15-21/10/12

It follows quite inevitably that in an alpha-orientated and alpha-stemming age, when cinema and television are so prevalent, the bodily nature of the age will be partial to gender equalitarianism, since women can hardly be treated, let alone regarded, as inferior to men when they more epitomize precisely those bodily norms that are to the forefront of contemporary civilization which, ironically, is less civil and cultural than barbarous and philistine – more precisely, barbarous and pseudo-philistine in metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, and pseudo-barbarous and philistine in chemistry and pseudo-physics at the southwest point thereof, a point more germane to television than to cinema, but no-less characterized, if from a contrary axial standpoint, by female dominion.

Thus when females are hegemonic, as in metachemistry and chemistry, the idea of gender equalitarianism is not only inevitable but, sorry to say, does not even reflect the actual realities obtaining in those contexts, where males, as pseudo-males, are in a subordinate (sonofabitch-like) position under females and can – and indeed should – speak, when married, of their 'better half' where the greater somatic (bodily) disposition of the female is concerned.

It is only, by contrast, in a civil and cultural age or society, properly commensurate with civilization, that the situation would be reversed, and females, being less psychic (or given to mind) than their male counterparts, would be in the inferior position, whether as pseudo-chemistry under physics at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass or, more absolutely, as pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics at the northeast point thereof, with no pretensions to gender equalitarianism then existing.

At present, however, we are still at some remove from that more civilized possibility. But a day must surely come when the intolerable reality, from a male standpoint, of having to play 'second fiddle', so to speak, to hegemonic females in terms of somatic, or bodily, licence will have been consigned to the proverbial rubbish bin of history, as people – and males in particular – opt for a higher kind of civilization commensurate, through culture and pseudo-civility in metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, with 'Kingdom Come'.

In the meantime, bodily criteria will continue to prevail, not least with cinema and television, as will the delusion that female hegemonic positions in metachemistry and chemistry actually make for gender equality.

Why don't we hear more about the alpha female, the free female of libertarian not to say feminist persuasion? Perhaps that would only be possible if we heard less about the so-called alpha male, the pseudo-male who, in reality, is either a pseudo-omega 'sonofabitch' or, if he comes unstuck from pseudo-physics (via anti-physics) or from pseudo-metaphysics (via anti-metaphysics) under unbearable female hegemonic pressure, the quasi-female, quasi-alpha idiot who, in quasi-chemistry or quasi-metachemistry, outdoes the chemical or metachemical female, the alpha female, at her own game, so to speak, ascending from a plane down in each case with a ratio of free soma and bound psyche (contrary to his male gender actuality) the converse in either relative (1½:2½) or absolute (1:3) terms, of the female ratio (of 2½:1½ free soma to bound psyche in chemistry and 3:1 free soma to bound psyche in metachemistry).

No wonder 'he' gets a bad name, even if this departure from the plane below in each class case is still, even in this day and age of female dominion, the exception to the general rule (of being a 'sonofabitch'), albeit one likely to lead either to prison or even to death.

I intimated in the previous entry that I didn't really believe in gender equalitarianism because contemporary society tended to manifest female dominion through female-hegemonic criteria in metachemistry and chemistry, and in that respect I believe my viewpoint to be correct, since global civilization in its contemporary, or alpha-orientated and alpha-stemming modes, can be characterized by the prevalence of feminism as an exemplification, I maintain, of secular barbarism within societies where, as a rule, the male is rather more philistine in his gender subordination than overly barbarous, or objective.

But gender equalitarianism, or the objective thereof, can be seen to have preceded this female-dominated mode of civilization, and precisely in relation to what may be termed bourgeois decadence, meaning the female vicar-like pre-feminist extension of opportunity not incompatible, in other contexts, with the widening of the democratic franchise, so that the right of females to an education previously reserved to males, and then only to privileged males, can be regarded as an aspect of this drive towards gender equalitarianism commensurate with bourgeois (mainly Protestant-derived) decadence in societies where the paperback has come to supplant, though not entirely replace, the more bodily hardback, and the availability of books – and therefore information and education as well as entertainment – to greater numbers of persons who might previously have been excluded from such reading-matter or its presentation thereof can be construed as a manifestation of this tendency towards equalitarianism, albeit motivated, through bourgeois decadence, by commercial necessity and even ambition that somehow still falls well short, in its petty-bourgeois nature, of the outright barbarity of the global proletariat, whose prime means of 'cultural' presentation would not be the book, not even when in paperback format, but, rather, the film, and thus cinema and/or television.

Therefore if there is a place for the concept of gender equalitarianism in relation to bourgeois decadence, with the female 'priest' or vicar being a case in point, the overwhelming evidence of female dominion in relation to global barbarism of the proletariat would suggest that such equalitarianism has been eclipsed, to all intents and purposes, by a new form of gender inequality favouring, whether through feminism or some entertainment-based stardom, females.

Are not the proletariat, as industrial workers or urban dwellers, beyond humanism, that bourgeois ideal? Then what significance can the term 'proletarian humanism' have if not to disguise the underlying petty-bourgeois reality of the omega-most point of humanism as a bourgeois phenomenon. Doubtless there is – and has long been – a kind of petty-bourgeois/proletarian overlap, whereby the proletariat are identified – falsely it may well be – with humanism by their petty-bourgeois masters and so-called revolutionary leaders. In which case we need to be more categorically exact and, frankly, disciplined, ascribing to the proletariat a post-humanist status having, through industrial and technological associations, what may be called proto-cyborgistic overtones commensurate with a global age and civilization rooted, barbarously, in manual labour and the objective dominance, overall, of females.

You exist because somebody fathered you into existence. Tough!

Writers who do little else but think and write are the only ones worth reading.

This life is a battleground where the male almost invariably loses out to the female.

Nietzsche is the type of the artist-philosopher whom I most esteem – self-made and self-assertive, with no apologies for being what one is.

The so-called 'creative mind' behind Nature - that notion, to return to it once again, stems from a male input. The reality, on mature reflection, would be more akin to a 'creative body', but that would almost certainly have required a female author which, historically, would have been highly paradoxical.

As noted above, I always prefer gentlemen and pseudo-ladies to ladies and pseudo-gentlemen, like preferring joy and pseudo-ugliness, free soul and pseudo-bound will in metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry to beauty and pseudo-woe, free will and pseudo-bound soul in metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics. Actually, understatements aside, I intensely dislike the latter, there being no compromise between antithetical absolutes.

Yes, it is definitely the case that gender equalitarianism has inexorably led to the gender inequality favouring females, like bourgeois decadence to proletarian barbarism, female vicars to feminists.

While I may despise gender equalitarianism, I remain contemptuous of female-oriented gender inequality.

Today's society is morally worse than that which preceded it, with the decadence of Western civilization, but more artificial, like so-called rock 'n' roll to classical, electric music to its acoustic counterpart.

I've always believed my work, my philosophical writings, etc., to be just as good (great?) as Nietzsche's, if not in some respects better.

The contemporary predilection for rating creative products – CDs, DVDs, etc. - with stars is reminiscent of the graded stars one would get at infants school as a form of marking for work (or play), thereby suggesting the infantile nature of star ratings. In this respect, the term 'rat race' takes on a new meaning.

We live, alas, in a post-equalitarian world dominated by females. Bourgeois decadence having led to proletarian barbarism, like the end of the West to the beginning of global civilization, which now vainly 'struts its stuff' all over the place with a swagger and bluster that owes nothing to sensibility and virtually everything to its sensual antithesis.

Ireland, I have to say, wouldn't be a particularly attractive country to live in. The weather is too regularly awful!

A country bogged down in religious superstition because it rains for hours and hours with little or no reprieve – that is Ireland.

The Virgin Mary on her knees, but is she praying for more rain or a reprieve from rain because of her Son? Truly, Ireland is a land shrouded in a 'veil of tears' in the form of the rain, which is often shot through with a vicious wind that gives it a certain acerbity likely to chill you to the bone.

The chief blight on England, by contrast, is not so much the weather (curiously enough) as the plethora of foreign elements that make for division and, hence, strife. This has always, in a way, been the chief blight on England, a land of plenty whose material wealth attracts foreigners like a magnet.

To persevere in the face of foreign opposition to and dislike of one's culture – that, it seems to me, is a must. Otherwise … well, why go on living?

Multiracial, multicultural societies are inherently bad because of their divisive and disruptive influence upon the soul. There is too much competition and too little cooperation, too many conflicting types of lifestyle or attitude getting on one's nerves. The ancestral environments some of these people hail from were not conducive, it has to be said, to the cultivation of introversion or sensibility or even solitude, the prerequisite for any noticeable degree of sensibility.

I intensely dislike the idea of working for anybody else, not least because it leads to a form of self-betrayal that can be likened to prostitution.

The greatest men always work for and by themselves against, if needs be, everybody else. Serving others is not really a male predilection but stems, rather, from a vacuous want of subjectivity – in short, from a female disposition.

The truly greatest men not only work for or by themselves, but tend to remain single and more or less celibate, defying women. Such men as Schopenhauer, Beethoven, Baudelaire, Brahms, Nietzsche, even Tchaikovsky would surely qualify in this regard.

The twentieth century represents a petty-bourgeois falling away from the standards of greatness set by the leading artists and philosophers of the preceding century, with more involvement in the Arts by women and a correspondingly greater influence of women upon men, to their subjective detriment.

Internet slavery, whereby one prostitutes one's soul for financial gain, is, if not fast supplanting, then certainly superseding other forms of slavery.

Some say that people who are free to leave the job they are in are not slaves; but this does not make them free to stop working altogether, and I suspect that most people who leave one job only do so to take up another, thereby remaining enslaved to the work-a-day-world, if on a relatively liberal basis such that permits one to choose, albeit within fairly narrow limits determined by qualifications and experience, one's mode of slavery.

These days cultural greatness is even more under fire from women than it was in the age of petty-bourgeois equalitarianism, since subject to the feminist dominion of especially beautiful and even independently proud women, who ever war on the Omega from a standpoint based in the Alpha.

Ireland is a kind of backwater in the British Isles plagued by dreadful weather.

The British were – and to some extent remain – on the whole pretty good for Ireland because, through England in particular, they brought a slightly more optimistic outlook – the fruit in many respects of Protestantism - to bear upon a country hamstrung by awful weather – worse even than British weather. Without Britain, Ireland would now be even worse off and more susceptible, through persistent rain, to bog down in itself, as in a wretched past.

Those who dissociate Irish roughness and coarseness from bad weather are ignorant of Ireland, and therefore guilty of mere superficiality. Not that all Irish people are rough or coarse, least of all in the big cities.

When one does what one wants to do because one believes in and enjoys it, one is not a slave but a free man and potentially if not actually a great one, capable of feats of greatness. That work which is voluntarily entered in to and taken as far as one can take it is not slavery but a monument to vocational freedom.

That man who, having been a sheep, can turn himself into more than a sheep, perhaps even a kind of shepherd, would have to have been a black sheep capable, through having read the finest writings, of thinking for himself and breaking away from the flock.

When truth is a biscuit, the biscuit is a lie.

I have never been able to get over a marked distaste for business. I could never be a businessman.

Surfing for credits with so-called traffic-generating websites, or traffic exchanges, is not only a complete waste of time; it is actually soul-destroying. As an artist or, in my case, artist-philosopher selling eBooks, you are in a minority of one per cent.

Doing and giving precede taking and being as noumenal and phenomenal alpha vis-a-vis phenomenal and noumenal omega, the former female and the latter male, with primary and secondary implications.

In similar vein to the above (and purely as an experiment) let us distinguish speaking and writing from reading and thinking … as noumenal and phenomenal alpha (doing and giving) from phenomenal and noumenal omega (taking and being), with the former basically female and the latter essentially male, since one cannot read unless somebody has written something for one to read, and it could be argued that unless somebody has spoken, there would be little point in thinking, or in thinking about what was said.

Therefore I am going to equate speaking with doing and writing with giving on the primary (female) side of the gender divide but, by contrast, reading with taking and thinking with being on the secondary (male) side of the gender divide – the former options objective and the latter options subjective.

If this is true, then I am probably the only thinker ever to have thought about such matters in this way. Clearly, people (and females in particular) express themselves (objectively) through speech and letters, whereas people (and males in particular) impress upon themselves (subjectively) through books and thoughts. Therefore the speaker is a doer, the writer a giver, the reader a taker, and the thinker a be-er, or one who, like the philosopher, impresses thought upon his mind, the better to understand what is said, written, or even read.

But if, on noumenal terms, the speaker provides 'food for thought', then it surely follows that, on phenomenal terms, the writer provides what could be called (dr)ink for one to take in, via the eyes, to one's brain, or take cognizance of, through reading.

Both speaking and thinking, the noumenal alpha and omega (doing and being), are absolute, whereas both writing and reading, the phenomenal alpha and omega (giving and taking), are relative, requiring pen and paper or some equivalent intervening, not to say intermediate, medium for the transmission and reception of language, as for a corporeal presentation, one might say, of speech and thought. But where speech and thought, the ethereal alpha and omega, are concerned, you can speak without a pen and think without a book – expressing or impressing oneself absolutely.

There! I think I have satisfactorily concluded this experiment in correlating the different approaches to language with the aforementioned quadruplicity of doing, giving, taking, and being, a quadruplicity of philosophical terms that could just as credibly be associated with the literary genres of drama, poetry, fiction, and philosophy, or speaking, writing, reading, and thinking.

People whose language and literary predilections predominantly range between speaking and reading, the will and the ego, I hold to be of a state-hegemonic disposition commensurate with the northwest and southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, whereas people whose language and literary predilections preponderantly range between writing and thinking, the spirit and the soul, I hold to be of a church-hegemonic disposition commensurate with the southwest and northeast points of the said compass.

I have said nothing about the subordinate gender positions which exist under the hegemonic ones at all points of the intercardinal axial compass, like pseudo-metaphysics in relation to metachemistry, or pseudo-thinking in relation to speaking, and pseudo-chemistry in relation to physics, or pseudo-writing in relation to reading, on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but, by contrast, pseudo-physics in relation to chemistry, or pseudo-reading in relation to writing, and pseudo-metachemistry in relation to metaphysics, or pseudo-speaking in relation to thinking, on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, the former axis broadly Protestant and the latter one Catholic, like a kind of British/Irish ethnic divide.

Speaking and writing are more creative than reading and thinking. In fact, it is debatable whether reading and thinking, being subjective, are really creative at all. Therefore it seems to me that the creative aspect of things, akin to the so-called Creator, is not only alpha and objective as opposed to omega and subjective; it is fundamentally of female character, accruing to will and spirit, power and glory, as opposed to ego and soul, form and contentment.

The creative side of life is a fiery and watery objectivity, not a vegetative and airy subjectivity that fights shy, through taking and being, of doing and giving, like mass and time of space and volume.

A cynic would say that speaking and writing will always trump reading and thinking. I am not a cynic.

I would argue that when one is, by gender or nature, more of a speaker than anything else, indeed most speaker and least thinker, one is almost certain to be of autocratic disposition; that when one is, by gender or nature, more of a writer than anything else, indeed more writer and less reader, one is likely to be of democratic disposition; that when, through gender or nature, one is more of a reader than anything else, indeed more reader and less writer, one is likely to be of plutocratic disposition; and that when, finally, one is more of a thinker than anything else, indeed most thinker and least speaker, one is almost certainly going to be of theocratic disposition.

I wrote 'Cross-Purposes' (1979) because I knew what it was to live against one's grain as an outsider in a given kind of society or civilization. No doubt, my search for Truth, for Self, was motivated by a desire to counter this at times intolerable situation deriving from my being an Irish citizen born of an Irish father in Ireland but raised by a British-born mother in England and subsequently discovering, to my amazement and horror, that my outlook on life was more Irish than English, even though I continued to live in England.

Some day I'd like to compile an anthology drawn from various of my writings.

I tend to think much more than I write, with the latter capturing only a fraction of my thoughts.

The strange thing is not that one is alive, but that one can continue to live in spite of everything, of the hideous brutalities, insults, rip-offs, predatory advances, and obligations that are heaped upon one every day as a matter of diurnal course.

We inhabit a world with too many writers, too many books, too much of everything, including people. We suffocate under the surfeit of materialism.

Will there ever be an end to suffering? Not as long as women continue to dominate life, with reproductive consequences!

My father was a coward who didn't take responsibility for having fathered a child, and simply went back to his mother, who felt obliged to take him in, as though to spite the other woman (my mother).

Whoever pays you owns you, as does the State to which you pay taxes, etc. As a member of society, that is, as you regarded from the outside, you are owned by society, both commercially and politically, as well as scientifically, because you are financially dependent on society, including the State. That is why society can get you to do what it wants, irrespective of your feelings (too inner) or wishes (too selfish).

Where, formerly, it may have been the Church that owned your soul, spirit, ego, or whatever, through the power and glory of God, it is now the State that, through its various administrative bodies and bureaucratic institutions, owns your body, and there isn't very much, short of dropping out, that you, as an individual, can do about it. Depressing, what?

The only way to defeat this situation, to really change the existing stater-of-affairs, is through a new and ultimate church (I call it the Social Theocratic Centre) that, unlike the old church in its various denominational permutations, not only recognizes but gives you back your soul, at least as a male who may well have been deprived of it by the prevalence, through female domination, of will and spirit, and thus provides you with the necessary means of defeating the State and replacing bodily ownership with an end that is purely psychic, an otherworldly end that transcends the bodily travails of this world as it resurrects the Church and neutralizes the State, thereby precluding females from utilizing will and spirit to dominate society to the detriment, if not effective exclusion, of ego and soul, to the detriment, most especially, of true self and that truth which is nothing less than loyalty to the seat of the Self, the Soul, in the spinal cord, or central nervous system.

It is precisely the want of self-respect in males who, being subjective, should have a greater capacity for solitude than females, that makes for flight into multitude and, hence, dependence on society to solve ones ills or afflictions. But society, presided over by the State, is a stern taskmistress who exerts a high price for such dependence – namely the externalization of the person as body and the public subversion, if not effective eclipse, of the ego and soul, making for a dependence on the rule of will and spirit that keeps females in the driving seat, as it were, and more or less principal determinants of one's fate.

This is the opposite, from a male perspective, of salvation, as of religious endeavour, if really true, to turn one away from society through self-cultivation and an enhanced respect, in subjectivity, for solitude. When the Church fails in this task it is left to the Artist or, more usually, the Artist-Philosopher to step into the void and fill it with his own solution to a want of self-respect through self-awareness in the male.

One mustn't overlook the considerable contribution of musicians to the sustenance and protection of the ego (through song lyrics) and, most especially, of the soul (through feeling).

However, in connection with the above, one should note that just as the ego, duly subverted, is drawn towards the (female) spirit through sex, so can the soul, under public pressure, be drawn towards the (female) will through music which, whether or not this results in a funky jerk-off outcome, conduces towards society in respect of audience participation, a participation that, when not characterized and even conditioned by seating, can lead via dance to the triumph of will and thus to outright displays of bodily freedom – something much to be deplored from a properly soulful and, hence, male standpoint.

In this regrettable way music can become the wilful image on a higher plane, owing to the corruption of soul through will, of what usually transpires on the sexual plane below, with the corruption of ego through spirit, vegetation (the flesh) meekly striving to quench its thirst (for fluidal satisfaction) through sex.

In a post-atomic age, when the atom has been split apart through nuclear fission, homosexuality, whether gay or lesbian, makes logical – one might even say perfect – sense, insofar as it would seem to be a foreshadowing, on mundane terms, of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical division of the sexes along saint and (neutralized) dragon or lamb and (neutralized) lion and/or wolf lines, as germane to 'Kingdom Come' and a complete end, in consequence, to worldly relativity – in short, to everything atomic and therefore beholden to proton domination.

The Jedi are selfless, they 'think about others', not themselves, because it would appear they are of female persuasion, with no minds to think with and thereby be 'true to self', presumably like the Seth. I don't think I like the Jedi.

Yoda, on the other hand, who is not a Jedi, seems to speak English in a German manner, pushing verbs to the end of the clause or sentence.

Anakin is transformed into Darth Vader following his defeat to Obi One and descent into the lava, where he becomes facially disfigured, but nonetheless survives. - Notes written after viewing 'Star Wars III'.

No philosopher encourages anyone to dance.

The dancer, like the dramatist, is the born enemy of soul, and thus of philosophical meditation.

German ought to be compulsory (oh dear!) for every high-school pupil, with the brightest ones turning into college students, like tadpoles into frogs or, rather, a chrysalis turning into, say, a butterfly who, having escaped from the cocoon of high-school education, can now spread his wings to fly wherever he may, including, ultimately, to Germany itself, not to mention Austria and the German-speaking parts of Switzerland.

I was heading up Williamsgate Street towards Eyre Square in Galway City when, out of the crowd, somebody going in the opposite direction said: 'Hello, Oliver,' evidently alluding to me, though I couldn't quite figure why until, a few seconds later, upon reaching Eyre Square, I realized that I was wearing a baseball cap and probably looked a bit like Oliver Cromwell in consequence. That, I am afraid, is Ireland. And, for the benefit of the Catholic Irish, let me just say that you wouldn't have been feeling particularly secure or safe if you happened to be of Anglican persuasion when Oliver Cromwell was in Ireland, given the nature and outcome of the English Civil War.

A man shouting at his male kid in the street, the kid having exasperated him, caused me to forget my habitual disdain for people in such situations and almost feel sorry for him. But I quickly regained my composure and reflected on the manifest undesirability of being in that situation and, more to the point, having opted to become a father in the first place. I can think of few worse fates.

One does penance for existing through suffering, and is forgiven for living through pleasure.

Rock 'n' Roll has regressed from soft rock and progressive rock (not to mention rock classical) to hard rock and, latterly, heavy metal – a music even more mindlessly bodily than any previous incarnation of rock, as though struggling against the tide whose current flows away from rock 'n' roll towards other types of contemporary music, including electronica and trance/dance.

Heavy metal is the death of rock music, a 'danse macabre' that sinks ever lower beneath the surface of humanity to subhuman and, frankly, subterranean depths where only the demonic prevails.

The novel is as dead as the humanism that spawned it, product of a parliamentary/puritan disposition motivated by economic values. These days the race of people that fostered humanism have been swamped by so many peoples of foreign origin, many if not most of whom only inspire a certain disgust with humanity, that humanism has little or no relevance, let alone place.

Living in a lodging house owned by Bangladeshis, with four of them (one of whom is a perpetually loud-mouthed and physically-clumsy retard) on the prowl at any given time, is indescribably horrible! Never have my temper and patience been so severely tried. Frankly, I loathe them and consider this co-existence (they gradually moved in and slowly took over the property) as one of the worst experiences of my entire life – certainly the worst in terms of neighbour relations, which are akin to a perpetual war in which an ordinarily mild-mannered man finds himself bordering on psychopathic hatred because of the door-slamming brutality and physical restlessness generally obtaining with them. I don't think that, after this, I could ever look upon Bangladeshis, who are usually Sunni Muslims, as anything but extremely distasteful to me.

That is my experience, not a fanciful abstract prejudice, nor, at the opposite extreme, the product of an 'ivory tower'-like affluent isolation from such circumstances that makes for rhetorical humanitarianism and a theoretical adherence to ethnic inclusiveness and anti-racism. No-one could be further removed from such 'ivory-tower' sentiment, if not sentimentalism, than me, and I only know that if I ever get away from here, from this accursed house, as from this part of London or, indeed, London in general, I will do my utmost to ensure that I never have to live in the same house as Bangladeshis again. The smell of their food alone, which they can eat at virtually any time of day without having done a stroke of work, and which sometimes suggests to me, in its fishy rancidity, a species of fried snot, is enough to make one vomit, even if they weren't constantly on the go slamming doors and shouting up and down stairs with at times a well-nigh hysterical intensity that beggars belief....