GREEN
NOTEBOOK 2
The most I can say about the small,
antiquated, dysfunctional computers at my local library in the borough of north
I cannot conceive of a dignified
life that is not independent of other people, especially of unruly neighbours
and noisy workmen.
The State rules by day, but the
Church at night, rather like the Sun and the Moon.
I have kept my best work in reserve
for last.
As foreigners, they often lack the
skills, social as well as occupational, to integrate with the indigenous, so
they simply breed and are obliged to claim benefit while marking time, time for
integration in the next generation? Or is integration not possible in some
cases? Not even desirable? Even I
have reservations about how far I am prepared to integrate into a society whose
criteria are not always ethnically compatible with my own, especially since, as
an Irishman, I feel acutely embarrassed by so much of what passes for the norm
in a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society, and am correspondingly
reluctant to engage with it.
Man is far more considerate of which
foreign species are introduced into a natural habitat than he is of which
foreigners are allowed into his native land. Or, rather, some men are. Namely
the ones responsible for making such decisions in the first place!
Are we not all the victims of other
men, who make decisions for us or independently of us or even against us? I
believe so. And that is one of the contributory factors to why society can be
such a problematic thing, with a dual-sided nature that both
protects and exploits, encourages and undermines, advances and retards.
'Anything goes' only because and
when people are ignorant of what should or shouldn't 'go', and why. A
civilization in terminal decline and disintegration plays host to much that is
not characteristic of its past, but rather symptomatic of outside influence and
interference. These days the West looks to
Not a day passes by but one feels
one is being made war upon by foreigners or people of foreign origin, many of
whom are indifferent if not hostile to Christianity. Such is life in the
hideously cosmopolitan metropolis of London, where nothing one holds dear or
sacred can be taken for granted, and where burly fools rush in or, more
correctly, muscle in where angels would fear to tread, were it not a city
hostile to the angelic and long given to some demonic protest that
paradoxically culminates underground. Surely this is an Irishman's nightmare?
The other day, while I was
attending to some obligation in Wood Green, I overheard a self-professed young
Irishman saying to another man, with whom he was evidently in conversation:
The number of foreigners in
At last, after some six months or
more the workmen next-door have dismantled and removed the scaffolding from
front and back, the latter of which was particularly annoying in that not only
did it overlap with part of my accommodation, partially passing under my window
and resting on the roof to my downstairs landing, but the tarpaulin loosely
hanging from the main scaffold tended to break loose from its moorings in the
wind and take periodic swipes at my slanting roof and back wall, at night more
so than during the day, so that there was no escaping from it and certainly no
reprieve. Even earplugs were only of partial use, so fierce, at times, was the
thwack of the pegs dangling on uncertain strings from the tarpaulin proper,
which would recoil under pressure from the wind only to launch a fresh assault
on my bedroom with what sounded like redoubled gusto. Frankly, this recurring
rat-a-tat-tat of the dangling pegs, which should have fastened the tarpaulin to
the scaffolding, was a kind of torture, from which I have emerged with some
additional psychological scarring to that caused by the persistent manual work
with which the house next-door has been plagued for several months, and still
continues, despite the removal of scaffolding, to be intermittently plagued.
******
I have just completed another
literary trip through Germany, one of several in recent months, compliments of
an 'Eyewitness Travel' guide that I borrowed from one of the Haringey
libraries, and, as usual, I am mentally exhausted and not a little privately
disgusted by the alarming number of printing errors apparently overlooked
and/or committed at various stages of the editing and/or printing process for
what is described as a 2008 reprint (with revisions) of a 2001 publication, and
one, moreover, that had already undergone at least five prior reprints! The
fact that this publication had been farmed out to a Chinese printing company
(South China Printing Company Ltd) may well have had some bearing on the
result, commendable though it is that a Chinese company should be able to print
in English. But it is a sad fact, nevertheless, that publications of this
nature, which are in other respects quite excellent and nobly intentioned,
should be flawed by so many typographical mistakes. These books surely deserve
better, as, I might add, do the public, especially those who, unlike myself, actually buy them!
Buy virtually any of my eBooks if
you dare and you'll probably find far fewer typographical blunders. In fact,
you will probably be able to read without living in fearful anticipation of the
next printing or spelling error. But, unfortunately for me, most people will
continue to buy books. Which is ironic, really, though not, I
dare say, without axial or social implications at variance with my own!
German is such a fantastically
complex language that you can only admire Germans for being able to speak it.
Even the lowliest German must be privy to grammatical complexities which
non-German speakers would be entirely ignorant of and unable, for the most
part, to broach or risk being confronted by, for fear of having their ignorance
and anti-German pretensions exposed. Learning German is, indeed, a humbling
experience, and doubtless one that those who are too proud to wish to learn
would not relish.
It must be difficult enough for a
German to speak Deutsch, never mind a foreigner. And then there are the
various dialects within any given German-speaking country, not to mention the
difficulties which arise when borders are crossed and Germans, Austrians, and
Swiss Germans endeavour to make sense of one another!
******
Those who buy surfing credits in
bulk from Traffic Exchanges squeeze out the non-buying users, in consequence of
which one tends to see too many adverts of the same kind and quickly becomes
bored, if not seriously disillusioned, with the nature of what happens on any
given Traffic Generating site especially susceptible to such users. Frankly,
for all the good they do in terms of generating revenue for the non-paying
customer (and probably for not a few of the paying customers to boot), you
might as well avoid Traffic Exchanges and simply concentrate on submitting such
sites as you have to Social Networks and the occasional Internet Directory.
In my experience, the mentally
defective are usually physically effective (fit, strong, active, healthy, etc.) and the mentally effective, by contrast,
somewhat prone to physical defects or, at any rate, to a defective physique.
You can, I suppose, have it both ways, but never to any great extent.
What do you think about that? is
a common enough expression, and most people, if asked, would provide some kind
of answer. But have they really thought about the subject in question, whatever
it may be? No, the actual process of thinking
about anything is so frowned upon by a majority of people, especially in
public, that it almost goes without saying that an opinion about something
doesn't necessarily require any conscious thought!
Egalitarianism is always popular
with the masses, who are naturally suspicious if not
envious of elites and of anyone culturally distinguished.
With physical writings novels,
essays, etc. - form determines content, if not the level of contentment. With
metaphysical writings aphorisms, maxims, etc. contentment, if not content,
determines form. It is not the ego but the soul that is the fulcrum of the latter
kind of writings, not knowledge or, more correctly, knowledge as the basis of
pleasure, but truth or, more correctly, joy as the basis of truth.
The Sun was so thickly veiled
behind a dense mound of shifting cloud that it looked more like the Moon, and
it seemed as though, with no shadows, my surroundings had been turned into a
premature night without the benefit, however, of peace and quiet because still
restless in its daytime pretensions. One was adrift, as it were, in a kind of
limbo that refused to release the semblance of night from daytime clutches,
leaving one marooned and not a little disoriented, as one waited patiently for
a non-approaching train.
Catholicism invented cathedrals. In
fact, cathedrals are not a Protestant phenomenon, though so-called
Anglo-Catholicism, otherwise known as Anglicanism, has its fair share of
cathedrals, including the magnificent
******
Most people in
I would be suspicious of artists,
never mind thinkers, who weren't tulip-like, that is, inward-turning and
capable of introspection and more, in consequence, than a slavish adherence to
nature.
They sweep the dirt of the past
under the rug of history and then hoover if not hover over it with the
smugness of modernity, confident that some prophet of futurity will
conveniently overlook it in his obsession with a shiny bright future.
History is a bitch desperately
striving to become a bastard.
The truly mature tend to see
themselves as being beyond nature
in some cultural realm closer to the
ultimate nurture.
The merely nurtural tend to bow via
the pseudo-natural to Supernature, whereas the natural, when not impeded and
led astray by external forces, tend to aspire towards Supernurture at least
when male or, rather, pseudo-male and therefore under the sway of nature but
characterized, all the same, by the pseudo-nurture of sin.
A decadent civilization does not
encourage the natural/pseudo-nurtural to aspire towards
Supernurture/pseudo-Supernature, as towards Superman/pseudo-Superwoman, but
renders them more vulnerable, through some secular alternative to Marianism
like republican socialism, to the predations of the
pseudo-nature/nurture-financed Supernatural/pseudo-Supernurtural.
Man is no more capable of anything
than is God. Both operate within different kinds of limitations specific to
masculine and divine parameters. The same could be said, within other (if
contrary) parameters, of woman and the Devil.
The human can be masculine or
feminine (not to mention pseudo-feminine or pseudo-masculine in gender
subordination to a hegemonic masculinity or femininity), the Superhuman
supermasculine or superfeminine (not to mention pseudo-superfeminine or
pseudo-supermasculine in gender subordination to a hegemonic supermasculinity
or superfemininity).
Positivity and negativity attach to
both the human and the superhuman, albeit in contrary gender ways and with
opposite ratios in both the relativity of the phenomenal (2½:1½) and the
absolutism of the noumenal (3:1), quite apart from the effects of class and
gender differentiation upon the subordinate position (pseudo-element) to any
given hegemonic position (element).
******
The Sun stubbornly poked its face
through a hole in the cloud, as if to spy on me before disappearing again under
cover of a shifting bunch of denser clouds whose intervention, scarcely
providential, appeared somewhat premature.
Since my previous project, my last
eBook, the word 'reluctance' has become curiously taboo, and I tend, in
consequence, to avoid using it.
A street preacher shouting
salvation above the indifferent crowd, the noise of traffic, and whatever else,
including a nearby busker, was going-on in the vicinity of where he stood, a
solitary figure preaching the 'Word of God' in a manner at variance with the
godly but nonetheless desperately at loggerheads with 'the world'.
It would seem the overgrown boys in
shorts are back on the football pitch and busily engaged in running their
proverbial socks off. Just the start of another football
season during the course of which a fair number of goals will be scored with
the head, whether or not with the use of the head. For there are
obviously different ways of using your head, though the so-called 'people's
game' (also popularly called the 'beautiful game', which is odd really, since
not a term one would readily associate with 'the people', having more in
common, I would argue, with Rugby Union as traditionally more germane to the
'upper class') would appear to favour using it physically as opposed to
mentally.
Like most modern cults, the cult of
National Socialism went from worship of the Leader (Hitler) to sacrifice of the
worshippers (people), culminating in death and disaster of a magnitude which no
Wagnerian opera could have foreseen, let alone realized!
Better the 'Spiritual Beggars' than
what could be called the Material Buggers, the mere carnality
(non-reproductive) of a material age, an age dominated and characterized by
materialism.
******
I would regard any female in a
straight skirt or dress as being either relatively or absolutely reserved in
regard to spirit (relative) or will (absolute). Any female in a tapering skirt
or dress, however, I would regard as being either relatively or absolutely mad,
as though subject to a gender aberration which is less pseudo-chemical
(relative) or pseudo-metachemical (absolute) than quasi-pseudo-chemical (from
the standpoint of physics) or quasi-pseudo-metachemical (from the standpoint of
metaphysics), neither of which forms of amoral degeneration (from the hegemonic
male moralities of physics and metaphysics respectively) could possibly be any
good for either pseudo-chemistry or pseudo-metachemistry, let alone, following
an immoral backlash, for the hegemonic elements themselves.
I would have real reservations, as
a male, about amorally descending, from a hegemonically moral standpoint, be it
relative (physics) or absolute (metaphysics), onto the subordinate gender
positions of pseudo-chemistry or pseudo-metachemistry, since it would be equivalent,
in sartorial terms, to abandoning either tapering trousers (physical) or a
tapering zipper-suit (metaphysical) for a tapering skirt
(quasi-pseudo-chemical) or a tapering dress (quasi-pseudo-metachemical), and
neither could possibly be desirable from a male standpoint, quite apart from
the immoral backlash which is likely to occur when what is unmorally
subordinate, in pseudo-chemistry or pseudo-metachemistry, becomes pressurized
into either a quasi-physical or a quasi-metaphysical (depending on the context)
immoral ascent, bringing her pseudo-objective criteria (in straight skirt
and/or dress) to bear on what is hegemonically subjective (and therefore
characterized, as noted above, by either tapering trousers or a tapering
zipper-suit), which could only be morally undermined, if not diminished, by
competition coming up from below. Were this to happen in other contexts than
the sartorial example given above, it would not be a jot better or any the less
alarming, whatever appearances to the contrary or common usage might suggest!
Without the Sun there would be no
life on this planet, not even Christian life, which tends, when genuine, to go
against the natural grain. In fact, there would not even be a planet, never
mind an aspiration towards some otherworldly goal or alternative to 'the
world'.
Everything sensible mirrors
gravity; everything sensual mirrors nuclear fusion, which resists gravity by
continuously pushing outwards, objectively striving beyond itself.
Unlike extroverts, introverts tend
to be grave and reserved, not given to outward show or impulsive action.
Some people contain others, some
people have to be contained, which is to say, restrained and inhibited in their
sensual pursuits. Which also applies to whole peoples, whose
social conditioning tends to favour either sensuality or sensibility, not both
at once.
******
As one who 'falls between two
stools', Irish and British, I am accustomed to not fitting-in anywhere, but to
being a classic outsider, who is neither 'fish nor fowl' because a paradoxical
cross, through birth and upbringing, between the two who, in his latter years,
has gravitated towards all things German, as though in search of a new centre.
I have dedicated my life to
philosophy, and what a philosophy! Never before have so many factors been got
to add up in so comprehensively exacting a manner. In fact, I believe I am
philosophically unique, the last link in the chain of philosophical evolution,
as it were.
Neither decadent modernity nor
cyclic antiquity, but the evolution of Western civilization on its
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis (catholic) towards 'Kingdom Come',
hopefully via Social Theocracy, the ideological face of my philosophy.
Life survives on worldly terms in
consequence of the beautiful tyranny of females, who normally get their way and
vindicate both their need and capacity for reproduction.
Defeating such tyranny, which is
reinforced by the emotional cement of love, that freely somatic concomitant of
beauty, was never going to be easy, even before decadent modernity paved the
way for cyclic degeneration and the concomitant accommodation, one way or the
other, of the different manifestations of cyclic antiquity.
In the end, the evolution of
Western civilization from Roman times through Roman Catholicism and, hopefully
via Social Theocracy, into the Social Transcendentalism of 'Kingdom Come'
will defeat and subsume everything else, anything contrary to or lesser than
itself, in the interests of true universality.
Although the decadence of Western
civilization can be identified, primarily I believe, with the Renaissance, what
subsequently ensued, in the actual falling away from the 'one true church', led
to a regeneration of religion through the Protestant Reformation and, not least
in England, an effective switch of axis from church-hegemonic (catholic) to
state-hegemonic (protestant) that paved the way, in due course, for the
degenerative processes which culminated, in the twentieth century, with
Communism/Socialism and Fascism/Nazism as contrary manifestations of cyclic
recurrence within a modern, or synthetically artificial, framework, the kind of
framework deriving from the non-cyclic artificiality of Western civilization in
relation to divergent axes, with particular reference, as noted above, to its
state-hegemonic manifestation. Such a degeneration from the original
regeneration of Western civilization into cyclic recurrence of a synthetically
artificial nature overlapped with the development of globalization in
consequence of the effects on the world in general of Western imperialism, such
that brought the West into direct contact with older and more naturally cyclic
cultures which may well have contributed to the Western degeneration into
recurring cycles of a comparatively artificial order, an order only partly
deriving from Western civilization yet still distinct from non-Western
cultures, even though one fancies, in the division of such cultures between
clockwise (Judaic/Hindu) and anti-clockwise (Islamic/Buddhist) cycling,
Communism/Socialism would have a certain appeal to Jews and Hindus, or persons
of Judaic or Hindu descent, and Nazism/Fascism, by contrast, greater appeal to
persons of Islamic or Buddhist descent, if not to Moslems and Buddhists
generally. However that may be, the defeat of both Communism and Fascism (to
revert to general terminology), at least in Europe and even, in some instances,
farther afield, has left the West with the global legacy of its imperial past
under the domination, by and large, of state-hegemonic countries fronted by
America and, to lesser extents, the leading European imperial powers like
Britain, France, and even Russia, but without a universal possibility such that
could only derive from the resurrection of church-hegemonic axial criteria
pending a revolutionary overhaul of the Western tradition which was both global
in its contemporary relevance and synthetically artificial, paving the way,
with 'Kingdom Come' (as that is what I am intimating of) for true universality
and, hence, the end to cyclic division and any concomitant ethnic rivalry,
including, not least, the centuries-old Catholic/Protestant dichotomy within
Western civilization itself.
Clockwise cyclic recurrence, being
closer to nature, is fundamentally a reflection of female domination, both
wilfully and spiritually, and while anti-clockwise cycling may not be entirely
free of female influence, it is more likely, in relation to the greater
exercise of intellectual and emotional factors, to favour the male, as in the
case of fascist reaction to Communism in Europe being partly if not largely in
defence of Western civilization, with its non-cyclical axial polarities
deriving, in no small measure, from Christian values.
******
Life often seems to be a case of
one evolutionary step forward by males, two devolutionary steps backward under
female pressure, not least in respect of a variety of social and familial
obligations which males perforce undertake in relation to females.
Sentimentalists like to think that
the weather is there for our benefit, to enable us to survive and even thrive,
but, in reality, like most other aspects of nature, it simply is what it is,
irrespective of human preferences, and we profit or suffer accordingly.
Some people, in their seeming
incapacity for reflection, their outgoing, extrovert dispositions, resemble
sunflowers, not least when, at any rate in the case of males, they have wiry
hair sticking out everywhichway on face and head! I have always disliked
sunflowers, and people who resemble them rarely curry favour with me.
From the kind of introverted
standpoint of a tulip, even a rose would be bad enough. But a sunflower!
Strange how certain rock stars come to mind.
To go out with a whimper, not a bang, would seem to befit a philosophical disposition. You
can leave bangs to the scientific.
Freedom through wax earplugs, which
grant a sense of independence from close neighbours such that enables one to
move around cross the floor, open and close doors, etc. - without hearing the
noise one makes in the process. Therefore as though undetected by others and
relatively unaffected by their
noise which, as experience has taught, can be both distracting and annoying,
even humiliating and the source, paradoxically, of a kind of self-defeating
inhibitory reservation which conditions one to act more circumspectly or
cautiously than one would otherwise do, with a corresponding sense of
constraint that, frankly, reduces self-esteem and makes for a sense of shame,
frustration even, that one is not free to be true to oneself and behave, within
reason, as one thinks fit or according to one's nature. The caged bird is not a
happy creature. Only the free bird really sings. Yet the struggle to become
truly free is not what motivates the greater percentage of human behaviour in
our time. Rather are most people taken up with resisting the unfreedoms that
those who are really free tend to impose upon them in defence of their own
freedoms of action, freedoms that, by their very objective nature, cannot be
the property of all, but must remain the preserve of the rich and powerful.
I have never reserved a ticket for
any concert, whatever the kind of music, and I dare say I never shall. Nor have
I ever reserved a ticket for anything else, bar the occasional coach journey or
flight.
I am a person entirely without
curiosity about others, who goes about his business without paying the
slightest attention to anybody, with the possible exception of the occasional
woman (I saw a beautiful long-haired blonde walking along the platform in a
tight-fitting black dress amongst a sea of dark faces while waiting for a train
today). In fact, I pride myself on minding my own business, as though to
contrast myself with the average British male, many of whom can't lay eyes on
anything, oneself included, without having to think or mumble something stupid
or vulgar. My motto is: Don't let that poison get too close, least of all under
your skin. Keep it at arm's reach. So, of course, I tend to mind my own
business.
Those who work for a living don't
normally live for their work. I do.
There are people without talent who
are lauded to the skies. There are people with talent who are simply ignored.
It just depends on who or what you are.
Birds of prey can have no place in
a theocracy, whose symbolic ideal is the dove. And yet, I have heard and read
of high-ranking clergy bishops, archbishops, cardinals described as
resembling eagles, hawks, falcons, and other such birds of prey! What could be
more hypocritically at variance with the true spirit of the Christian religion?
Birds of prey have more in common with an aristocracy or autocracy than ever
they do with a theocracy, distinctions of rank notwithstanding.
Theocrats are not aristocrats, but
the danger of aristocrats being taken for theocrats is always very real in a
civilization that hypes Devil the Mother as God the Father
out of expedience.
Theocrats may have their various ranks, but that is still quite separate and
distinct from the ranks applying to the aristocracy.
An aesthete is somebody indisposed
to truth.
It's not how many books or eBooks
you sell, but who you sell them to
that really matters.
Likewise, it's not how many people
read you, but who reads you (and for what reason) that actually counts.
Writing for others, with others
constantly in mind, is the mark of a slave, not a free man.
You cannot make sense of what, like
so much of the contemporary world, is fundamentally senseless, even if, as a
philosopher, you have the capacity to distinguish sense from senselessness.
It is not enough to 'change the
world'; one must strive, rather, to overcome it. Marxists may endeavour to
'change the world', but that is about all they do, lacking a capacity for 'God
building' or, in non-Leninist terms, otherworldly aspirations.
Even now, in the twenty-first
century, it is probably fair to say that there is more nature than civilization
in the world.
The majority of people, now and at
all times, endeavour to live 'in harmony' with nature. Only a relatively small
number of men more usually men of genius struggle against it in the
interests of nurtural or even supernurtural progress, the latter of which would
be antithetical not to nature but to supernature, as to all things
'supernatural', including, in all probability, quasars/black holes and other such
manifestations of cosmic existence.
Conservationists and 'nature
lovers' are not on the side of progress, which tends to favour the artificial,
not least in respect of the Arts, which should, if true or genuine, be amongst
the most artificial of creations, defying natural limitations in their
aspirations toward a perfect alternative to nature.
Decriminalize one type of activity
and another type soon takes its place, like paedophilia the homosexuality of
yesteryear which, if ever decriminalized and one sincerely hopes it never
will be could lead to a focus on incest between siblings or even bestiality
or something else that is not focused upon, much less subjected to criminal
prosecution, these days.
******
Just as cadence goes downhill, as
it were, to decadence, so, by contrast, regeneration goes downhill to
degeneration, like the Reformation going to the dogs of deformation, religious
reform sliding down to atheistic state-absolutist deformity.
Parallel with the primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarity between cadence and decadence
on the male side of the gender fence is what may be called the secondary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial polarity (female) between
pseudo-degeneration and pseudo-regeneration, with cadence and
pseudo-degeneration standing to each another as metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry, but decadence and pseudo-regeneration standing to one
another as pseudo-physics and chemistry.
Therefore while the axial polarity
of cadence to decadence is of the unequivocally hegemonic (metaphysics) to the
equivocally subordinate (pseudo-physics), the axial polarity of
pseudo-degeneration to pseudo-regeneration is of the unequivocally subordinate
(pseudo-metachemistry) to the equivocally hegemonic (chemistry).
Parallel with the primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial polarity between regeneration and
degeneration on the female side of the gender fence is what may be called the
secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial polarity (male) between
pseudo-decadence and pseudo-cadence, with regeneration and pseudo-decadence
standing to each other as metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, but
degeneration and pseudo-cadence standing to one another as pseudo-chemistry and
physics.
Therefore while the axial polarity
of regeneration to degeneration is of the unequivocally hegemonic
(metachemistry) to the equivocally subordinate (pseudo-chemistry), the axial
polarity of pseudo-decadence to pseudo-cadence is of the unequivocally
subordinate (pseudo-metaphysics) to the equivocally hegemonic (physics).
Just as cadence is only possible in
relation to a male hegemony over females (as pseudo-females), so decadence
transpires from a male subordination (as pseudo-males) to a female hegemony.
And just as regeneration is only
possible in relation to a female hegemony over males (as pseudo-males), so
degeneration transpires from a female subordination (as pseudo-females) to a
male hegemony.
It seems that degeneration is not
only cyclic and absolute, especially in terms of clockwise cycling, as my
initial theories seemed to imply, but can also be axial and relative, as with
the polarity noted above between regeneration and degeneration on primary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, so that the axis in question is
as much characterized by a regenerative/degenerative primary polarity (female)
as the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis by a cadent/decadent primary
polarity (male), no less in relation to its own relativity than in terms of
socialistic absolutism, whereby it would be logical to infer a renunciation of
the Catholic Church and thus of any church/state relativity, the kind of polar
relativity that would also be renounced, across the axial divide, from a
standpoint less republican socialist than Marxist, or radically social
democratic, with predictably state-absolutist consequences. And yet, much as
this would be the likely cyclical outcome of axial degeneration on the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a suspicion remains that, on the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis by contrast, decadence should imply a
kind of church absolutism in axial contrast to any state-absolutist
degeneration of the Marxist variety. Alas, republican socialism does not, in my
experience, lend itself to logically convenient analogies with church
absolutism but, striving after greater independence of the State from church
interference or control, makes it appear less decadent than degenerate or,
rather, of a twisted kind of decadence with pseudo-regenerative properties of the
sort readily identifiable with iconic landmarks like 'Liberty Leading the
People' (Delacroix), the opposite of degeneration with pseudo-cadent
properties, as strongly suggested by the state-capitalist overtones of
Marxism-Leninism. Be that as it may, decadence and degeneration are not only
cyclically absolute but also axially relative, as I trust the above theoretical
modifications should serve to illustrate, and every endeavour to establish
cadence results, sooner or later, in a decadent backlash as surely as the
regenerative aspirations of the Reformation certainly in England under Henry
VIII eventually had to contend with a degenerative backlash or polarity in
the nonconformist community which no Anglo-Catholic of the sixteenth-century
could have foreseen, let alone willingly encouraged!
Christian art became so decadent
with the Renaissance, that it is small wonder that Protestantism preferred to
exclude it, as far as possible, from its religious reforms. Better no art at
all than the anti-Christian 'body beautiful', 'body muscular', 'body nude', and
other such Michelangelo-inspired aberrations that dragged art down and away
from the New Testament focus of Christianity towards the pagan past via Old
Testament Judaism.
******
Does cyclic degeneration derive
from axial degeneration? The foregoing theories would suggest it does. But
since there is more than one type of cycling one must also ask the question:
Does cyclic decadence derive from axial decadence? And the answer would seem to
be: Yes, it most assuredly does. So that gives us our two types of cycling; one
effectively degenerate, or deriving from axial degeneration, and the other
effectively decadent, or deriving from axial decadence. Now just as axial
degeneration is the breaking away of pseudo-chemistry from physical control, so
axial decadence is the breaking away of pseudo-physics from chemical control,
with, in each case, a degree of unprecedented freedom for the breakaway gender
that is quickly exploited by the freedoms (or bindings) proper to their
respective polarities in metachemistry and metaphysics, which bind them anew to
one or the other modes of cycling clockwise in the case of female-dominated
degenerative cycling, but anti-clockwise in the case of male-dominated decadent
cycling, making, in contemporary terms (synthetically artificial), for a
communistic/fascistic distinction which cannot but be at loggerheads with
itself or, more correctly, with the opposite mode of cycling. For the
pseudo-chemical pseudo-female informed by metachemistry will tend, under female
influence, to cycle in clockwise fashion, whereas the pseudo-physical
pseudo-male informed by metaphysics (even by the truncated metaphysics bound
soma of the crucifixional paradigm typifying Catholic axial tradition) will
tend, under male influence, to cycle in an anti-clockwise manner, thereby being
at gender loggerheads with his clockwise counterpart on both phenomenal
(corporeal) and noumenal (ethereal) planes, since in the one case metachemistry
has been brought to bear on pseudo-chemistry, while in the other case
metaphysics has come to bear on pseudo-physics, conditioning the cyclic
directionality accordingly. No longer, as with axial control, is there a gender
compromise but, rather, a clash of gender realities brought about by their
release, through somatic degeneration on the one hand and psychic decadence on
the other, from axial compromise. Even so, males accustomed, through
metachemistry, to state-hegemonic female domination will shadow their female
counterparts in what I like to term dotted-line cyclic fashion, while females
accustomed, through metaphysics, to church-hegemonic male domination will
shadow their male counterparts in similar dotted-line cyclic fashion, the
former effectively degenerate and the latter no-less effectively decadent,
albeit on secondary terms compared to their gender counterparts in the primary
modes of degenerative (female) or decadent (male) cycling. Nor should we
forget, finally, that some pseudo-cadent overtones deriving from physics will
accrue to pseudo-chemical degeneration and, by contrast, some
pseudo-regenerative overtones deriving from chemistry accrue to pseudo-physical
decadence, even before metachemistry and metaphysics necessarily 'get in' on
the act and bring their gender parallel polarities to bear on the respective
types of corporeal decline.
I am persuaded, by a study of
ancient history, that Greece was more state-hegemonic than church-hegemonic, as
it were, whereas Rome was or became more church-hegemonic than
state-hegemonic, thereby enabling one to infer the axial parallelism of Roman
Catholic church-hegemonic tradition with that of ancient Rome, in contrast to
the axial parallelism of Protestant state-hegemonic tradition with that of
ancient Greece, so that as the one tradition derived, in no small measure, from
its Roman counterpart or blueprint, so the other tradition, as it developed
independently of Catholicism, fell back on ancient Greece, as upon its nearest
historical counterpart, and was more inclined, in consequence, to identify
with, if not slavishly worship, all things Greek. The position, on the other
hand, of ancient
Casually thinking about the 'Garden
of Eden' concept of
The lower you sink in society, as
in religion, the worse things get.
It is always somewhat disconcerting
to be surrounded by neighbours who do their undamndest to oppose, with a
variety of thumping noises, the slightest suspicion of intellectual or
computer-related activity on one's part. One gets a sense of how the world
really is in the main, and of how determined one has to be not to let average
or sub-average people especially females and kids get the better of one and
effectively put an end to one's cultural endeavours, to drive one out of one's
self-made paradise under pretext of being inconvenienced by what little
disturbance one makes during the process of using a computer or strangest of
all exercising one's brain in the formation of thought! For then the thumping
bimbos really 'come out' in all their alarming sensitivity to the activation of
thought by a solitary intellectual. Oh for a monastic-like retreat where one could
get on with one's thinking or writing or whatever independently of the
'many-too-many', the lumpen proletariat, the foreign bimbo, the class enemy of
culture, the born enemy of religious or philosophical truth! For that, in my
experience, is what a majority of people and of women in particular
actually are, as men like Schopenhauer, Baudelaire, Nietzsche, and other
exceptional geniuses of the past well knew!
I've heard females described,
apparently by some old-school British politician, as all antennae and no
brains, which is a phrase that stuck in my mind, since it somehow rings true
and causes me to reflect, today, whether my own position as an adult male of
intellectual persuasion is not akin to all brains and no antennae? Not
intellectually reserved, but certainly socially reserved. With, I think, good
reason!
Heads rolled during the French
Revolution and, subsequently, bodies fought bodies in the bloody, brutal
Napoleonic Wars that inevitably ensued. That scoundrel Bonaparte may not have
begun the French Revolution but, as time progressed, he certainly knew how to
finish it off.
Has the 'Age of the People', dating
from approximately the late-eighteenth century, finally come to an inglorious
end with or since the collapse of Communism in
Whether regeneration devolves to
degeneration or cadence devolves to decadence, the results tend to be pretty
much the same: war and perpetual strife, as that which is low (degenerate or
decadent) paradoxically comes to the fore, turning the world upside down and
inside out.
There is no such thing as 'divine
decadence', that illogical notion of certain feminists and shallow
intellectuals gunning for some degree of radical notoriety. Decadence is no
more 'divine' than degeneration is 'diabolic'. Rather is it their respective
polarities, cadence and regeneration, which are divine and diabolic, that is,
significant of either soulful being or wilful doing, of psychic subjectivity or
somatic objectivity, according to whether metaphysical or metachemical criteria
are chiefly in evidence at any particular time. The repudiation of diabolic
regeneration the 'increase and multiply' injunction of the Old Testament is
what alone makes for the possibility of divine cadence, unlike the degenerative
polarity to regeneration on the one axial hand, and the decadent victim of
regenerative/degenerative predation on the other axial hand.
******
I have blown through philosophy
like a divine wind and shaken it to the very depths of its foundations,
consigning the cobwebs of outmoded thought to the rubbish bin of philosophical
history where, one day, they will not merely rot but go up in flames or, at any
rate, be vaporized.
Those philosophy-denying fools are
probably correct, in their self-satisfied smugness, to maintain that philosophy
has no applicability to the modern world, but they are severely deluded if they
think it cannot point to a better one, beyond the scope of the modern
preference for drama, fiction and, to a lesser extent, poetry.
Both drama and fiction (that
internalized mode of drama) rip off poetry and hence the poet while
avoiding, as far as possible, all contact with philosophy.
Outgrowing poetry I dabbled in
fiction, but soon found its philosophical subversion was not enough
if one
seriously wanted to pursue Truth and climb the hill of metaphysical insight
that leads to salvation.
Philosophy is only true to itself
in metaphysics. With physics, chemistry, and metachemistry it becomes
regressively more 'bovaryized', that is, undermined and even vitiated by
economics, politics, and science, in that regressive order.
If anything it is those
'bovaryized' kinds of philosophy that have some relevance, in varying degrees,
to the modern world, a world dominated by science and economics under which the
political 'bovaryization' of philosophy labours in vain towards a 'better
world'.
A majority of people, being
relatively simple, still behave as though the atom had never been split and
that there was only one type of sanity, namely the female-dominated outer
sanity ('outsanity') of the marketplace. They couldn't be more wrong!
To say that somebody is uneducated
presupposes that he/she can be educated. But that is not invariably the case.
On the contrary, it is more often a symptom of egalitarian rhetoric which
conveniently overlooks the incapacity of most people to be educated beyond a
certain level, as well as the actual irrelevance of what has been called
'higher education' to them.
There is nothing more objectionable
to the average person than thought and, worse, the ability of the exceptional
individual, a philosopher, to think for himself and demolish, if necessary,
centuries of presumed wisdom.
Every day I think in the face of
hostile opposition from neighbours and workmen in short, from the 'common
herd', as it were, of thoughtless cretins, and value my thinking, or my ability
to think, all the more!
Civilization only advances because
of exceptional individuals, not because of the masses, who tend, rather, to
reduce everything to the lowest-common-denominator of a nature-affirming
sex-oriented opposition to civilization and its raison d'κtre, culture. In this
respect, D.H. Lawrence, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau before him, was a forceful
spokesman for the masses who was fundamentally against civilization.
There can be no true culture
without civilization and, within the framework of civilization, a variety of
constraints upon females. For civility on their part is not the same as
culture, and the prospects for culture, as the apotheosis of male nurture,
would be very bleak indeed if there was no accompanying civility, no
constraints placed upon soma in the interests of psychic flourishing in the
form, generally speaking, of artistic revelation.
Philosophy and music that is, in
the main, metaphysical will always be at the peak of culture.
It is not the philosopher's fault
if people in general find him unreadable. In fact, it is rather more to his
credit that unthinking individuals cannot profit from his thought, since it is
not his business to enlighten fools.
You do not read philosophy to be
entertained, nor even to be educated or informed, still less to be emotionally
titillated, but rather to be enlightened. Philosophy has no other business,
essentially, than to enlighten, to bring the reader to a greater understanding
of metaphysics and metaphysical issues generally. But that presupposes a reader
capable of metaphysical understanding and genuinely interested in pursuing metaphysical
truth, because inherently wise. In short, the psychic exception to the somatic
rule!
******
Those who
are always testing others, who put others 'to the test', tend to do so from
lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. It is as though they can only believe in their own worth, such as
it is, by exposing, where possible, the foibles or weaknesses of others,
thereby reassuring themselves that it is not they who are at fault, or lacking
in virtue, but those whom they set out to test.
None of my writing has ever been
done outdoors. On the contrary, it is the product of an indoor, sedentary
lifestyle that would not, I feel confident, be compatible with the outside
world, still less identifiable with those who write outdoors or, more
correctly, with writings conducted outdoors by persons who like to be 'close to
Nature' and to soak up what they perceive as its natural beauty, all the while
sucking up to the Sun, like so many neo-pagans. By contrast, I have always had
strong reservations about conducting my philosophical pursuits in public, never
mind outdoors! However, this has never precluded me from writing indoors about
certain outdoor experiences or events, comparatively rare as that may be.
Saw a church or what was
described as such while in a nearby borough this afternoon which was so
astonishingly mundane-looking in its four-square modernity as to make one
wonder how-on-earth anything approaching God, never mind the so-called 'Word of
God', could possibly be worshipped or taken seriously in such a place. Frankly,
it beggars belief to what extents of architectural degeneracy nonconformist
churches can sink!
I write what I think and think
about what I write, thereby closing the circle.
As a thinker I am unreservedly
forthright and determined to be as honest with myself as possible, no matter
what the outcome. For what is the point of being intellectually dishonest, or
of knowing one thing and saying another? That would be a mark, surely, of
intellectual cowardice.
******
In terms of the number and audacity
of his conquests, one would have to say that Hitler, as Commander-in-Chief of
the German Armed Forces during the Second World War, was the greatest military
leader, or conqueror, since Napoleon. Like Napoleon before him, Hitler came to
grief in
When the Germans occupied
Hitler was, in many respects, the
reverse of Napoleon, that is, a statesman who became a warlord as opposed to a
warlord, or general, who became a statesman.
Metternich, though born in Germany,
became the Austrian Chancellor; Hitler, though born in Austria, became the
German Chancellor. Another case of history repeating itself,
albeit on antithetical terms.
It would be no exaggeration to say
that the wars Napoleon waged have been considerably overshadowed, in the
twentieth-century, by the wars waged by Hitler against the rest of Europe,
Stalin, though obviously a great
statesman and warlord, does not compare with either Napoleon or Hitler, who
both waged aggressive wars of external conquest.
Stalin merely reacted to invasion and was eventually able to repulse it and
expand the Soviet Empire into
The Germans liberated a lot of
Russian and/or Russian-dominated territory, like the
To undo the remnants of the
discredited Versailles Treaty with regards to the return of Danzig and the
establishment of a Corridor linking East Prussia to the rest of the Reich, Nazi
Germany, having failed on the diplomatic front to appease an
Anglo-French-backed Polish military regime, had to go to war with Poland, and
we all know where that led, although the Non-Aggression Pact with Stalin signed
just before the invasion was a masterstroke that, by speeding up the conquest
of Poland by limiting the German sphere of influence, effectively neutralized
the Anglo-French allies and led, in the winter of 1939-40, to the so-called
Phoney War, when a stalemate ensued in the West and no-one seemed anxious to
invade Germany, least of all the architects of the Maginot Line.
Eamonn de Valera who, more than any
man, was responsible for the Irish Civil War, eventually came in from the
intransigent republican cold, as it were, by accepting political reality and
becoming Taoiseach (prime minister)
of the 26 counties in 1932. After several spells in office in this role, he
went on to become President of the 26 counties in 1959. But when he died in
1975
Keeping Eire neutral during the
Second World War was a brave and sensible strategy on de Valera's part,
especially with British threats of intervention into key Irish ports, since
there was no justification for siding with the traditional imperial oppressor
of Ireland and certainly no sense in siding with Nazi Germany at the risk of
British opposition and possible invasion. But signing the Book of Condolences
upon news of Hitler's death, as de Valera did, was a courageous and, to my
mind, magnanimous gesture, since Hitler was no enemy of Ireland (Eire) and,
besides, it would have looked like a pro-British stance had he not done so,
putting him on a more or less equal footing with Churchill and those who had
systematically warred upon Nazi Germany. For that I have more respect for 'Dev'
than for his intransigent republicanism in the face of loyalist reaction, given
the virtual inevitability of partition and the desirability, at the time, of
It was a tenet of Nazi ideology,
not least with Hitler, that
We always hear about Obersalzberg
in connection with the Nazis, particularly Hitler, who could overlook his
homeland in the province of Salzberg, but nothing at all about Untersalzberg,
which is closer to Berchtesgarden, probably because it held less interest for
Hitler and might even have connoted with the kind of mensch that Hitler
and his followers were determined to subjugate, if not exterminate, from a
standpoint closer to the Nietzschean άbermensch. Nevertheless, as a
region Untersalzberg would be no less spectacular than its better-known
counterpart further south thanks or no thanks to Hitler and the Nazis.
******
Don't let the bitches, anxious to
capitalize on their assets, make you feel guilty. Be a bastard and feel innocent.
What, you may wonder, is the chief
cause of axial decadence on the one hand and axial degeneration on the other,
that is, of the falling away of both decadence and degeneration from their
respective axes into cyclic recurrence whether of a clockwise (degenerate) or
an anti-clockwise (decadent) nature, bearing in mind what has already been said
on previous pages about the roles of gender in determining these
antithetical outcomes. Is it that the chemical hegemony over pseudo-physics, of
pseudo-regeneration over decadence, and the physical hegemony over
pseudo-chemistry, of pseudo-cadence over degeneration, lose their controlling
influence on the subordinate gender positions, pseudo-masculine in the one case
and pseudo-feminine in the other, or does the decline into cyclic decadence owe
more to a loss of faith in metaphysics and the decline into cyclic degeneration
more to a weakening of loyalty to metachemistry, so that the polarities to both
pseudo-physical decadence and pseudo-chemical degeneration are less attractive
than before and unable, in consequence, to command the same degree of respect
such that would keep both decadence and degeneration within the axial framework
as opposed to allowing them to break away, for want of control, into the opposite
types of cyclic recurrence? I suspect, too, that if chemistry and physics are
less influential than before, it could have something to do with a diminishing
respect for their respective
polarities in pseudo-metachemistry (under metaphysics) and pseudo-metaphysics
(under metachemistry), albeit pseudo-metachemical pseudo-degeneration would
never have the same appeal to chemical pseudo-regeneration as metaphysical
cadence to pseudo-physical decadence. Nor, I suspect, would pseudo-metaphysical
pseudo-decadence have the same appeal to physical pseudo-cadence as
metachemical regeneration to pseudo-chemical degeneration. Be that as it may,
the decline of both decadence and degeneration from being complementary, on
subordinate terms, to pseudo-regeneration and pseudo-cadence respectively ...
to actually becoming cyclically independent of them can and does happen, for
whatever reasons, and the consequences are predictably worse for society as a
whole than when decadence was held fast to pseudo-regeneration and degeneration
held fast to pseudo-cadence, even if only because of the polar attractions of
both cadence (metaphysics) and regeneration (metachemistry) upon them. Either
way, one has a devolutionary descent from stability under the alternative
ruling principles or elements of axial civilization into instability and even
anarchic chaos independently of such principles in a situation closer to nature
even when it takes a synthetically artificial, or contemporary, guise, as in
the cases, we have argued, of Communism and Fascism, the one clockwise and
dominated by female criteria, the other anti-clockwise and dominated by male
criteria. But both decadence and degeneration can and do exist within the
bipolar framework of axial civilization, if respectively subordinate to
pseudo-regeneration and pseudo-cadence, so that one cannot regard them as
typifying what exists in the corporeal realms of phenomenal relativity. On the
contrary, they will normally be obliged to play a secondary role, in effect, to
the hegemonic gender position there, be it pseudo-regenerative in chemistry or
pseudo-cadent in physics, which, traditionally within the Western framework,
will suggest the primacy of Marianism over the pseudo-Christianity of the
'Christ Child' on the one axis, that of the effective dominance of 'Mother
Church' within the church-hegemonic axial tradition (catholic), and the
primacy, by contrast, of the Conservative Right over the Liberal and/or
Socialist Left on the other axis, that of Parliamentary Democracy within the
state-hegemonic axial tradition (protestant). Such is the antithetical nature
of 'the world' and, even without the threats of the antithetical types of
cyclic recurrence, it cannot be regarded as an end-in-itself, but only as a
temporal arrangement pending the possibility of eternal life in 'Kingdom Come'
and the eventual triumph, in consequence, of otherworldly values, about which I
have hitherto written at some length and without any reservations whatsoever,
bearing in mind that they are inseparable from the subjugation, neutralized
dragon-like, of what has been termed pseudo-netherworldly values, the
constrained values of pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics at the apex of
revolutionary church-hegemonic criteria.
