16-18/12/2012
When the female is allowed into religion,
whether via the state or otherwise, the only consequence for religion is its
subversion by criteria owing more to the concrete than to the abstract, to soma
than to psyche, to particles than to wavicles, etc., etc., in consequence of
which some form or another of 'God thingfulness' will prevail to the detriment
of Heaven, to the detriment, in other words, of soul as the essence of psyche
or, more specifically, of metaphysical psyche, which is male.
Whatever the kind of God, that is, God as
'Creator' (of the so-called universe and/or the world) or God as 'Person'
(whether female or male), the consequences for religion can only be
detrimental, which is to say, exposed to subversion by the concrete.
Truly, females, whether superfeminine or
feminine, devils, so to speak, or women proper, will always bedevil religion so
long as they are not excluded from it, as from a gentleman's club.
Taking a double-decker red bus to Tottenham
Hale, as I do on occasion when obliged to by circumstances beyond my control,
is an experience I could well do without, since, what with the underground not
far away from the bus station, it seems to me more like a trip to what could be
called 'Tottenham Hell'.
Love and lust – the opposite poles of sex-based
gender relations, with the extremes of pure love and pure lust characterizable
as lesbian and homosexual (gay). In between, the impure love of
female-dominated heterosexuality hegemonic over what could be called impure
pseudo-lust, and the impure lust of male-dominated heterosexuality hegemonic
over what I shall call impure pseudo-love.
Therefore in between the extremes of pure love
(lesbian) and pure lust (homosexuality) we find the impure love and impure lust
of heterosexual relations of either a female (love) or a male (lust) bias.
Even metaphysics is susceptible to lust, if of
a more elevated kind than that applying to the other male element, physics,
wherein one would think more in terms of pleasure than of joy, as in relation
to either male-dominated heterosexuality or outright homosexuality. On the
other hand, the lust of
metaphysics, which, being closer to joy, is akin to the German sense of the
word, could be associated, traditionally, with the so-called priestly kiss, as
between clerical peers, or equals. For in the subjectively ethereal realm
nothing germane to bodily lust can obtain, least of all in terms of sodomy or
pederasty, and the mode of homosexuality – for that is what essentially
transpires – is accordingly sublimated and of an altogether more elevated order
of lust than anything applicable to the subjectively corporeal realm of physics
either impurely in relation to pseudo-chemistry (pseudo-love) or purely in
outright axial degeneration, analogous with social democracy and/or proletarian
humanism, to lustful bodily relations between adult males.
In societies dominated by females, however, it
is love which has tended to prevail over lust, for better (state-hegemonically)
or worse (church-hegemonically), and the deference of the generality of males
to the dominance of love is only to be expected, whether because it is
metachemically 'on high' (state-hegemonic axis) and therefore somehow superior
to physical lust, or because, though chemically 'down below' (church-hegemonic
axis), metaphysical lust would be beyond their capacities, even in the limited
guise to which I have alluded in connection with priests.
Television doth make 'sons-of-bitches' out of
those who are naturally or technically male, and I, for one, who rarely watches
TV, feel distinctly uncomfortable about it.
Television, I believe, is one of the chief
means by which males are dominated by females in the modern world.
