01-06/12/12

Yesterday evening all hell broke loose. I went downstairs to the kitchen, which I share with a number of others, at my accustomed time of around ten o'clock to wash a couple of dishes and fetch some mineral water from the communal fridge only to be followed and violently accosted by the landlord's strapping teenage son (not the autistic one alluded to earlier), who became so abusively aggressive, ostensibly over my 'shitty music' having been played too loud (I didn't think so) and my having habitually 'taken the piss' by doing this and that, turning the music back up after someone had knocked on my door on previous occasions, etc., that I was fortunate to escape with my life, since both of his parents, having got wind of what was afoot, were quickly on-hand to physically restrain him and hold him back from further thrusting himself upon me and adding physical violence to verbal abuse.

I couldn't reason with him; for every time I tried to defend myself by assuring him that I hadn't been 'taking the piss', or whatever, but simply countering stupid tit-for-tat practises that drive me up the wall in their superficial frequency and cold-blooded mean-spiritedness, he became even more agitated and kept shouting 'I don't want to hear this' and other dismissive statements punctuated by sighs of exasperation intended to let him retain the run of his anger, so to speak, and give full vent to it. Fortunately for me, one of his friends had also come down to the kitchen with him, a tall well-built youth whom I had seen in his company before on one or two occasions, who was in a calmer mood overall, even though he felt obliged to side with the landlord's son against me and occasionally join in his criticisms with a few of his own.

Eventually the landlord, who was still holding back his son, brought up the long-standing grudge, as if to add fuel to the fire of their general resentment or, at any rate, exploit the situation to his personal advantage (a not untypical event in this house), that I had sworn at him on a number of occasions, and this was also evidently one of the grudges of his son, although arbitrary changes of subject to suit their overall agenda are not uncommon with them, and though I might have lost my temper on occasions in the past and stamped my foot or cursed in a general, diffuse way, without knowing exactly who was to blame, it was for a good reason so far as I was concerned, in that I had felt myself to be provoked by a number of ill-timed – or for them well-timed – thumps or stamps or other actions upon the ceiling from where they lived on the floor above intended, so far as I could gauge, to interfere with my lifestyle or peace of mind or just somehow 'put the boot in', whether or not in the hope of getting me out of the property or from pure spite I couldn't tell.

Right now, however, I felt shamefully humiliated and increasingly helpless in the face of their barrage of accusations and recriminations, some of which evidently dated back several years, not to be able to say much other than that I wouldn't have lost my temper had I not felt unduly threatened and, always being in a minority of one, kind of unfairly warred upon by one or more of them for reasons best known to themselves. This didn't seem to have much effect, however.

When, eventually, things simmered down a little or, rather, became slightly less fraught, I was able to pour myself some water mixed with fruit juice (to what sounded like their mutual amusement) and I then proceeded to wash the dishes, as I had initially intended to do, I got a severe turn for the worse and felt myself to be the victim – not for the first time – of a peculiarly Asian kind of rage and resentment, maybe even one that was uniquely Bangladeshi or the product, in consequence of ethnic incompatibility, of racial animosity or Moslem resentment not least against music, and rock music in particular. After the teenagers finally left the kitchen to go out or back upstairs, shepherded by the landlord, who had at least, through his intervention, prevented worse from coming to pass, I knew, with the utmost certainty, that this was the last straw and that I had to do everything in my rather limited power and resources to get the hell out of this mean-spirited house and well away from them.

I can't describe how humiliated and frustrated I feel, but I know this is not a situation I can continue to live with, assuming it didn't culminate in my being injured or even killed by the reckless youth or a combination of him and the moron downstairs.

Today, Saturday 1^st December, was a depressing day not only hung over from the previous night but spent in umpteen estate agents as far afield as Enfield and Finsbury Park with some in Crouch End thrown in for good measure – as yet, to now avail. Though I did get to view a studio apartment on the busy and overly commercial Stroud Green Road in Finsbury Park, a road I had already lived in back in the early seventies at my mother's address before she moved around the corner to Woodstock Road, where she still lives. But the noise from the constant stream of traffic, including frequently-passing double-decker buses (you know how I view them), in the street below, coupled to the fact that both the bed and settee compartments of this apartment were situated towards the front, overlooking the road, made it appear, even had I been able to afford the rent, utilities, council tax, etc., pretty unattractive overall. I shall just have to keep on searching, more out of desperation than any confidence of success, since people like myself usually get short shrift with estate agents.

If I could believe in God and were a praying type, I would ask Him to both protect me and direct my steps … that I might make the right decisions and be kept relatively safe from physical harm.

If righteousness is being true to self, to one's soul, as a male, then you cannot drink alcohol and be righteous. Alcohol both poisons the body and corrupts the mind, so that one feels both physically sick and mentally possessed, as though by a demon who speeds up an arbitrary discharge of thoughts over which one has little or no conscious control.

Losing control of the mind and having to endure a diminution in the health of the body conspire to thwart self-respect and, hence, the prospect of righteousness. Don't be fooled!

The world, largely comprised of people who both physically poison and mentally derange themselves through alcohol abuse, is clearly quite mad. Either that or the abstainers from alcohol are mad and the drunks sane. But how could that be? The world is simply a dreadful place that drives most people to drink, irrespective, seemingly, of their class.

In Britain race counts for very little. Indeed, if you harp upon the importance of race (as foundation to an ethnic predilection favouring religion) you are likely to be dismissed as a crank or even accused of being a racist, fascist, or whatever. Britain is not, after all, about ethnicity, a religious orientation premised upon a specific racial foundation. On the contrary, it is about class on the one hand and occupation on the other, and therefore considerations of race are frowned upon as irrelevant or simply undesirable in a multicultural society, especially one that, in the big cities, those bastions of occupation, is highly cosmopolitan.

Now if, by contrast, you are of Irish Catholic descent or persuasion you are likely to be mindful, not least through organizations like the GAA (Gaelic Athletic Association), of the relevance if not crucial importance of some kind of racial framework from the standpoint of ethnic viability since, as mentioned before, race is fundamental to the attainment of a given ethnicity, without which church-hegemonic criteria would simply cease to exist and/or be eclipsed, as to some extent does happen (even in Ireland) by state-hegemonic criteria predisposed, through class foundations, to an occupational if not professional predilection which 'fights shy', from overall metachemical dominion, of considerations of race – and, hence, in a certain sense of racism – to the achievement of ethnic partiality, and simply because anything to do with allegiance, not least through Roman Catholicism, to a more genuine approach to religion, an approach favouring, no matter how imperfectly or incompletely, metaphysics, is a kind of taboo subject in Britain by dint of its largely secular axial orientation deriving from a Protestant protest against religion (Roman Catholicism) back in the sixteenth century, following the excommunication from the 'one true Church' of Henry VIII for having committed more than sin.

Therefore, with several centuries of anti-Catholic protest and counter-measures behind her, Britain is one of the last countries on earth that would be interested in acknowledging, never mind encouraging, the requisite foundations for a religious orientation, especially since her Empire led, via trade, to dominion over huge numbers of coloured peoples, the vast majority of whom would have had no Christian ethnicity or even historical inclination towards Christianity.

How unlike Germany which, despite the hideous excesses of National Socialism, saw the importance of race to an ethnic foundation. And how unlike the Republic of Ireland which, despite inroads made by secularists of one persuasion or another, is still, through the GAA, mindful of the relevance of race to an ethnic outcome favouring religion.

To me, multiculturalism and/or multiracialism (call it by what name you like) is the secular denial of any such religious orientation, the fruit of Protestant heresy (which led to a switch of axis from church-hegemonic on a southwest-to-northeast axial basis to state-hegemonic on a northwest-to-southeast axial basis), and the guarantor, in consequence, of freedom from religious responsibility, not least in respect of the regular confession of sins. Britain is, frankly, a detestable place for a religiously-minded person, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, to live in, since where there is no sin there can be little prospect of grace, axially speaking, even if, ultimately, grace must be independent of sin. Rather, is Britain torn, in hegemonically axial terms (female) between crime and punishment or, from a more somatically prevalent standpoint, evil and good, with crime and punishment, their psychic corollaries, being antithetically equivalent to the folly and wisdom, those subordinate somatic attributes, accompanying the rather more church-hegemonically representative sin and grace of the male-dominated Catholic axial polarity.

The gods of barbarous peoples are always 'great', 'almighty', 'all-powerful', etc., like barbarians themselves.

Those who use force, or the threat of violence, to get their way are fundamentally barbaric, given to physical tyranny over others presumed, rightly or wrongly, as being weaker than themselves. Such people make no allowances, as a rule, for culture and civility, favouring, rather, a philistine satisfaction in worship of the barbarous.

The British are essentially a civilized people who only enter into war with the utmost reluctance, as and when all other avenues for combating tyranny or barbarism have failed. Whether from experience or common sense, they have learnt that war should only be undertaken as a last resort and got over with as quickly and professionally as possible. This, in part, explains their reluctance to conscript persons whose suitability in this matter could be called into question, with conscription being something of a last resort in exceptional circumstances.

The Americans, as a younger people, are, on the whole, less sensible than the British in this regard, though still reasonably cautious about the desirability of waging war, not least of all gratuitously, since the financial and personal costs can be enormous.

Barbarous peoples live for war; civilized peoples for peace. But civilized peoples can and should wage war against the barbarous when they feel unduly threatened or are overly sensitive to the enormity of what barbarism is up to elsewhere.

You cannot simply stand by, as a civilized person, and allow barbarians to get away with murder. Else civilization will be compromised and undermined by barbarism.

Christians have a right to regard the worshippers of 'all-powerful' gods as barbarians, given the inoffensive and even meek nature of the Christian god who, in the person of Christ, hangs limply on the Cross as testimony to what, in effect, is the opposite of 'all-powerful'.

Christ was the victim of powerful adversaries, even tyrants, whom Christians prefer not to identify with, opposing undue manifestations of 'almightiness' wherever they may be found. He who died on the Cross died not only because of sin, which is philistine, but also – and possibly more so – because of crime, which is barbarous.

Thus the criminality of barbarism has to be contrasted with the justice of Christians who, abjuring power, refuse to bow to tyranny and submit to the barbarous rule of despots.

You have first of all to militarily defeat barbarism before the barbarians can be civilized – through example.

Is civilization, or civility, a good thing? Only a fool would consider barbarism, or barbarity, to be better!

Christ was crucified on a hill (Golgotha), not a mountain, and therefore in a context well away, to an antithetical degree, from the life-affirming power mongers who tend, like Nietzsche's Zarathustra, to identify with mountains, not least through castles or even mountain redoubts like the Berghof. One might say that in death Christ achieves, via the resurrection, a certain contentment that follows from the denial not only of will, that fulcrum of power, but also from the denial of spirit and ego, of glory and form, without which no identification with the soul, the fulcrum of contentment, is possible.

Therefore this metaphor of dying to the world on a hill is eternally valid, even if subject to a validity that will be overhauled in 'Kingdom Come', when Eternity becomes the hegemonic principle characterized by the denial of will, as of the body, and the affirmation of soul, as of the mind, in the ultimate contentment of true being.

What if the Irish Republic were equivalent to a 'reculer pour mieux sauter', a stepping back in order to leap further forwards, as from republicanism to the politico-religious structure of 'Kingdom Come' which, as the reader may know, I tend to identify with Social Theocracy and with what, in the past, I have referred to as the Social Theocratic Centre, as germane to a context in which the People are religiously sovereign and therefore entitled to certain rights in relation to that sovereignty?

Clearly, the United Kingdom is not 'Kingdom Come', and whilst it continues to exist it can only do so in relation to state-hegemonic axial criteria that keep it at loggerheads with anything church hegemonic, like the Catholic tradition which the Republic of Ireland inherited and still, to some extent, both recognizes and honours, even if from a standpoint that has effectively superseded Catholicism and might well, in due course, pave the way for Social Theocracy, thus vindicating itself as a transitional phenomenon, the aforementioned 'reculer pour mieux sauter' coming in between British Protestant rule and any future 'resurrection' of church-hegemonic criteria along necessarily revolutionary lines commensurate with the inception of 'Kingdom Come'.

To me, the notion that the Republic should be seen as an end-in-itself is, frankly, ludicrous and, what's more, morally undesirable, since it renders the People more vulnerable, in its relative secularity, to predatory impositions of a largely metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical nature, the sorts of impositions that, rooted in the exemplification of somatic licence, tend to stem not from church-hegemonic but, on the contrary, state-hegemonic axial criteria, which are precisely those of Britain and, to an even greater extent, America.

I know Ireland, its pouring rain, its bitter wind, its overbearing greyness and even drabness, but I also know that, above and beyond the weather, it is different from Britain and, in a sense, more than Britain, capable, in its religious instincts, of being true to a unique destiny which it has both a social and moral right to as a country where, in traditional terminology, 'God and the Church' come first, not, like Britain, the Devil and the State, and for that reason I believe it can be renewed in relation to an entirely new order of God and Church which will be akin to Heaven and the Centre, the heavenly Centre of 'Kingdom Come'.

As I think I've said before (though not in this title), science and superstition are as related, in their opposite gender ways, as religion and art, though not, however, as 'two sides of the same coin', so to speak, but as two separate 'coins' which reflect their gender distinctions.

For science, being objective, is female in character, whereas superstition is pseudo-subjective and, hence, pseudo-male, corresponding, one might say, to a subordinate gender position vis-a-vis science, pretty much like pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry or even pseudo-physics under chemistry.

By contrast, religion, being subjective, is male in character, whereas art is pseudo-objective and, hence, pseudo-female, corresponding to a subordinate gender position vis-a-vis religion, pretty much as pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics or even pseudo-chemistry under physics.

Therefore a parallel of sorts can be said to exist between superstition and art, but only to the extent that they exist at gender cross-purposes with the hegemonic discipline to which they respectively appertain, and it would be wildly illogical to suppose, as some do, that religion and superstition 'hang together' or, conversely, that science and art 'hang together' in a hegemonic/subordinate relationship.

The fact is that superstition endeavours to bring a subjective dimension to bear on objectivity, or objective matters, which is precisely why it is pseudo-subjective, in marked contrast to the subjectivity of religion.

Likewise, if from a contrary point of view, art endeavours to bring an objective dimension to bear on subjectivity, or subjective feelings and considerations, which is precisely why it is pseudo-objective, in marked contrast to the objectivity of science.

Now whilst science and religion are mutually exclusive in their respective types of absolutism, the objective refusing to allow for revelatory subjectivity and the subjective refusing to countenance empirical objectivity, with contrary gender implications, it should logically follow that superstition and art will likewise be mutually exclusive, since a pseudo-subjective interpretation of the objective, as of objectivity in general, must necessarily exist in paradoxical contrast to a pseudo-objective interpretation of the subjective, as of subjectivity in general, their respective points of reference being in opposite directions, that is, towards either science or religion, though not both.

Hence the equation of art with science or of superstition with religion is not only illogical; it is demonstrably untrue, and no more than a prejudicial presumption or supposition deriving from a want of logic on the part of those who either wish to debunk religion from the standpoint of superstition or debunk science from the standpoint of art.

Objective/pseudo-objective parallels between science and art in the one case have to be contrasted with subjective/pseudo-subjective parallels between religion and superstition in the other case, but such parallels are in no way compatible with their 'hanging together', like metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics or metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, still less with their somehow being 'two sides of the same coin', like free soma and bound psyche in the case of metachemistry or free psyche and bound soma in the case of metaphysics, to take but the scientific and religious extremes.

If the superstitious pseudo-male, preferring to see aliens where empiricism detects a monkey, is effectively a 'sonofabitch' vis-a-vis science, then the artistic pseudo-female, striving to grant form to that which essentially transcends it, is effectively what could, in antithetically parallel terms, be called a 'daughterofabastard', with little in common with her superstitious counterpart, who is, after all, endeavouring to interpret or explain the objective on his own necessarily pseudo-subjective terms, not interpret the subjective on terms which, using representative means, betray a pseudo-objective disposition fundamentally at loggerheads with subjectivity and pseudo-subjectivity alike, if closer, in gender terms, to the objectivity of science.

So, of course, religion and superstition, no less than science and art, do have something in common, but only in respect of their gender (whether literally or figuratively and, as it were, effectively upheld). As regards a direct correlation between religion and superstition on the one hand, and science and art on the other – forget it! That is the stuff of mythical fancy, not of philosophical logic.

Didn't Nietzsche tend, in repudiating Schopenhauer's will-denial from personal motives not unconnected with poor health, to go on about 'life affirmation', that comedy of errors behind the tragedy of counter-measures that bedevils this world and makes one acutely conscious, as an adult male, of just how much of a 'con' (the Americans would say 'bitch') life really is, a 'con' that makes one pay, in so many ways, for the dubious privilege of existing in a world dominated by female life-affirmers, who have little or no choice but to acquire, via reproduction, a surrogate plenum to relieve them, no matter how temporarily or intermittently, from the vacuousness of their basic gender condition as females. And the average male, co-opted to this life affirmation, becomes by association an indirect affirmer of life conceived, female-wise, in predominantly somatic terms, the terms of flesh and blood, will and spirit, power and glory, space and volume, to which his brain and mind, ego and soul, form and contentment, mass and time, are perforce bent and, inevitably, corrupted. Only a negation of life lived on these terms, those of the world, can lead via death or, more correctly, the dying through a denial of female-dominated life to the Life Eternal, the life of the Soul, which it would be the privilege of the metaphysical to live in the event of the world or, rather, the electorate of certain countries having democratically elected via a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and the rights appertaining thereto which, under Social Theocracy, would lead, in due course, to man's being overcome in the interests of his salvation from that which, affirming life, would keep him forever chained to the world.

Needless to say, the salvation of the one gender, in this case male, axially presupposes the counter-damnation of the other, and thus the neutralization of that which would otherwise continue to preclude otherworldly liberation from a standpoint firmly rooted in the netherworldly, as in the beautiful free will of Devil the Mother (traditionally hyped as 'God the Father'), the excluder not just of God the Father but, more importantly from a metaphysical standpoint, Heaven the Holy Soul, the religious antithesis to a scientific absolute that will always be the natural or, more correctly, supernatural enemy, by its very existence, of the supernurtural sensibility, as it were, of true religion, ever denying, by its continued dominance, the right of such religion to exist.

Now if there is one thing that is absolutely certain it's that Heaven the Holy Soul cannot come triumphantly to pass except through the rejection and effective dethronement of Devil the Mother, a process only indirectly impacting upon Her as the pseudo-economic, pseudo-physical pseudo-males opt for metaphysical religion and, correlatively, the political, chemical females are perforce obliged to accept pseudo-metachemical pseudo-science, the pseudo-Devil the Mother counterpart, in pseudo-bound will, to Heaven the Holy Soul.

Only thereafter will the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical and physical/pseudo-chemical polarities cease to exist. For without chemical/pseudo-physical 'prey', they will no longer be able to continue in the secular business of exploiting the latter – lapsed catholic/republican socialist generality – through both the exemplification and financing of somatic licence to a profiteering end, and will accordingly cease to axially exist. The operative terms here are not salvation and counter-damnation (as with the church-hegemonic axis) but damnation (of the metachemical to pseudo-chemistry) and counter-salvation (of the pseudo-metaphysical to physics), with the prospect, following a kind of judgement within the collapsed state-hegemonic context of what had been the prime movers at each pole of the said axis, of the non-activist generality thereof being accommodated to the stepped-up (resurrected) church-hegemonic axis in middle (ex-puritan) and bottom (ex-anglican) tier positions, duly gender divisible, under the ex-catholic Saved and counter-Damned in what I have elsewhere (see earlier texts) described as the Triadic Beyond, a necessarily pluralistic precondition of long-term metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical totalitarianism in the Space Centre apotheosis, Celestial City-like, of the entire 'Kingdom Come' process, a process doubtless proceeding from deep underground to a very high overground culmination after the fashion of a 'reculer pour mieux sauter', a stepping back (for defensive purposes) in order to leap further forwards (into space) when the time and circumstances are propitious.

All this – and more – has been stated before in various of my mature writings, the titles of which are too numerous to relate, so do not suppose this to be the first time I have gone into it, even if one occasionally finds something new to add or adopts a slightly different approach to the same themes, themes which, having been dealt with in more detail elsewhere, hardly need to be further elaborated upon here.

Only a tiny handful of persons will understand me and be worthy of my work. The rest are simply persons whose opinions count for naught in the general scheme of eschatological and ontological speculation. The masses, being female-dominated, cannot be trusted from a religious standpoint, nor should one compromise one's philosophy by endeavouring to court the masses, least of all via some kind of soapbox oratory or political harangue. Overcoming them, as of 'man' or 'mankind', will be a long, slow, arduous process, not something that could be achieved in a few years or even decades, and therefore it cannot be rushed or entered into on a populist basis. It will happen gradually, by degrees, or not at all. For you can't turn things around and effectively defeat woman overnight. You must be patient, determined, and, above all, tactful, and you must know exactly why and to what ends you are engaged upon a course of action that will be opposed by the majority and have little or no popular support.

This is a philosophy for the Few or, more specifically, for the theocratically-minded Few, those partial to metaphysics, and you will need all your cunning and intelligence to master the democratic Many, to bring them to the 'judgement' of deciding whether or not to democratically opt (elect) for religious sovereignty and, in the event (not entirely implausible) of a majority mandate thereof subsequently transpiring, to follow you into 'Kingdom Come' and a very different order of society from what obtains in the world or, rather, in the type of worldliness with which, as chemical and pseudo-physical, they are acquainted.

The prospects, in the event of success in this respect, are, however, limitless, corresponding both to Eternity and to the pseudo-Infinity which will be the pseudo-bound will subordinate to free soul in the event of a metaphysical hegemony over pseudo-metachemistry, as of religion over pseudo-science and, hence, time over pseudo-space, the 'lamb' over the (neutralized) 'wolf' and/or 'lion' of Christian eschatology 'writ large' by the Superchristianity of what I have called Social Theocracy and hold to be the nemesis of anything Social Democratic.

Only via Social Theocracy can Roman Catholicism be overhauled and the world be 'overcome'. For unlike Roman Catholicism, with its truncated metaphysics (the bound soma of the crucifixional paradigm) in consequence of the extrapolative straining-on-the-leash nature of Catholicism away from the Creator-esque roots of the Judeo-Christian tradition, Social Theocracy, by contrast, will be without metaphysical limits, being completely independent of metachemistry and, hence, of the reproductive, Creator-esque free will of Devil the Mother, and independent not so much through God the Father as through Heaven the Holy Soul, the actual fulcrum of the metaphysical element (photonic?) whose life is eternal.