AROUND THE (B)END WITH SOME GENERAL
OBSERVATIONS
If there's one thing worse than (I nearly said
listening to Carlos Santana) being alone with oneself in a hostile environment
as an adult male, it can only be being in female company or, if you prefer, the
company of a bitch in an environment more immediately hostile.
I've always felt a certain revulsion towards
the fecundity of the coloured races. To breed and not be in the slightest
bit ashamed of it - that really astounds me.
The music of coloureds almost invariably
revolves around sex.
All that romantic crap from Santana - how I
loathe and despise it! A world chock-full of coloureds - no wonder I have
always been less than enthusiastic about it. Soon the white race will
cease to exist because buried beneath an avalanche of coloured promiscuity!
It may be that Hitler was the white man's last
chance. Now we live in a world increasingly dominated by coloureds as the
inevitable outcome of bourgeois decadence and proletarian barbarism.
Man is to woman a beast to be sexually
exploited for purposes of reproduction. Generally speaking, women care
nothing for men's intellectual or cultural achievements - except insofar as,
within the occupational or professional context, they can be viewed as means to
a reproductive end, serving to support the family.
The internet is full of crooks who leave one in
the lurch with no apology or explanation.
The internet has been debased by money-oriented
business to such a deplorable extent ... that it is no longer an attractive medium
for artists or philosophers to work in.
The 'coming out' of religion from under a cloak
of mysticism is a very difficult and even dangerous thing. It means you
have to 'come clean', as a male, about women being the enemy and live and act
accordingly, which, for most men, is virtually impossible.
I can understand why some men maintain that
things could never change, meaning that no matter how seemingly sophisticated
and evolved the technology, etc., women will fundamentally remain in charge by
dint of their beauty and ability to exploit love to a reproductive end.
Fear of giving offence means you are stuck in a
liberal world without hope of meaningful change in relation to the gender
status quo - a ghastly and, frankly, untenable reality.
Only the disillusioned are capable of truth;
those who are not disillusioned but delusional - like most Americans - tend to
be incapable of it.
All those little internet Satans who promise
one the world ... if only one will sell one's soul to them, i.e. sell out and follow
their money-generating techniques. The price to be paid, even when it
isn't immediately in evidence, is far too high.
The race beyond man will not be born of woman
but of science and technology or, more correctly, of pseudo-science and
pseudo-technology under the guidance of true religion.
Bertrand Russell was anti-religious from a
scientifically philosophical point-of-view. By contrast, I find that I am
anti-science from a more genuinely religious standpoint than that to which
Bertrand Russell applied his critical acumen in the manner of a
left-liberal hommes de lettres.
The half-cultured imagine that French culture
is the best in
The only time I am genuinely happy in front of
the TV screen is when I am watching, via the DVD-Player, a good German film.
Needless to say, I tend not to watch anything else.
Sitting in front of a good German film, I
attain to something approaching a state of religious devotion.
All those superficial sons-of-bitches who are
only too ready to jump on the bandwagon of putting others - even complete
strangers - down in public as 'tits', 'berks', 'chumps', 'wogs', 'fags',
'creeps', 'wallies', 'prats', 'pufs', etc., whether or not motivated by
imperial tradition and presumption, simply expose themselves for the thoroughly
unlikeable and unmanly bugbears they are! But what is the cause of this
mental or psychological disease? Inherent superiority? No, quite the reverse.
A want of self-confidence and self-respect that often arises from being
at gender cross-purposes with themselves under female-dominated
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria. They lack self-esteem
precisely because the nature of the system they live under - and ancestrally
have lived under for generations past - has deprived them of it, making them
bitter and resentful and only too ready to take the female line of 'Who does he
think he is?' in consequence of their own perceived social or individual
worthlessness. I don't pity them; they are far too 'dyed in the wool' of this
system for that and, besides, they remain unattractively objectionable.
No, I despise them and the system, dominated in state-hegemonic vein by
females, which has made them what they are. One day the system in
question will cease to exist and then, with a combination of other factors, the
mentality which characterizes them will also disappear, leaving only males who
are deep and ... more given to self-respect and, by implication, respect for
others, including, paradoxically, those whose destiny would be more a matter of
self-restraint than of self-realization within parameters having less to do
with free psyche than with bound soma.
To vote for any of those parliamentary
politicians one would have to be mad or, which amounts to pretty much the same
thing, British.
The 'big league' of singer/guitarists in the
British Isles would have to be comprised of musicians like Alvin Lee (virtually
unsurpassed), Gary Moore, Eric Clapton, Rory Gallagher, and Snowy White,
whether or not one regards them all as equal or as unequal in their respective
capabilities.
You don't get through this life without having
been consistently warred upon by women, not to mention sons-of-bitches of one
sort or another.
Bertrand Russell was in some respects closer to
Nietzsche in his anti-Christian polemics (the mark of an Antichrist) than he
would probably have wanted to admit, albeit still at some remove as an
Englishman or, at any rate, Briton from the great Faustian iconoclast.
Koestler, as a central-European Jew, never got
beyond a triangular, or tripartite, limitation in his thinking and approach,
fundamentally scientific, to philosophy. When metachemistry is hyped as
metaphysics there can be no place for metaphysics proper, and therefore no
place for a fourfold approach to logic which, also embracing chemistry and
physics, enables a more consistently comprehensive perspective to emerge.
Koestler, for all his linguistic and intellectual cleverness, remains a
limited thinker who was inferior even to Sartre as a philosopher, despite his
pretensions to the contrary.
Spengler, like Bunyan, was capable of a
fourfold approach to logical structure which makes him one of the more if not
most enlightened thinkers of the twentieth century, worthy of comparison with
Schopenhauer or Nietzsche, if not for obvious reasons Hegel, in the nineteenth.
In fact, Spengler, with his 'Second Religiousness', has more in common
with Hegel's evolutionary geist than
with Nietzsche's dynamic Superman, even if his analysis of Western decadence,
as in 'The Decline of the West', leads to conclusions similar to those of
Nietzsche in respect of the need for a German resurrection that, not
necessarily taking the form of the Third Reich (though that's how things turned
out), would save Europe from itself or, rather, its decline vis-à-vis
the emerging powers of America and Russia on to the world stage. Unlike
Hitler, Spengler does not, any more than did Nietzsche, specifically
blame the Jews. But his concern with Western decadence was certainly
mirrored by the Nazis in their crusade to 'save' Europe from what was perceived
to be the twin threats of Jewish-dominated communism on the one hand (Russia)
and Jewish-dominated capitalism on the other hand (America), neither of which
would commend itself to a church-hegemonic mentality.
I never felt that Sartre was a particularly French
thinker, possibly because of the Schweitzer in him in consequence of his
Alsatian mother. Neither, for that matter, was Camus a particularly
French thinker, but that's because of other factors.
I always admired Camus' openness to
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche - rather like Hitler's. He didn't have that
resentment of German thought which characterizes so many Frenchmen and not a
few Englishmen, including Bertrand Russell, whose motherlandish want of
idealism more likely derives from female dominion under state-hegemonic axial
criteria.
The English would never have built Zeppelin
airships, harmonizing with the clouds, as it were. I guess you would have
to be German, with a sense of idealism foreign to the mainly Protestant
British, to be disposed to designing and flying in machines which, in their
leisurely elegance, would have made passengers feel they were in Heaven or, at
any rate, in the closest thing to Heaven as they contemplated, while sipping on
their drinks, the passing clouds of the skies from the comfort of the lounge.
The former imperial colonizers of coloured
lands are now themselves the recipients of coloured colonization and are
scarcely recognizable as a 'free people', if ever they were.
To oppress others from fear is not a mark of
freedom, or of a free people, but rather of one enslaved by authoritarian
tyranny even when and if it mellows into constitutional monarchy. To be
free and subjects of the reigning monarch at the same time seems to me a
contradiction in terms. Either one is free of monarchic rule, in a
republic, or one is subject to it, in a kingdom, in which case one is not free
but ... autocratically enslaved and correspondingly opposed to the freedom
struggles of other nations.
Two high fliers who flew in opposite directions
- Aldous Huxley, an Anglican Englishman who went to the Clear Light dogs, so to
speak, and Teilhard de Chardin, a Roman Catholic Frenchman, who took God to the
Omega Point. Artist and Philosopher, alpha and omega, beauty and truth
(or, at any rate, the nearest approach to it within a logical system hamstrung
by Catholic mysticism and ever beholden, in consequence, to Christian dogma).
The Nazi Empire was one of the shortest empires
in the history of the world - even shorter than the 12-year existence of the
Third Reich itself. But this was due more to external factors than to an
inner collapse.
Bourgeois writers, by which is meant most if
not all novelists and book-published hommes
de lettres, tend to recycle sophisticated trivia because they dare not or
cannot write truthfully and radically about matters of greater import,
including politics and religion. Besides, sophisticated trivia is the
stuff of commercial success.
If Schopenhauer signifies rejection of the
Alpha, meaning the Will, and Nietzsche rejection of Schopenhauer (and therefore
implicit if not explicit affirmation of the Alpha), then Hegel, by contrast,
may be said to signify affirmation, through evolving geist, of the Omega and Marx implicit if not explicit rejection of
the Omega, as of history interpreted in terms of spiritual evolution, through
the economic determinism of dialectical materialism as the governing principle
of historical evolution. Compared to early nineteenth-century philosophy,
the philosophy of the late nineteenth century represents a decadence that, in
the contrasting hands of Nietzsche and Marx, paved the way for the outright
barbarism of the early twentieth century and the cataclysmic upheavals of both
the First and Second World Wars, the post-colonial consequences of which we are
still living with today as we await the dawn of civilization on a global scale
with the emergence of what Spengler would have called 'Second Religiousness'
and Hegel have interpreted in relation to the 'coming out', or triumphant
resolution, of geist, but which
I shall identify with Heaven the Holy Soul in relation to 'Kingdom Come'.
