereas emotionality indirectly combats instinctuality through a subordinate pseudo-intentionality. The polarity between intentionality/pseudo-emotionality and intellectuality/pseudo-instinctuality can be logically associated with state-hegemonic axial criteria stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, whereas the polarity between instinctuality/pseudo-intellectuality and emotionality/pseudo-intentionality can be logically associated with church-hegemonice axial criteria stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, to begin, in each axial case, with the alpha-west and conclude with the omega-east. Therefore a direct gender polarity only exists between intentionality and pseudo-instinctuality (overall female) and pseudo-emotionality and intellectuality (overall male) in the case of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but between instinctuality and pseudo-intentionality (overall female) and pseudo-intellectuality and emotionality (overall male) in the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.
1. In relation to its specifically hegemonic elements, the polarity between intentionality and pseudo-instinctuality, the former hegemonically noumenal and the latter subordinately phenomenal, is primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (overall female), whereas that between intellectuality and pseudo-emotionality, the former hegemonically phenomenal and the latter subordinately noumenal, is secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (overall male).
2. Contrariwise, the polarity between emotionality and pseudo-intellectuality, the former hegemonically noumenal and the latter subordinately phenomenal, is primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (overall male), whereas that between instinctuality and pseudo-intentionality, the former hegemonically phenomenal and the latter subordinately noumenal, is secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (overall female).
All our lives long we are engaged in a gender war compounded by other factors, like class, ethnicity, occupation, etc., which can only be won by males on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, not on those of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, where the female is noumenally hegemonic and therefore sovereign on primary terms. But it can only be definitively won, this gender war, if the pseudo-intellectually sinful are saved to graceful emotionality (joy), so that the instinctual (who are less sinful than pseudo-evil and even, in freely somatic state-subordinate terms, pseudo-criminal) are deprived of subordinate allies and prey and duly condemned to counter-damnation in the form of pseudo-intentionality as the subordinate corollary of that tempered emotionality that makes for sanctity, pseudo-metachemistry for ever under the sway of metaphysics, like the proverbial neutralized dragon under the saintly heel. The 'want' of emotional sensibility in females is endemic to the gender and is not an anomalous characteristic of this or that female. Even intellectual sensibility is usually beyond their capacities, which will normally allow for no more than a pseudo-intentional deference to the emotional sensibility of joy in the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, and a pseudo-instinctual deference to the intellectual sensibility of knowledge in the case of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a pseudo-sensual deference, in each case, that would not obtain without the institutionalized continuity of hegemonic pressure from the male gender, since it is by no means natural to females but, rather, a product of their pseudo-female subordination to male hegemonic criteria in one or another degree, depending on the plane, of free psyche/bound soma or, in their case, of pseudo-free psyche/pseudo-bound soma, with ratio implications that are the pseudo-sensual converse of their male counterparts in both phenomenal and noumenal sensibility.
Are you stressed out (by love) or blessed in (through joy) by the music you listen to. If the former, then it is obviously no good. If the latter, then at least you know it is headed in the right direction from a male standpoint. Whitesnake is the band I love to hate the most because they are so, so given to sex, love, women, romance, etc. that I have to turn to a band like Iron Maiden (!) which I hate to love but do because, to me, they are the perfect antidote to Whitesnake and to the more prominent rock 'n' roll sons-of-bitches generally. In fact, to my way of thinking Whitesnake and Iron Maiden are the alpha and omega of British rock music, rather like the dunces and the clever, the foolish and the wise, the romantic and the esoteric. No wonder most relatively sane males who know anything about hard rock/heavy metal prefer Iron Maiden; for, despite the manifestly unattractive nature of that name, you would have to be kind of mad (or madly in love and/or on a gender-bender trip) to be overly enthusiastic about bands like Whitesnake, the narrow focus of whose lyrics makes even singers like Ian Gillan and Glynn Hughes, never mind Mick Jagger and Christ Farlowe, appear comparatively broad-minded.
By way of contrasting Association Football with Gaelic Football, the free psyche and bound soma of physics over (a plane up at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) the pseudo-free psyche and pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-chemistry would suggest that, in the case of Association Football (which I believe should be correlated with this male-dominated element/pseudo-element pairing), the free psyche of physics and the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-chemistry could be regarded as correlating with the entitlement to head the ball (one way or another, viz physically high or pseudo-chemically low, climbing or diving), and the bound soma of the one and pseudo-bound soma of the other with the penalization of ball handling, as of the ball being wilfully or accidentally handled, which can, however, be kicked (one way or another, viz physically high or pseudo-chemically low, on the volley or along the ground), whereas the free soma and bound psyche of chemistry over (a plane up at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass) the pseudo-free soma and pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-physics would suggest that, in the case of Gaelic Football (which I believe should be correlated with this female-dominated element/pseudo-element pairing) the free soma of chemistry and pseudo-free soma of pseudo-physics could be regarded as correlating with the entitlement to handle the ball (one way or another, viz chemically high or pseudo-physically low, whether in the air or on the bounce), and the bound psyche of the one and pseudo-bound psyche of the other with a taboo on heading the ball, which can nevertheless be kicked (one way or another, viz over the bar between the extended uprights or into the net of the goal below, whether or not this implies a chemical/pseudo-physical state-subordinate distinction as opposed to a chemical/pseudo-physical church-hegemonic one in which hands or fists have been used in the scoring process). Therefore it would appear that the opposite natures of Gaelic Football and Association Football derive, in no small part, from the elements and pseudo-elements, corresponding to a hegemonic gender and subordinate pseudo-gender parallel, with which they can and, I believe, should be correlated largely, I have to say, with ethnic associations in mind which distinguish what appertains, in mass Irish Catholic vein, to the foot of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis from what appertains, in mass British Protestant (nonconformist) vein, to the foot of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis namely our aforementioned distinction between chemistry and pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and, across the axial divide, physics and pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point thereof, the former polar to the northeast point of the said compass, as in sports terms to Hurling, and the latter polar to the northwest point of it, as to Rugby, and not least, I would guess, in relation to Rugby Union. The above-mentioned planes are of course volume over pseudo-mass, the former volumetric and the latter massed, in the case of chemistry/pseudo-physics, and mass over pseudo-volume, the former massive and the latter voluminous, in the case of physics/pseudo-chemistry, both of which would stand as phenomenal (corporeal) counterparts to the noumenal (ethereal) planes of space and time, whether with regard to space over pseudo-time, the former spatial and the latter sequential, in the case of metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics (at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass), or to time over pseudo-space, the former repetitive and the latter spaced, in the case of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry (at the northeast point of the said compass), where not Gaelic Football and Association Football but, as noted above, Rugby and Hurling would seem to be the most credible candidates, within the overall context of the British Isles, for two such antithetical sports.
When the average man abandons 'the world' for 'God in Heaven', as for a (fully) metaphysical approach to life, monkeys will have turned into monks.
Does a late Picasso look like an early Picasso? Does a late Dali look like an early Dali? Does a late Braque look like an early Braque? Or, for that matter, an elderly Picasso like a young Picasso, an elderly Dali like a young Dali, an elderly Braque like a young Braque? No, of course not! Then why should my late writings, the products of an elderly John O'Loughlin, be like the early ones, the novels and short stories, dialogues and essays, of a youthful John O'Loughlin? If I hadn't evolved my writing style or approach to writing over the course of several decades, passing through a corresponding number of phases, there would surely be something wrong with me as a writer and no less as a person. Believe it or not, it actually takes courage and no little determination to sit down at one's desk and systematically 'do one's own thing' independently of literary convention and the commercial appetite for fiction or drama or some other mass-market predilection. In truth, not many people have the ability to be true to themselves, know what they are doing is uncommercial and unconventional, yet still press on with it regardless because they happen to believe in it and consider it to be inherently necessary or justified. That, to my mind, is the mark of a true artist, whose originality, uniqueness, and determination to be true to himself, to what he believes is true, irrespective of what other people or even artists may think, manifests his creative genius. So don't expect anything resembling conventional literature from me nothing resembling a 'book', with a beginning, a middle, and an end, other than in the sense that no form of protracted literary composition can avoid having a beginning, a middle, and an end in relation to itself, its very existence as a piece of writing. Little by little the bricks of my philosophic logic have stacked up into an edifice that is both strong and true, tall and round, with a capacity to withstand the tests of time and the gusts of criticism which will probably blow around it in years to come.
They hide their mediocrity behind a veil of silence, whose inscrutable obstinacy threatens to stifle one's creative impulses. But struggle on regardless one must, if one's freedom of mind isn't to be unduly undermined by the cynical void that resentfully surrounds it on all sides from what are more usually the antichrist champions of bodily freedom. Sometimes silence is as demoralizing as noise, though when the one technique fails there is always the other for the enemies of thought and philosophical endeavour to fall back on, countering freedom of mind with freedom of body, or the mental with the physical.
How could anyone who purports to be Christian possibly be a dancer?
Only an androgynous liberal would contend that mental freedom depends upon bodily freedom and should never be pursued for its own sake. But even he has to be distinguished from those who oppose mental freedom from the standpoint of bodily freedom. Those who seek a compromise between bodily freedom and mental freedom are always somewhere in between the champions of bodily freedom on the one hand and the practitioners of mental freedom on the other, like a liberal between left- and right-wing alternatives, or a businessman between sportsmen and artists. Actually, the endeavour to maintain a balance between body and mind, whilst it may appear liberal, is nonetheless a fair approach to the upbringing of children and youths, since it is not the business of mainstream education to instil a bias one way or the other but to pursue a more or less neutral path that, appertaining to the middle-ground, does not strive to prejudice this way or that at the expense of the individual student's innate disposition, which, in any case, time alone will reveal to be either suited to a compromise stance or more fitted for a bodily or mental bias, as the case may be. Once the individual understands who or what he is, then it is up to him to pursue the course best suited to himself, whether that results in a bodily bias, a bias towards the body within a liberal framework, a bias towards the mind within a liberal framework, or, indeed, a mental bias such that, in transcending liberal options, effectively repudiates the life of bodily freedom, as of manual labour and physical sport. Certainly the greatest philosophers and thinkers do not become such through bodily compromise! Rather they are creatures of the mind, and no-one who was less than that could hope to excel in the world of ideas and stand, ultimately, in the front rank of philosophical endeavour. Conversely, no great sportsman, shall we say, became pre-eminent in his field of competitive physicality by studying Schopenhauer or Nietzsche every day.
Those who can't think for themselves end up advising others (as well as being advised by others of a like persuasion).
The only thing worse than a thoughtless woman is a thoughtless child.
They run from their own company into the company of others, as into the clutches of wolves.
Christianity has always been torn between the Judaic Jehovah of the Old Testament (or Talmudic equivalent) and the Father of the Son (Christ) of the New Testament; for, in truth, Jehovah and the Father are not the same but as separate and different as the Old and New Testaments. Jehovah does not have a Son, least of all a 'Son of God', like the so-called Father who only really figures and this to a limited extent in relation to the New Testament of what is properly Christian, owing more, if memory serves, to Greeks and Romans than ever the Hebraic Old Testament does. The Father is, in a sense, a diluted Jehovah, even an attenuated Creator, a Creator-God for Christians, whose religious fulcrum lies elsewhere (the Son). From a Social Theocratic standpoint, however, both the Old and the New Testaments of the so-called Christian Bible are irrelevant, since no more than obstacles to that truth which is independent of Creator Gods of whatever provenance. We, on the contrary, look towards the creation of an Ultimate God, Who resides in Heaven the Holy Soul, which dwells within. For, in truth, God/Heaven (which are essentially one and the same) is the last or omega-most of entities, not the first or alpha-most. Even on an Elemental level, fire and water precede vegetation (earth) and air, and, in that sense, John Cowper Powys was correct to regard women or females as an 'older race' than men, since more germane, in overall gender terms, to fire and water than to vegetation and air, and consequently standing closer to those aspects of Nature which are objective rather than subjective. But this, I have long contended, makes them primary rather than secondary in gender terms, with a disposition that tends to dominate their male counterparts for purposes of reproduction.
Iron Maiden (dreadful name!) always drive me to my notebook, where I scribble furiously in an attempt to escape from their, at times, overblown music, with its grating repetitions of chorus or riff.
At one time 'God' was the name they gave to cosmic processes, including the creation of stars and planets. At another it was what went on in Nature, less ethereal than corporeal, since largely involved with the creation of plants and animals. At yet another time they conceived 'God' to be human and more instrumental to the processes by which man came properly into his own as a kind of creature beyond Nature who, through Salvation, could look forward to a life not subject to death. We have yet to move beyond the human into the Superhuman antithesis to cosmic Supernature and a form of life which is truly the realization of Eternity, conceived from a cyborgistic standpoint, that would be as far beyond mankind as cosmic Supernature was and is behind Nature. If Nurture is the corporeal antithesis of Nature, then I call the ethereal antithesis of Supernature by the name of Supernurture, and equate it with all things cyborgistic and capable not merely of an individually superhuman but of a collectively supra-human apotheosis in which God truly finds His place in Heaven the Holy Soul, like super-intellectuality in super-emotionality, truth in joy.
Living in a consumer society he consumed so much that he became consumptive and died of consumption.
The heavier the music, the further removed it is from the lightness of true being and, hence, the sanctity of grace. To search for 'the truth' through a medium like Heavy Metal amounts to a contradiction in terms, with the paradoxical result that only a limited concept of truth if that is ever likely to emerge. Even Iron Maiden have their lighter, quieter moments, when the music turns reflective and softly transcendent, if not reproachful of the inherent limitations of the soul-destroying heaviness and hardness which is the hallmark of Heavy Metal, that derivative of and, in a very real sense, degeneration from Hard Rock.
Highly mechanized units ranged against the bearers of humanistic civilization in a cyborgistic transcendence of mankind. This is the struggle for global universality, an ongoing struggle with humanistic reaction that should culminate, if successful, in 'Kingdom Come' as the fulfilment of 'man overcoming' (Nietzsche) in the interests of divine (and pseudo-diabolic) criteria, according to gender.
Humanists are the Christian enemy of the heathenistic naturalism of Pantheists and all those who would affirm Nature above Man because more susceptible to female control in rural or other environments of a less than urban character. In Elemental terms, this amounts to a kind of hegemonic antithesis between vegetation and water, or physics and chemistry, with subordinate pseudo-watery and pseudo-vegetative, pseudo-chemical and pseudo-physical, pseudo-Elemental corollaries also in the overall frame one identifiable with this or that manifestation of worldliness, depending on whether we are alluding to physics/pseudo-chemistry or to chemistry/pseudo-physics, the former pairing with a hegemonic humanism and a subordinate pseudo-pantheism, the latter pairing with a hegemonic pantheism and a subordinate pseudo-humanism.
Those who have the intelligence to read and understand me but, through prejudice or malice, prefer not to don't deserve that intelligence in the first place, since they have allowed it to be eclipsed by baser considerations, or by considerations having no bearing on the pursuit of truth.
Writing 'books of ideas' is the abstraction, or abstract art, of literature, a kind of abstraction that, being philosophical, or geared towards the pursuit of metaphysical knowledge (truth), focuses upon the essence of things, as of life. And it is best served, this ontological abstraction, by a non-physical type of book, viz. an eBook. This is the type of 'book' most suited, I believe, to eBook publication on or via the Internet, since it exists at a kind of Platonic remove from the corporeal realm of 'real' books, and never more so than in the type of eScroll presentation that I also favour, and favour more, if anything, than the eBook, since I have conceived of it in terms that, utilizing noumenally subjective means, including textual presentation, are more inherently metaphysical. But, either way, I have distilled the quintessence of literature, viz. thoughtful ideas and subjective musings, from what, in my comparative youth, had been a slightly more conventional approach to literature involving characters and plot, as well as a degree of narrative description all things I am happy to have ditched or, more correctly, transcended in the interests of metaphysical knowledge, which is, above all, self-knowledge, the door to enlightenment and, hence, male emancipation from worldly bondage.
'Big Girls Don't Cry', or, in German, Grosse Mδdchen Weinen Nicht, despite its teenage focus, has long been one of my all-time favourite German films, with attractive characters, great acting, a thoughtful and credible plot, delightful music, etc. But if there is one criticism above all, amounting to a moral flaw, that can be levelled at it, not least in the context of the current anti-smoking climate, it must surely be that es gibt zu viel rauchen, and that, alas, is no small matter when considering the overall character of the film and the likelihood of a bad influence on teenagers! But, hell, didn't I smoke cigarettes as a teenager? Didn't we all? Or most of us? Like it or not, teenagers do, and, in that respect, this film could be said to offer a realistic portrayal of vulnerable youth, especially in relation to its two main protagonists who happen, in the characters of Kati and Steffi, to smoke the most, almost as though they were in competition to outdo each other! Perhaps boys made these girls so nervous that they had to smoke in order to calm their nerves.
As the night sky was rent asunder by the lightning and the thunder, it seemed that all hell had broken loose to do its undamndest worst to send the earth to the brink of annihilation. I cursed this frantic tyranny with all the righteous indignation I could muster, as storm-tossed clouds sent my soul into a fluster. And yet, on rational consideration, one would have to say it was all local, and the bolts that tore through the sky were not specifically aimed at this or that but, were generated in what appeared to be a random fashion that usually fell well-short of the ground and whatever stood upon it. There were no premeditated targets for this storm, which raged on oblivious of the world below and those of us who bothered to contemplate it from a safe distance.
An occasional DVD purchase aside, I only use the computer for the sake of my eScrolls/eBooks, not because I have any fondness for computers or the stress to which one is subjected by constant interference, hold ups, pop ups, crashes, freezes, and the hundred-and-one other things that make computing a virtual nightmare. For me, the computer is a means to a publishing end, that's all.
Every creative and publishing step forward I take is achieved in spite of neighbour and especially female opposition to my work, so I know well enough that one must struggle anew every day not so much with oneself though that also happens as with others, particularly those whose only real business in life is reproduction, which implies the same thing over and over again, generation after generation, world without apparent end.
There are different types of Antichrist, like, for instance, those who are especially athletic and those who are obese, the former effectively corresponding to a higher class of Antichrist, as it were, than the latter. Both alike, however, would be male, at least nominally so, since females should be evaluated in relation to other than strictly Christian criteria, like Marian criteria, for example, or criteria having some bearing on the objective 'First Cause' of things, neither of which would have much to do with sin and folly, whether of the genuine or 'pseudo' varieties, but a lot to do with crime and evil, with free soma and bound psyche in relation to metachemistry and chemistry, the former genuinely criminal and evil, the latter so on a 'pseudo' basis by dint of its secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate status vis-a-vis the pseudo-physically sinful (in pseudo-bound psyche) and foolish (in pseudo-free soma) who exist, on pseudo-masculine terms, a plane down from their feminine counterparts, like pseudo-mass under volume, massed mass under the volumetric, which tends, naturally enough, to be watery (in chemistry) rather than pseudo-vegetative (in pseudo-physics).
I've always found the idea of a female with a crucifix around her neck to be as paradoxically improbable and even unconvincing as a male with a star-shaped pendant around his. Both would appear to be at cross-purposes with their actual gender.
The mixed congregations of the Christian churches reflect a kind of androgynous liberalism or atomicity peculiar to and even typical of 'the world' which, in practical and ethnic terms, has tended to imply the West as a whole but Western Europe in particular. The true philosopher, a man of truth, is not to be found in a Christian congregation, but at a kind of Platonic remove from any reflection or even celebration of family values. Schopenhauer would have been sardonically amused by the mass of people in this or that congregation, piled up in heaps or whatever his exact expression was.
If your internet security is compromised, banners can appear on your site(s) that you didn't put there, subverting the overall integrity of the page. It is simply extraordinary to what lengths internet criminals will go to achieve their ends!
These days it would seem that St George tends to take the form of anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-spyware, anti-malware, pop-up blockers, and other manifestations of internet security designed to lance the Dragon of intrusive adverts, banners, pop-ups, viruses, and other thoroughly undesirable, unwarranted attacks upon one's computer. As for the intruders, with their fiery assaults upon one's computing activities Scum!
Those antichrist fools, shaking their hips and wriggling their behinds, mouthing off, and generally acting like young women, have it 'all to do' from a properly male standpoint, the standpoint of sensibility and wisdom. They exist, these sons-of-free-somatic-bitches, as so-called 'alpha males', in a fool's paradise, and of course they tend, when political, to have left-wing sympathies if not inclinations.
Not for the first time in my history of computer downloads an installation has stalled, and I am left wondering whether it will ever restart.
If the First World War was the 'death throes' of the old European order, governed by autocracy, then it could be said that the Second World War was the 'birth pangs' of a new European order, the legacy of which we are still living with today.
The wise man ensures that his fantasy world doesn't coincide with reality.
Those who write for money invariably produce shit.
Those who publish for money spurn truth.
No-one who writes or thinks with a kind of Anglican fatality towards materialism/fundamentalism (metachemistry) can possibly be of any use or relevance to the Catholic and more than Catholic purveyor of transcendentalism/idealism (metaphysics), who would simply be 'beyond the pale' of the mindset based, as though rooted, in metachemistry (doubtless hyped as metaphysics, as in the Cosmos hyped as the Universe, or Devil the Mother/Virgin hyped as God the Father, etc). For such people beauty is truth, and there is consequently no place, in their triangular set-up, for truth itself, as for a metaphysics completely independent of metachemical subversion.
They have no idea how genius operates simply because they have no ideas in their head in the first place. Period. To equate genius with something broader or wider than just excellence or outstanding ability in one field or discipline is to misunderstand it, which is what most people, entirely lacking in if not opposed to a specific focus, tend to do, since there is nothing more objectionable to those rooted in alpha divergence than a persistent focus amounting to a kind of omega convergence, as upon truth, or metaphysical knowledge.
Nothing to say, nothing to write; I must be making some kind of moral progress. Something to read, something to think; seems like I'm back to my old (male-biased) ways again.
Sounds like another 'Catholic' night torn between the rain and the wind, with little evidence of anything else.
Let those who wish to return to Nature live outside the bounds of civilization, without the benefit of modern conveniences within a secure structure.
The rain is so fierce and frequent, so prolonged and intense, that one feels not only under siege but somehow hemmed-in and as though oppressed by it. One wonders how much more of this certain other aspects or manifestations of nature, never mind civilization in general, can take.
Malfunctioning computing is a nightmare from which one longs to escape into the dream of a properly functioning and responsive computer. Some hope!
Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns, as they say, and take the fight to your neighbours, refusing to be cowed by them into some kind of meek submission that would endanger if not undermine one's vocational activities these being, in my case, of an intensely literary nature.
Equalitarianism is a disease that cripples the body politic and, eventually, brings the entire social organism into disrepute, since it ceases to function as a coherent whole but becomes subject to a partisan imbalance.
Writers have always sought escape from the social constraints imposed by neighbours and such like by fleeing abroad or at least to some more congenial hideaway where they can work in peace without fear of resentful intrusions or cynical antagonisms from philistine opponents of any sort of literary vocation. When one cannot live with kindred spirits, it is better to live by oneself than to continue enduring the indifference if not animosity of spirits who are anything but kindred!
Listening to Mendelssohn, one always feels in the presence of the noblest music.
I take a look around me on the crowded streets of various north London 'towns' and ask myself how many of these people even know what 'the good fight' is, never mind live in the daily process of fighting it, that is, struggling against female opposition to truth by living a life removed from female domination and the power of beauty.
Coming to terms with 'the world' is one thing and, for most people, it is probably fair to say the only thing. But 'the world' doesn't lead anywhere itself, least of all to the otherworldly pastures of Heaven or, more correctly, 'Kingdom Come', which has to be conceived as implying more than just a Christian type of posthumous life in the grave (something which cremation, as a manifestation of antichristian or secular practise, in any case repudiates, as though from the standpoint of science), not to mention the necessary gender division between heavenly and pseudo-hellish (pseudo-devilish) criteria which Christianity would seem not to acknowledge, since rather more androgynous in its overall mixed congregation-like accommodation of worldly norms. But, of course, the Afterlife that I have in mind would be cyborgistic in character, and therefore akin to a sort of superchristian dispensation capable of sharply differentiating between metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, male saint and pseudo-female neutralized dragon. Christianity even has female saints!
You are predestined for this or that not only according to gender, but also according to class, race, and ethnicity which, taken together with occupation, constitute a quadruplicity of realities that overlay gender and can be applicable to either gender in consequence.
The other day I realized, quite categorically, that pleated slacks and macadamised sidewalks don't correlate, any more than jeans and paved sidewalks, or pavements proper. Either you wear pleated slacks/trousers for pavements or jeans for sidewalks, even though circumstances may and indeed do oblige somebody in slacks to walk on sidewalks and somebody in jeans to walk on pavements from time to time. Having long despised the 'squareness' of paving stones, and hence pavements, I find the wearing of jeans or jean-like non-pleated attire in relation to a preference for macadamised sidewalks (usually more wheely-bag friendly than their paved counterparts).a no-brainer. And even if reality doesn't always match or even match-up to my preference, the bias is there and has long been so, with few deviations from it (though occasional deviations there certainly have been and, depending on circumstances, will probably continue to be).
The 'good fight' against overbearing female domination and worldly consequences has never been particularly popular, and not just with the ladies. The Christian exception proves the heathen rule, and it may well be that the crux of the distinction between popular and classical music, or populism and classicism in general, is precisely one hinging upon the contrast between female-dominated heathenism and male-hegemonic Christianity, a distinction no less applicable, I contend, to superheathen and superchristian criteria, which would be less worldly in antithetical terms than antithetical in terms of netherworldly and otherworldly criteria, metachemistry and metaphysics, with their subordinate gender corollaries of pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry respectively.
Science may interpret the world but only religion can change it or, more correctly, enable males to transcend it in pursuit of an otherworldly alternative. Even Marx's contention that it is not enough to interpret the world; rather one should strive, as a philosopher, to change it had some religious implications, if, in relation to social democracy and proletarian humanism, demonstrably false ones. Yet that still contrasts with the Darwinian concept of evolution and its profoundly scientific implications which contribute nothing to religion, since historically factual rather than based in some myth that, conceiving of the origins of the world in relation to original sin, allows for and actually encourages a gender-based perspective on life and morality that could conceivably lead to a very different outcome to, never mind conception of, evolution than that postulated by science.
He (not me) was one of those many-too-many sons-of-bitches who was so pretty bitched up that he had little or no inclination towards cultural creativity left in him meek plaything of a natural will.
While she was busy looking for 'Mr Right', he was busy escaping from 'Miss Wrong'.
There is nothing women hate so much as thoughtful self-absorption in men.