Just to pass the time till I start this blog going again, I thought I'd run a little mini-series. It's an idea that occurred to me.
Many of you are not from these islands. And some are, but tend to see things as you've been accustomed to see them though the eyes of tradition.
So I thought I'd go back to the traditions of Voltaire and Rousseau.
What if I had to write an Encycopedia article on the UK?
So; here goes.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
A polity of Planet Earth, one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The population forming it account for just under 1% of the total global population, but citizens amongst it's population include some of the richest on the globe and the proportion of the global infrastructure controlled by its most powerful citizens is disproportional. In terms of ability to influence distribution of global resources and impose its ideals on those outside its borders it remains one of the few truly global players, partly due to the fact that many of the members of the Board of Directors of the world's most powerful corporations are on the electoral roll within the UK. It is one of the few countries possessing nuclear weapons and capable of invading and occupying the average country on the globe.
Territory
The United Kingdom comprises the core of the once mighty British Empire, the term given to the global polity which transformed the world from the late eighteenth century onwards, ushering in the Capitalist Era. This core consists Great Britain, a large island off the coast of Europe and occupying a fairly central position in terms of the situation of global landmasses. It was partly the benefits of this location that led to the British isles becoming the cradle of the global civilisation. There are two countries on the island. The first, England, is the most significant, accounting for most of what remains of the British Empire and being the country who founded it initially. The second, Scotland, retains certain cultural differences and may in some senses be classed as a willing junior partner in the past, though in practise the British Empire was a euphemism which hid the fact that it was England's Empire.
The United Kingdom also rules over a part of the neighbouring country of Ireland, the North, where a group of dissidents preferred to continue to be ruled by the colonisers rather than their own countrymen on Irish Independence, for religious reasons.
A part of England, Wales, has in recent years began to make claims to be seen as a country on the grounds that it has a tradition of separateness based on the decent of it's 'aboriginal' inhabitants from the ancient Britons, rather than Saxon colonisers as is the case for the rest of England. However, in socio-economic and cultural terms, it may be regarded rather as a part of England with a strong local regional identity than as being truly distinct. However in recent years its special satus has been increasingly recognised.
England occupies all but the northern quarter of the island. The usage of land varies considerably. Most of the southern half of the island is dominated by three vast urban agglomerations, themselves forming the northern conurbations of a vast belt of urban agglomerations stretching in an arc to the Mediterranean; The Blue Banana, home to one hundred million Europeans. The three British agglomerations almost touch hands with eachother, forming an urban wedge stretching from the South Coast to Harrogate, and from the Fens to Salisbury plain and the Severn valley. The southernmost, London, essentially stretches from its satellites, Brighton and Worthing on the south coast right the way north to Milton Keynes, a kind of frontier post of urban usage that marks the end of London. From Milton Keynes it is barely twenty miles till one reaches the Midland belt of urban development, perhaps home to ten million people and including a belt of cities stretching from Telford in the east to Nottingham in the east. Coventry and Worcester mark the southern boundaries, Derby the northern edges, though a fine strand of urban areas links this belt to the Northern belt. Birmingham is its chief metropolis. The northern belt of cities stetches from Liverpool in the west to Hull in the east, from Chesterfield in the south to Harrogate and Preston in the north and is possibly home to ten to fifteen million souls. Manchester is it's greatest metropolis, though leeds is significant also.
England also contains two other sizeable urban agglomerations, the Tyne-Tees agglomeration and the South Wales and Bristol agglomeration.
Much of the rest of England is surprisingly rural, though the South West is increasingly being developed as a kind of suburban/recreational annexe. Motorway connections mean that even the furthest tip of Cornall is a only a few hours drive from the commerical centres of the UK and that the South West region can be turned into a kind of preserved England of yacht clubs, surfer beaches, ruinec castles, Real Ale pubs and the legend of King Arthur.
The other main peripheries are essentially undergoing rapid change, the old rural lifestyle essentially disappearing and villages declining. Increasingly isolated, the divergence between these peripheral areas from the metropolitan core is apparent. These peripheries are East Anglia, Wales (excepting South Wales and the Marches) and the North (outside the cities). From a simple point of view of providing for efficient living arrangements, these areas are badly planned; their populations are too widely scattered for amenities to be provided efficiently. Social attitudes in these areas often remains backward compared to the metropolitan core, less conscious of the modern age and often linked to ideas centred on preserving traditions unaltered and preserving the locality for aboriginal peoples.
The problem of what to do with the 'countryside' is an increasing problem in the UK. The cost of retaining a rural infrastructure is high and arguably detrimental to the overall material wellbeing of the island. When compared to the high state of development and culture of the Metropolitan core, the poor planning of land usage and its economic inefficiency is apparent. Part of the periphery is devoted to agriculture. A good portion of this is effectively under the control of major European food manufacturers, such as Vion and intensive farming is pretty universal, but there remain backward portions owned by independent producers struggling against the tide.
Increasingly, large portions of the periphery are being preserved, or more often landscaped for recreational purposes and indeed, expanding the system of National Parks might seem a logical development. In the UK the global tendancy towards Metropolitan living may be said to have reached its furthest point of development and it seems unlikely rural living will survive another generation.
Periphery dwellers tend, aside from the rich urban exile population who dwell in the periphery so as to protect the spoils of their priveleged positions, to be less sophisticated and more inward looking than city dwellers. Nevertheless, there are few urban problems that are not to be found in the periphery. Many small towns in the periphery have high rates of heroin addiction, teenage pregnancy, yob violence, etc. Indeed, many small towns in the periphery are little better than 'white ghettoes'. The remainder are essentially executive housing estates, or preserved residential museums.
London
Nineveh and Babylon are gone, Rome may be eternal, but it's glory is in its name. One day London will be just another city amongst many, but that day is not likely to happen whilst humanity remains bound by Planet Earth. Earth has no capital city, but if the title had to be given, only two cities can justifiably claim it; London and New York. New York may yet win that battle but London is still its only serious rival.
London is a true cosmopolitan centre, the centre of the Earth geographically, it is a powerbase of the hidden masters of the global infrastructure, timeless, soulless, proud and avaracious. Here indeed can most of the tongues of the world be heard, here all the cultures of the world blend, connect and form new combinations that ripple outward into the global consciousness. London is, like New York, a city that never sleeps, but it is the not sleeping of an insomniac, the not sleeping of a dark comedown. In London, anything goes and nobody cares. The very streets resonate a timeless sense of power, of wealth, of authority, of history. London is everything that is great in man, and everything that is squalid rolled into one. It is Harrods, it is Selfridges, it is the Ritz. But it also a city where human life has no value, a city where individuals get lost- and die under bridges, unknown and unlamented.
And yet London remains awe inspiring and glorious. It is one of the richest cities of the world, its suburbs in the South East and Eastern Regions of England making up one of the wealthiest portions of the planet. London is the cente of the spiders web, all roads lead to London. It is a tremendous infrastructure, brutal and efficient, grinding on remorselessly, a mirror to the rest of the world of its best and its worst, of what was, what is, what can be, what will be and what might be.
London is almost a country in itself, almost not even that, London is beyond and outside countries. London is not of England, but it is in it. England looks to London, but London just sees the nearest part of its hinterland when it looks back. It's furthest commuters cross an ocean to reach it and its eyes see round the curves of the globe.
Indeed, the United Kingdom itself might be seen as little more than a supporting infrastructure for London.
(This post not completed yet, but I thought I'd publish this bit so far as a taster.)
Well, it seems the cyberstalker has finally got her comeuppences.
I suppose five complaints to her local Police by SEPARATE bloggers of stalking and harassment has that effect.
But now that brings us on to the mystery of Higham. What stands out to me now in retrospect is the seriousness of all this; Higham's lieing. And its very serious consequences.
There can be no doubting that Jacky/Carly Swan is a severely disturbed woman. That must surely be patently obvious to anyone. It isn't immediately obvious. It took me three months to realise that she was a grade one psychotic. By then of course it was too late.
But as regards Higham- he must have known that, he MUST have known that she was not just a pathological liar; she was criminally insane.
He CAN'T have believed her unquestioningly. Sure, even if he believed her lies about myself, he MUST have known about her other cybercrimes. So- why did he push her lies?
And why did he invent other fabrications? Other non-existent women with similar tales to the cyberstalker?
Or allegations such as the one that I had a homosexual lover at Uni that topped themselves? A fact he MUST have known to be a lie?
Why claim I was founding a sinister online cult, or that my ideas were like Hitlers? Facts he must have KNOWN were lies? Any fool can see I'm the next logical step in the sequence 'Rousseau, Proudhon, Marx, Trotsky, Crushed'.
Why carry out a behind the scenes campaign of spreading malicious defamation to try discredit this blogger and the writings on this blog?
And why cast aspersions on my character- using such emotive terms as sociopathic- when anyone who has spoken to me for more than five minutes can see that I am a person with a very highly defined sense of right and wrong?
In other words- we know what motivated the cyberstalker's campaign of character assassination, rejection. But what motivated his?
And let us not forget the results of his campaign. Not just for myself. The guilty party got away unpunished and continued to commit their cybercrimes on others, getting away with it for longer.
When if Higham had told the truth and acted ethically, she could have been arrested back in 2007. And many, many people would have been safer online.
So it's not just that he lied with the agenda of destroying my blog. It was that his lies protected and encouraged a mentally disturbed woman who belonged in gaol to continue to be an online menace.
When Jacky/Carly Swan carried out what the Kentucky Police make no bones about was a FELONY against another female blogger, was not Higham in a sense an accomplice? Was he not, by his actions, guilty of aiding and abetting a felony. But in fact, of course, he knew she'd done it to another female blogger before.
The more one looks about it in the cold light of day- as I have- the wider implications of Higham's dishonest conduct stand out.
In his war against my blog, he not only completely inverted truth, he pretty much protected the equivalent of an online child molester so they could continue with their crimes.
What would drive someone to DO that?
He's never spoken to me in person- certainly never met me. The only information he has about me are statements made to him by a clearly mentally ill woman. So why hate this blog so much- so much he would deliberately LIE to destroy it?
I realise of course, that like Carly, he lies so well he does not realise he is lieing. He comes to believe his own lies. He thinks people can't be bothered to go back and check the facts. They can't, most often. It's how he gets away with it.
But of course, his whole online image is a lie. And if one reads his blog CLOSELY one can spot the cunning plot devices he uses- like any cunning propagandist does- to divert attention from reality.
I'll deal with that part later.
Anyway, when the insanity of the now-gone-and-not-lamented started to impinge on blogging for sane people (her public row with Phish) he asked me to explain what (if any) was my involvement.
And he knew- because I told him- that it was none. I was not responsible for either party, I was not interested in the dispute except in so far as I was being dragged into it against my will. But as to who was in the right, I had an opinion on that.
Thinking Higham to be basically a 'decent bloke', a man who'd lived a little, who came across as having been around- a man who knew the score- I was quite candid.
However- I made a classic mistake. All of us, I think, judge the world according to our own norms. The blogosphere certainly SEEMS a microcosm of the real world. It has national diversity, people from all walk of life. But- then again it has some rather unusual features.
One is its right wing bias. Quite the opposite to what one would expect. A progressive, forward looking medium should- one would assume- be liberal, left-leaning, tolerant. Extroverted. And yet- it isn't. It is dominated not just by political conservatives, but be people VERY socially conservative in their values and who wrongly believe their values to be 'normal'.
And another peculiar point. So many people online attach way too much significance to 'having a partner'. I can remember one female blogger dear to my heart who continually listed as things wrong with her life that she 'didn't have a regular boyfriend'.
A paradox. Quite a high proportion of people who blog actually BADLY want a 'partner' and haven't got one. If they had one, they'd regard that 'relationship' as an important feature of their life.
Most people in the real world tend to pick up my basic position and respect it; single out of choice. It seems to be a position so many online people just don't get. And yet in real life most people know at least one person who has made that decision. The decision not to make the quest to find a 'life partner' one's main concern. Because to me, it's not important. One can always find women, always find sex, always find intimacy, always find love if one knows where to look.
Whoever wants to give it to me, I'll accept it. But I won't pay anything more for it than it's worth.
I admitted to Higham that numerous people had fallen in love with me over my life and Carly seemed to be one of them. Or thought she was. Nevertheless, that didn't alter the fact she was behaving like a lunatic. OF COURSE I'd led her on, in a sense. I always do, with all women, to some degree. They're interesting for the here and now, but I'll get tired of them, most likely. And with Carly, she was only interesting to me when she was a loyal blog supporter in my early days. But now the blog had grown, I was tired of wasting my time on her. Yes, she'd been used to gratify my short term whims.
And now she was a problem. Because in real life, once I'm tired of a woman, I generally just stop returning their calls. Here, that wasn't an option. And yet, as I pointed out, she had made implied threats. That if I gave her the flick she'd run posts on me saying what a bastard I was and worse. Revealing my real identity and details about my past. And certain of my more extreme sexual tastes. Such as, taking pleasure watching my partners have sex with other men. Specifically, well hung black ones.
So- I needed his help in getting rid of the lunatic. A lot was at stake and for it to get damaged because of a woman's broken heart wouldn't be right. Sure, I had made a mistake and regretted it, but there wasn't much I could do about it now.
But I explained how I couldn't find a way to persuade her to just forget it, just leave me alone and forget my existence.
I explained to Higham what was at stake. Blogging for me wasn't- isn't- 'just a hobby'. It's linked to my raison d'etre.
There are two things I want to accomplish in life. and blogging provided a way to achieve both of them.
One was to write- and get published- the book I want to write. Regular readers will have got the gist of the subject matter. Yes, it's a political work and yes, it's important. I would say it's my 'Das Kapital', my 'Genealogy of Morals', and yes, it draws heavily on those ideas and takes them further. A full study of life by setting human history in context of natural history and explaining the evolution of society to a fully democratic communistic society and beyond, to where anarchy, in the sense of no government any longer being necessary due to the high development of human intelligence and technology.
And yes, Free Love would also feature in that. The book would quite definitely be promoting a whole new set of moral values on sex and love.
So this blog was- and IS- partly about getting that book 'The Rise of the Fourth Tier' written. I've tried writing before, but I don't get very far without continuous feedback. so yes, every single commenter counts, and as diverse a group of commenters as I can get.
And Carly was, whatever she thought, of no more importance to me than any other reader. She had nothing to offer me that I had any interest in, except feedback on the posts. Once her contribution in terms of comments tailed off, she ceased to be of any interest to me.
And of course, by publishing posts online under an assumed name, I was touting for publication. The more plaudits one got, the more links, the higher the blog was rated, the more likely one could get the book published. And the past life of the author wouldn't matter.
Once it WAS published then the past of the author really WOULDN'T matter. You could skip the anonymity. And devote the rest of your life to actively campaigning, actively working, actively engaging in doing what the book would opine would need to be done- and the second point- to me- of blogging. The other thing I wanted to get going through my blog.
The good guys exist, of course. It's just about uniting them. In this country we have the Respect Coalition which encompasses many 'Good guy' groupings, including the Birmingham Socialist Resistance, itself a member group of the Fourth International. Broadly speaking, I think we can say the Fourth International are the good guys. But we need to unite this into a global front for change.
Using the Fourth International and other True Marxist groupings as a nucleus, the Movement needs to bring on like minded groups across europe and the world. Much of the thinking of the Green movement is sound politically, even if not, paradoxically on environmental issues. In fact, their economic and social policies are usually bang on; it's just the swampy type ideas that sometimes lose the plot. But in principle, Greenpeace and certainly animal rights activists have their hearts in the right place. We need these people on board.
And other single issues pressure groups with their hearts in the right place need to know that only the Revolution can deliver for them. Gay Rights groups like Outrage!, feminist groups, ethnic minority groups, these are the people we need.
And there are other groups across the world, organisations already fighting the good fight. In Ireland, elements of Sinn Fein can be deemed sympathetic to the cause of freedom. And one looks to the French and Italian left as trailblazers too. And in Latin America, groups such as FARC are actually fighting the good fight with their very lives. In Nepal, the good guys have made strides, forcing the end of a backward monarchy and giving a sign of hope in a dark world.
Out of all these disparate elements, I believe a true United Front to smash the Capitalist system can be formed. The Good Guys.
I wasn't stupid enough to think I could do it alone. But getting 'The Rise of the Fourth Tier' written and published would be the hard part. Once that was achieved life itself would become a dream. No, I didn't think the royalties and spin offs would make me a millionaire. But hopefully they'd mean I no longer had to serve Capitalism. With my bread and butter guaranteed, with the Revolution already GIVING to me, I could devote the rest of my life to the struggle.
And the internet of course, was one major tool in that plan. But more importantly, once the book was published, I could actually travel.
Devote the rest of my life to what I truly wanted to devote it to. Political meetings, rallies, protests, being part of building up a truly global resistance movement to Capitalism.
Proselytise the Gospel of Free Love and Democratic Communism.
No, I can't do it alone. But 'The Rise of the Fourth Tier' would put the case so that no thinking person who could call themselves a good and decent human being would fail to see what was needed. And it would inspire others to fight for what it right.
The elements I have described above need to be united, the Global Front needs to be more than just an enlarged Fourth International. It needs to be coherant, with a global manifesto. It is not about division, it is about diversity amongst one species. No more nation states, no more corporations, no more private property, no more sexual chastity, no more monogamy, no more government by executive.
We need to be a global movement, the 'United Peoples of Earth'.
It needs one Manifesto, globally, calling for a United States of Earth, the abolition of Capitalism, the setting up of true Democratic Communism.
This can only be achieved by actively spreading the word. And many are there to hear it.
Any honest Christian for a start. Not a PAULICIAN, but a true follower of Christ. Christ was the first revolutionary, Christ was the start of this movement. We need to reclaim him from the forces of Fascism. Christ was about spreading the love. The logical conclusion of Christ's teachings are Free Love and Communism and we need to make that clear.
And ironically, it is in Catholicism we have hope here. The advent of Liberation Theology has proved that WITHIN Catholicism the true voice of Christ is still audible, even if it is not in most Protestant denominations. I don't think it impossible that one day Liberation theology could triumph within Catholicism and the Church actually embrace Marxism and even Free Love.
But ultimately, we need the young, The new generation.
The United Peoples of Earth needs to recruit amongst university students. They are our future. Proselytise Free Love and Communism at every Student Union across the world.
And more. We need to embrace the best instincts of the human species and show people that- far from being vices- these are the virtues of the new age.
The Revolution isn't just about dry politics. It's about changing society. So the 'United Peoples of Earth' needs to get involved in that. Other political parties hold social events such as barbecues, wine and cheese evenings, etc.
And the parties that we wish to federate together as the United peoples of earth should do the same. As they do. But we need to do more. Push the boundaries. Especially amongst young people.
The Rave scene and the Swing scene. We need these. These should be brought along as instruments of Revolution.
That's what it's all about, you see. That is one Revolutionary value we should be encouraging every young person to take up. Make love to as many people as you can, as an act of resistance to the Fascist/Capitalist/Ingsoc system. The Scottish Socialist Party ran a campaign in schools and colleges a few years ago, against the family values fascists' campaign of 'Abstinence before condoms'. The SSP's campaign was called 'Fuck Abstinence'. The implication is clear.
We should be telling young people; 'Fuck Capitalism'.
Because that is literally what we will be doing. Destroying the strata of family values and sexual chastity on which it relies to create its system of values.
I'd also go so far as to say that the best way to push it to conclusion would be to have a 'Fuck Racism' campaign encouraging people to have as much sex as they can with those of different races and a 'Fuck Homophobia' campaign encouraging young people to engage in same-sex sexual activities.
I think it is clear. The world I offer you is a better, a nicer, a more MORAL, a more DECENT world than the one advocated on Higham's blog.
And it is the vision I want to devote my life to. Fighting for Good.
I didn't, back then, explain all this in detail to Higham. Though I had outlines the concepts to my cyberstalker before I realised she was fruitloops bat shit crazy.
I'm not sure who embellished the facts and made them sound like a sinister cult was intended- him or her. Both, I suspect.
I'm sure he must have ALWAYS known DAMN WELL that my true intentions in blogging were exactly as I have written them above.
After all, you only need to read this blog to know that.
So are we any closer as to the true causes of Higham's lies?
A little, yes.
It is clear Higham's politics are opposed to mine. However. He has never been able to argue coherently against any of my posts in my own comments nor ever bested me in debate in HIS. In an open debate, my views versus his, I'd win.
That debate has always been one he fears; his views versus mine. In public. He always has been. And he knew back in 2007, that's what I wanted. A gentlemanly debate.
And it worried him he'd lose. He would have done, had the debate been fought on fair terms. For simple reasons. My philosophy is well thought and consistent and it is based largely on philosophers people ignore at the peril; Marx and Nietzsche. You cannot ignore these guys. What they say is empirically correct; you can't win a debate against someone who knows- and believes in- Marx and Nietzsche anymore than a Creationist can hope to beat a Darwinist.
Conservatism may well be a point of view but it suffers from a simple flaw; it's wrong.
To debate me fairly would be to show once and for all that Emperor has no clothes.
In other words; Higham knows that if 'The rise of the Fourth Tier' is written and receives a wide readership, the world will change. Just as it did when Darwin wrote 'Origin of the species'.
The scientific and moral case for Free Love and Democratic Communism will be made and- being made by me- will be irrefutable.
And being an intellectual coward, Higham cannot face that victory- the victory of every ideal he fears.
The cowardice of the semi-educated WASP male.
So like the Creationist, he falls back on the line 'It may be logical, but the devil uses logic to deceive us'.
Use of whispering and falsehood. You can't shoot the message so let's try discredit the messenger.
It is a general fact; conservatives of any type fall into three broad categories; those who have not grasped reality, those who seek to hide reality, and those who refuse to see reality. The last type are the most dangerous because they will carry out any atrocity to hide the fact their worldview does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
They will place banners on their blogs glorifying the fact that men earn their bread killing other men in far off places at the behest of Capitalist puppet governments, most of these men knowing nothing of why they die. This, they think, is a good thing. Men killing men. This, they think, is better than men fucking men.
They think its perfectly OK to earn your money working for Goldman Sachs, laundering the profits of third world dictators and people traffickers, but NOT OK to earn your money in the porn industry, say.
So should we surprised these sorts of people are messed up? Morally bankrupt?
And now we move away from the political and move to Higham's support of my cyberstalker's campaign of stalking/harrassment/blackmail, etc, on PERSONAL grounds.
In a civilised society, we have to accept that society is a diverse place. We don't all seek the same things. Not everyone wants to find one person to settle down with in a mutually exclusive sexual relationship 'one woman, one man'.
This phrase keeps appearing on Higham's blog. it is an obsession of is. He tries to cover it, but he certainly think it is morally wrong to indulge in sex with someone of the same sex. And he also believes it is morally wrong to sleep around. He even goes so far as to imply sex outside marriage is morally wrong.
Now people are entitled to believe that. If they want to live like that, no one is stopping them. What they do NOT have the right to do is expect other people to WANT to live like that.
Most of us know it is wrong to persecute people on the basis of their sexuality. But sexual orientation is not so simplistic. And by the same token it is surely wrong to persecute someone on the basis of what makes them tick in terms of what they want out of relationships, as long as what they want is not criminal.
Now in August 2007 I admitted my problem. I explained that my cyberstalker had fallen head over heels in love with me, in spite of not having met me. And I admitted to having encouraged it, to a certain degree. I also made clear that I didn't know two months earlier, that she was such a fruit cake.
I'm NOT a 'one woman, one man' person, I don't believe in it. I hadn't been totally honest with Jacky/Carly/Ubermouth on that front, but then I didn't think I had to be- at that point. We weren't ACTUALLY in a relationship. And as to whether we ever would be, I'd not had much opinion on it, I was just an option I kept open. and now, on the basis of her nutty begaviour I'd decided definitely NO, but how to tell her that without her going psycho on me? I'd seen what she'd do.
Even if I HAD chosen to have a 'relationship' of some sort with her in real life, it would never have been a sexually exclusive one. And one I would have reserved the right to end at any point, as soon as it became a nuisance. That's kind of what I do. Just drift from one woman to the next. And in fact I usually have more than one going at the time.
They're friendships, just friendships with sex as part of it. They last as long as they last. No rules, no commitment. I assume they'll end one day when they want more. But there will never be more. No shared life, no setting up home together- certainly no marriage- just going for drinks together, spending time together here and there- and sex.
That's IT. That's what a 'relationship' MEANS to me. It doesn't stop me being single. I don't REALLY stop thinking- or acting- like a single person would.
Even the pitter patter of tiny feet wouldn't change anything. One has an obligation to one's children, naturally, and I don't believe that should be neglected. If a woman chooses to use my DNA to get pregnant with, naturally I'm honoured and I will do my best to be a good father. But that doesn't mean we should BE together.
After all, if you were to follow that, you'd only end up reproducing with one person. Hardly ideal.
And Higham doesn't like this outlook. Not only that, he resents the fact I make it work for me. That I reject that which he seeks. His blog is in many ways a lament to his two failed marriages. He hasn't made a 'family' work. But he wishes he had.
And here am I. Single out of choice. I don't NEED to make a 'family' work. And it's not a priority.
Anyway, Higham knew I was trying to get Carly off my back in September 2007 and that she was blackmailing me into not giving her the brush off. I told him.
But he didn't care. Jealousy and disapproval skewed his integrity.
But there was more. The bit he AND my stalker put a nasty slant on. And dragged in other of the nastier types that prowl the blogosphere to help spread whispers. To persecute someone on the basis of their sexual wishes. The two main culprits were both fat, bald, bearded drooling perverts, but there were a few malleable women of vulnerable dispositions roped in too.
It was the fact that I had told Carly that I don't mind never finding a 'relationship' that lasts for life, where we live together and have some form of commiment to eachother. But yes, I would like one. Just not of the conventional type.
Carly depicts this as I 'insisted she sleep with multiple black men', which Higham words as a 'Manson type cult involving inter-racial group sex'.
This is a completely false description of reality. Of course, they know the facts are- unusual, though not unique.
I have no power to tell ANYONE what to do in their sex lives. However, it does remain the case that what I'm looking for in a partner is the following deal;
I don't want you to be sexually faithful to me. Not. At. All. In fact, I want you to sleep with as many different men as you possibly can. Only conditions. I'm the only white guy, all the rest are black. And I get to watch, as far as is possible.
Ideally, the TOTAL amount of sex you have with them will be far greater than that you have with me.
And if you're THAT girl...
You get the full right to dictate who I go to bed with. In fact, I'll go to bed with people only if you tell me to and WHOEVER you tell me to.
Believe it or not, this type of relationship- where a man holds a sexually submissive position to a woman with an insatiable lust for, specifically, as many black males as possible- is not uncommon. I am in fact a member of several internet forums where people in these relationships discuss them. It's generally known as the 'Cuckolds' community. The white males are known as 'cucks' the black males as 'bulls'.
The best known ambassador for the ideal is Candy Monroe, a kind of internet heroine to the Cuckold Community.
So it's not that I seek to FORCE any woman to do this. And I'm perfectly capable of having relationships with women who DON'T desire it. Just that those relationships can never REALLY be what I'm looking for.
I'm looking for a woman who WANTS to be like Candy Monroe and WANTS a man who'll love her for it.
I guess most men find this idea bizarre. That in my ideal world, I'd NEVER be making love to a 'faithful' woman. I'd ALWAYS be making love to a woman who'd had four or five different well endowed black men inside her since I'd last been there.
And the side issues as well perplex some. One of the nastier creatures Higham and my stalker set upon me mailed me once saying 'It is my opinion that a man who likes his ladyfriends to sleep with black men secretly wants black cocks inside HIM'.
Moot point. No, I've never done it. But if my Candy Monroe girlfriend decreed that to get to make love to HER, I had to take one of her lovers each time- yes, it would be worth it. I'd do it.
So yes, I'd rather get fucked by a black man so as to make love to a woman who has ALWAYS had many black men inside her before me than have a sexually faithful partner.
I'm not quite sure why this makes me a bad person.
It doesn't stop me being a NICE person and that's the point. I want this but am a nice person. Carly and Higham don't want this and yet AREN'T nice people. Your sexual inclinations don't make you a good or a bad person- unless we're talking about those who desire non-consensual activities. What DOES make you a bad person is...
Behaving the way Carly does to people. And actually, behaving the way Higham does to people. Victimising people on the basis of their sexual peccadilloes.
Now, I kind of expected some support from Higham back in 2007. for obvious reasons. Carly was barking mad. It was the fact she actually thought that me and her- two people who had never MET- were in a 'relationship'. How can you be? No matter what definition you put on it, to actually be in a relationship, people need to be in a position where sex is physically possible. If they aren't, then it's not a 'relationship', just a 'might be'.
And yes, I'd erred in allowing her to believe it was 'will be', and erred also in not specfiying what sort of 'might be' was open to her. But being a sane person, I thought-realistically- that that was a bridge to be crossed when one came to it. None of it was real until- and if- we ever met. And realistically? We most likely WOULD never meet. That surely HAD to be the sane way of looking at it.
And on the basis of how she behaved- I just wanted her to fuck off. But at the same time I didn't want to hurt her feelings. Why? Because I knew she'd go psycho if rejected.
I knew she was the sort of person who would start trying to damage my blog if I rejected her. By trying to spread poison about me amongst other bloggers. she wouldn't accept a 'Goodbye Carly. I don't want to talk about this. Not now, not ever. Go off and go back to your own life. And forget about me'.
And I needed help. She scared the shit out of me. On the basis of what I'd seen of how she treated Phish.
And I kind of assumed Higham would be sane and see 'Jesus Christ. You're right. I can see why you wouldn't want her in your life. You don't want to be nasty but- no one should have to have this sort of aggro.
But what he used against me- were the nastier of her lies. When she was stalking and harrassing me, I tried laying it straight with her. She wasn't- and never had been to my mind- a 'relationship'. But even if she had been, it could never have been under the terms she wanted.
I go through numerous 'relationships' of sorts. And where I put the lines are different to other people. People are either friends or acquiantances. I actually don't much go for sex with total strangers, though naturally, if asked, I don't turn it down. I prefer the 'frends with benefit' scenario.
And in all honesty, that was all that was ever available to Carly. Perhaps a very GOOD friend with benefit- but even that, only after several years. Good friendships don't just turn up after a few months telephone conversations.
And why I had no interest in taking it further was- she wasn't even behaving like a FRIEND. I would soon stop being friends with someone who kept phoning me when I kept telling them I was busy, wrote things about me online without consulting me first and e-mailed other blogging friends of mine, got into rows with them and then expected me to join in.
To say NOTHING of threatening my flatmate- a person far higher up the pecking order in terms of my friendships than Carly could EVER hope to be.
And what REALLY turned Carly into an evil psychopath was partly her rejection- which had been her own fault- but also what was on offer to her and WHY she would never have that position she wanted of 'girlfriend'. That position described above. Because that title, to me, has the sanctity most people would give to 'wife'. The fact I sleep with you might make you a very good friend, it doesn't make you my girlfriend.
In fact, we could have children together, it wouldn't make you my girlfriend. In fact, I can see any number of women romantically at one time and NONE of them be my girlfriend. That position is reserved for the right person. And Carly could never be that.
You see, in spite of what Carly and Higham claim, I don't force women to sleep with black men. Why would I want to do that? Then it wouldn't be what she wanted, it wouldn't be love. The woman I'm looking for WANTS to.
And clearly there are couples out there who find eachother. Couples who 'live the dream' as I call it. There are women out there who secretly would love to have the chance to get to sleep with many, many black men and yet STILL have a loving, lifelong relationship with a man who loves them, not in spite of it, but BECAUSE of it.
And I don't expect the guys living the dream first approached the woman they now live together as cuckolded husband and BCW wife by saying 'Hi. I'd like to watch you get spitroasted by Lexington Steele and Justin Slayer'. But when one day he brought it up, she felt a quiver of pleasure and KNEW she'd found her man.
And I'd be a liar to myself if I settled down with a woman who didn't want that. who wanted to be faithful to me. Because i'd hate it just as much as most men would hate having a girlfriend who cheated on them. Or like a gay man forced to live in the clset with a wife and children.
So no, I don't force it on women. I can have happy relationships with women- and do- where we both have a good time. As long as they know they can NEVER be the one. In that sense, I'm still looking and always will be till I find it.
But that doesn't mean that aside from that, and as long as she doesn't expect me to either be exclusive to her, or class her as my girlfriend, or move in with her, or otherwise change my life or plan my life around her....
Yes, we can have a good time. We can be very, very good friends. And sex can be one of the things we do togetger. We can even, one day, be as close as I am with my closest friends. The only thing out of bounds is being Ms Crushed.
But that isn't a problem, really. Not for many women. I'm good for a fling. And a fling with me is good fun, as long as you don't take it seriously. I'm a fairly attentive person to spend time with and I'm quite a sensuous lover.
I don't shout, I'm good tempered. I'm charming, witty, knowledgeable. Yeah, as long as you don't want anything from me, we can always be good friends of the type who play a lot of the 'hide the sausage' game together variety.
Now Higham clearly doesn't take to this attitude to relationships and sex.
fine, he doesn't have to. But nor do I have to take to his 'No sex outside marriage' 'One woman, one man' 'Gay sex is wrong' bigotry either.
You do what you want in YOUR bedroom, I'll do what I- and the other person- want to do in mine.
And to accuse my values of being 'sociopathic' just because they aren't YOURS makes a persecuting, witch-hunting BIGOT.
The point is, my values are based on consent. I don't actually force women to do anything. AND I don't encourage them either. But any woman who wants to go to bed with me, fine. As long as she's hot. Or has a great personality. Or both. Well actually, as long as she's not a dog or a gorgon.
What Higham seems to object to is that the position Carly wanted to have and which thinks I led her to believe she could have- is only available to women who- have a fervent desire to cuckold me with black men.
So she doesn't fit the bill. Not to be Ms Crushed, no. Nothing she could ever do could make her fit that bill. And yes, it's because she would want to be sexually faithful. And I just don't WANT that.
But to accuse me of using my blog to FIND a woman who does and 'lure them' into being that woman is patently ridiculous. The woman who wants to do that ALREADY wants to do it. And yes, I will sometimes when getting to know a woman ask her questions which lead me to assess how she feels about that. And once that's done? I know if she's a potential Ms Crushed or just a potential 'Good friend with benefit'.
I want her to 'live the dream' because she WANTS to.
But you see, Hgham, thinks it evil just to think like that. And because I feel like that, I shouldn't be allowed to talk to other people. Certainly not be 174th UK political blogger.
Hwever, stalking someone, harassing someone, blackmailing someone, harassing their friends and family, that's OK, apparently.
So because of all this, Higham thinks it to be MORALLY justifiable to LIE about me. It was MORALLY justifiable to persecute me, just as it was MORALLY justifiable for Carly to stalk me.
And so we see the true moral difference between Higham and me. My values are based on consent and individual freedom. Higham's are based on telling other people how to live their lives, as if he- with two failed marriages behind him and no freinds in real life- is in any position to judge ANYONE.
And a man who thinks a woman who behaves like Jacky/Carly/Ubermouth- actually causing real distress to many, many people is not an evil piece of work and yet I am 'evil' simply because I happen to be a Trotskyite whose ideal is to live in an open relationship with a woman who has many black male lovers.
When it comes to morals, James Higham, you have no idea where to begin.
But let me give you a clue.
Jesus Christ would turn in his grave at the thought of YOU calling yourself a Christian. You are not a Christian. You are a Paulician, a Pharasee.
I, on the other hand KNOW that Jesus Christ would approve of EVERY word I have written here.
I know I'm a GOOD person and a NICE person. You, James Higham, are neither.
The funny thing, I never persecuted this guy. I never had any problem with his views. I thought they were WRONG, but only ever sought to debate with him. I DID- rightfully- expect assistance when I was in the clutches of a psychotic lunatic who wouldn't stop stalking me long after being told to piss off.
He's treacherous, dishonest, disingenous, bigoted, intolerant, dictatorial, cowardly, spineless, whining, thinks he's better educated in philosophy and the ways of the world than he is and...
He's a fraud, a sycophant, a chameleon, a bender of truth. Not only that, he's a sanctimonious, preaching bore, hiding his twisted sexual rage, the fact that women in real life find him as charming as Albert Steptoe behind a mask of Pecksniffian prudery.
He's a peddlar of a mish-mash of right wing conspiracy theory, Boy's Own magazine manhood and hypocritical, witch hunting puritanism, he is a meddle aged failure raging at the values of the world which he feels never gave him what it should. And it's the fault of all these 'new fangled' ideas.
Back in the Shire, he'd have been fine. So what went wrong, what made it Mordor?
People like YOU did, Higham. People like you. You aren't Frodo. You're Ted Sandyman.
Time and time again, I've offered Higham the olive branch. Look, I'll make peace. But you got to stop your lieing. Tell the truth. And we'll leave it that. You tell the truth and you apologise.
But it's not happened.
And it's not going to. He lacks the integrity for that. Not man enough, for all his cant about what makes a real man.
Because being an honest, decent person is just not his thing.
He isn't interested in fighting for the truth. Just fighting to be the prancing prince of a medium he thinks should be reserved for those who bow down to his worldview.
But the reality is; The emperor has no clothes.
He's just another bore in the bar regurgitating unthinking right wing drivel and half truths, another false internet facade of a human being with no loyalty, no principle and no personal integrity. A mediocre writer who sustains his tedious blog by charming middle aged women who live alone, fauning unctiously to like minded bloggers and railing sanctimoniously at left wing bloggers, liberals, feminists and socialists.
And a man who fights dirty and deceitfully.
Not a nice man at all. And not a principled one. And actually, a bit of a bully.
Well, I say once again.
I'm still here, Higham. And I'm still right and you're still wrong, politically.
I still have the truth on my side and you're still a brazen liar. You're still know what you did, what you have condoned and the very real things you have on your conscience.
More than one blogger has actually raised a very good question.
Were you ever attracted to your cyber stalker, or did you just lead her on from the begining?
A good point, indeed. And one I guess NOW I don't mind answering. Perhaps I should have done back in August 2007, before the stalking and harassment began.
No, is the answer. And that was the reason behind the embarrassment behind her running round arguing with every other female blogger who read this blog claiming that me and her were 'in a relationship'.
Because frankly, I wouldn't want anyone REALLY thinking I could be attracted to someone like her.
And more discerning readers have realised I obviously couldn't have been. It really would have been stooping very low. Of course, to admit NOT to have been, would be to admit to having been using her from the start. Now myself, I don't really see anything wrong with that, but others might have chosen to put a nasty slant on it. Others WERE putting a nasty slant on it.
One other blogger- who has had the misfortune to speak to Jacky/Carly Swan/Ubermouth asked 'How could you? She sounds like a man and is really abrasive'.
This is so, I agree. Only she didn't act like that at first. She acted like a mesmerised teenager with a crush. and she put on a faked soft voice. She did kind of fool me, in the sense she kept her vile side hidden.
And if she hadn't had a vile side, of course, there never would have been a problem.
No, quite obviously, I'd never REALLY have found a woman like Jacky/Carly attractive. She's too loud, she lacks girly qualities. And in simple terms of physical appearance- well, I weigh nine and a half stone, I wouldn't be seen publically with a woman over eleven stone. Fact. It may sound harsh, but aesthetics matters. There is absolutely no way I'd be seen dead walking into my pub with a fat, ugly woman on my arm.
Of course, as long as it's not my local and no one I knows sees me, then that's another story. Don't get me wrong I've had flings with women who fall outside my tight aesthetic demands. But by and large, be slim, petite and dark, or there's no way I'd admit to you in public. I've got a reputation to think of. And don't give me this 'Beauty is only skin deep' shite.
And again, she's not intelligent enough. Of course that matters, in the sense of actually finding a woman attractive. Sure, I'll go to bed with dim women, but I don't want to have to talk to them. If you haven't heard of Nietzche, if you don't appreciate Hans Hieronyous Bosch, if you have no idea what a trilobite is, or the Cathar heresy, if you haven't read Lord of the Rings, if you don't at least have a grasp of Marxist theory- chances are you'll bore me fast.
And er- singing from the same hymn sheet. It's about respect. To find someone attractive, you have to respect them as a person. There's no way I could respect a woman who isn't- a modern, forward looking, career minded, sexually assertive 21st century woman. Sexually liberated.
How on earth do you expect me to respect a woman who doesn't use her sexuality as a power tool, a woman who chews men up and spits them out, a woman comfortable with being promiscuously sexually active outside the constraints of sexual chastity?
I couldn't REALLY respect a woman who DIDN'T sleep around. I couldn't REALLY respect a woman who believed in sexual chastity, or was ashamed of her sexual desires.
Give me a woman who tells me 'I take on two well hung black guys every Friday night, a different two every time. That's what it takes to slake my sexual needs, if you want to be with me- you'll have to accept that'.
Now THERE'S a woman I can RESPECT. That's the girl I want to be Ms Crushed.
So let's be honest, how well would Jacky/Carly score?
Er- not high.
She'd be pushing a one out of ten. The type you might pick up from the debris by the dancefloor after a singularly disappointing night when wearing extra strength beer goggles.
And sneak away at 6AM next day, hoping no one sees you leave her flat. 'The shame' you'd whisper to yourself 'Why, oh why do I have two brains and only enough blood to run one at at time. Look at the monstrosities you make me do, o brain in my other head'.
So- why?
Well, there is more than one so for someone being attracted to you. Just because you don't ACTUALLY find someone attractive, one should not necessarily reject them. They could still serve a purpose.
The obvious one in real life being easy sex of course. But, as you so rightly point out, that didn't apply here. Surrey is over a hundred miles for here. Who travels that far just for sex?
Al human relationships are bargains of one sort or another. People forget that. There are many, many different bargains out there and each case its up to those involved to set their terms. What people also forget is that these bargains are usually made up of many little, interlocking bargains. The little things. And most of those little bargains are day to day bargains governed in so many ways by laws of supply and demand and- the invisible hand of the market.
Capitalism may indeed be a very bad way to run an economy long term, but the principles that make it work short term are the principles which in reality govern human relationships. We trade.
And, just like everything else, we offer different deals to different customers sometimes.
And I suppose the best way of putting it with regards to Jacky/Carly/Ubermouth would be...
If I gave her what she thought she SHOULD have on the terms she wanted, I'd be losing out on the deal. It wouldn't be an equitable proposition.
But that doesn't mean she couldn't be a customer.
Quite naturally, there are people out there with good human credit ratings for whom one is happy to offer the equivalent of one's best deals- the equivalent of a loan on 5% fixed rate, charged by accrual, no hidden catches. I want to keep your custom, you're valued customers. (Yes, Chrystal, this means you. :))
Others are potential customers, in that they have business. But if you tell them straight away what deals are available to THEM, they're unlikely to be interested. So you offer them an introductory rate. 0% for the first six months. Then, of course, it goes up to 38% but no one would go for that if it said that on the advertising. It's in the small print of course.
It's never a bad thing, in my opinion, to let someone fall for you. What they need to remember is, as Nietzche says, 'Love is a gift. It confers no rights'.
Now as far as Jacky/Carly was concerned, on the one hand it was quite a novel and unusual experience. I had no experience at all of the internet and it was certainly interesting seeing how fast Jacky/Carly seemingly 'fell in love'. Certainly worth studying. That's another thing about people falling in love with you. It's a fascinating opportunity to study the inner workings of the human mind. They open themselves up to you. A fascinating source of data.
Jacky/Carly was certainly interesting from that point of view. A rich source, in fact, of many of the psychological analysis posts done on this blog. Only about 40% of anything she said was ever true, of course, but that's what made it interesting. Filling in the blanks, deducing the logical reasons behind her falsehoods. Dare I say it, she provided a fascinating insight into the baser of human emotions and desires, our animal heritage, the darker primal instincts of the species. More especially, what I call our pre-mammalian template, our 'Inner Reptile'.
In many ways, it was like studying two people in one. But united by a common thread. And the unity between those two persons was interesting. Certainly at times she could be motivated by what she would call love, but the study of that in itself was fascinating. And of course, at a relatively safe distance.
Some would argue that one shouldn't use people simply to get inside their heads so one can pull out the debris inside to analyse it. Some would compare it to what the Nazis did. The comparison is hardly proportional. There's a difference between torture and persuading someone to show you what's in their head.
ALL relationships to me are study cases to some degree. A source of data. And Jacky/Carly was such a fascinating case in so many ways. One could see the roots of so many of the classic psychoses and see where they were rooted; in an inability to let ruthless logic govern emotions; a desire to turn reality into what one's emotions wanted it to be. Here, in Jacky/Carly's head were the roots of mass hysteria, of mob hatred, of persecutions, pogroms, witch hunts; here in Jacky/Carly's head were the crazy sentiments which caused the UK to lose the plot on the death of that nauseating publicity whore, Diana Spencer, the sentiments which caused the German people to vote for Hitler.
Paranoia, kneejerk responses, wildly flailing emotions, powerful love of a base, animal kind, powerful hate of the like strength.
It was the sense of the raw emotion that I found both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. Like some primitive, anthropophagous neanderthal woman, lacking in refinement and emotional control. Here was no style, no sense of art and culture, here was not the cold sardonic putdown, no appreciation of literature, no comprehension of the great issues of life. It had a semblance of reason, but was ultimately directed by uncontrollable urges and little else. There was something both terrifying and yet it was our heritage. An atavism perhaps. A warning of the darkness that still lies deep within the human framework, the animal we seek to shed from us.
I remember once idly thinking that if the creature ever did expect me to go to bed with it I'd want to wear rubber gloves. I had this sense it's flesh would be hot, pink and sweaty with a faint stench to it. The stench of too much flesh folded over in rings around a shapless, panting mass. And the creature grunting like some wild beast.
These sentiments, of course, turned up later in the study. I'm not quite sure when I should have stopped it, really. It had all got out of hand. But, of course, there was another side.
As I said, just because you don't find someone attractive, doesn't mean you can't find a use for their attraction to you.
Yes, quite obviously I wanted to convert Jacky/Carly Swan. Convert her to the ideals of the revolution. Yes, I fully intended to use her attraction to me for a good purpose.
Let me get that clear; her ideal of finding a man to marry her and fertilise her eggs (ultimately that's her only real aim in life) is a negative aim. No woman should have that ideal. Marriage itself is an evil concept in the 21st century and should be fought against with every weapon in our arsenals in this war. It is just another shackle of the Ingsoc Capitalist matrix of control.
So yes, I believed her attraction to me- what she called her 'love' for me- could indeed have a positive purpose. It could, if I could free her and set her loose promoting the true ideals of freedom; the revolution.
Free Love and Democratic Communism. To get her to understand that the 'love' she felt for me, she should feel for every human being- including her 'archenemy'. To get her to see that sex should be an inclusive, not an exclusive act. To encourage her to adopt a sexually promiscuous lifestyle, not as a vice, but as a VIRTUE.
And to get her to stop wasting her life in an obsession with WHICH man fertilised her bloody eggs and settling down in some isolated farm with him in her den but actually get up off her arse and do something USEFUL. Fight this system. Fight Capitalism, fight Racism, fight homophobia, fight the enemies of feminism, fight the family values brigade, fight the supporters of increasing police powers, fight Christian fundamentalism. Get your eggs fertilised if you must, but then BE a role model to women. Bring up your kid as an example to women of how they don't need a man, be there on the front lines of the protest movements underneath the banners.
I wanted her to see that we- today, THIS generation- have a chance to make a change. Changing the way we think. That a synthesis can indeed be found betwen the teachings of Christ and the ideals of Communism. It is actually about escaping the very patterns of thought her and others like here seem so wedded to and which are used by the powers that be to found the pillars of the control matrix;
We cannot smash Fasco-capitalism and the values system that supprts it without smashing the ideals of the nuclear family and sexual chastity. And we need to move away from thinking of people as our 'enemies'.
In other words; Ms Smack, Phish, etc...these were NOT her enemies. They could be her friends. Everyone should be friends. The only thing that should be our enemy is the system of hate itself and its minions.
We really DO live in the Matrix world. And I wanted Carly to get out of her pod and come down to Sion. In that sense I 'loved' her. As indeed, I love all of you who are capable of being liberated from the matrix, of taking the red pill.
If you want to be a James Higham and take the blue pill- there's nothing I can do for you.
So leading Carly on? Of course. As Morpheus points out in the film, most people are happy in the Matrix. They don't want to be liberated. But holding in your head the idea of marriage and a nuclear family- that's a perverted hope of an evil system. If I have to give someone hope in that ideal simply so I can bring them to the point where I can smash that ideal and get them to take the red pill, so be it.
Jesus would have done the same.
I guess I was mislead, in a way. I like to think the best of people. I had wanted to believe that it wasn't ME the lump of flesh that Jacky/Carly was attracted to, but more the ideals that I stood for. I believed that Jacky/Carly could be made to see logic, see reason and realise the truth;
That is the moral obligation of every decent, honest, GOOD human being to stand up and say NO. To stop devoting their lives to the Capitalist trick of divide and rule. Of making us divide into 'family' units stuck in boxes watching boxes that tell us what to think. That there is strength in unity, that the answer is on the one hand to break free and then HAVING DONE THAT unite.
A united front of individuals demanding the renegotiation of the social contract, demanding that the whole thing be ripped up and drawn up anew.
Until the people of the world have been freed from the Matrix and been given their just rights under the best social contract modern technology and knowledge can give us; a United States of Earth governed by true Democratic Communism where the nuclear family has given way to true communal living, where the nasty values of sexual chastity have given way to TRUE Free Love, none of us can afford to stand idle and further more, this is a serious business.
No right minded person any longer should ever be thinking of finding a partner to build a life around, 'one man, one woman' united against everyone else. This way of thinking supports the Capitalist system.
It is true as the enemies of Free Love point out, that if we all go round having sex with who we want when we want, traditional society breaks down.
My point. That is exactly why we need to do it. It undermines the very roots of Capitalist society. So we need to be doing it. Not only that, any human being who loves their species should be encouraging those they love to do the same.
So no, I never 'loved' Jacky/Carly the way she wanted. I loved her as I love all human beings, no more, but certainly no less. I loved her in the sense that I wanted her to find truth and the happiness that can only come with finding the truth.
And hopefully she'd always remain a friend and supporter, knowing and accepting that her true role in life could never be as my 'lover'- certainly not as a 'wife', I'm a free man and furthermore, my life is too precious to be wasted that way- but that she could play a bright and positive role in the creation of a truly global movement designed to bring about the revolution by peaceable means.
I wanted her to join the struggle and play a positive role within it. To join the battle against the Ingsoc Capitalist tyranny.
And that isn't to be won with guns and violence.
It's to be won by literally spreading the love- physically- and spreading the word. And by protesting. And striking. And passive resistance.
I have nothing whatsoever to apologise for in my treatment of Jacky/Carly Swan/Ubermouth.
I did what was the right thing to do.
And there is absolutely no way any sane person can impeach my morals on the subject.
Any person who refuses to open their eyes to the fact that we are in a crucial phase of the history of the species needs to wake up fast.
I hope the change comes peacably, but even I don't kid myself that is guaranteed. That is why I blog, I want it to happen peacably.
Because we might just end up with a global civil war. Yes, a global civil war. By which I mean that here in the west there are pitched guerilla battles going on ten to fifteen years from now between the forces of Ingsoc Capitalism ande the organised masses of the people.
And I don't want it to get that, I don't.
But if it does?
War is war. And this war can't be lost.
So that's why I want the transition to be peaceful if it can be. I don't ever REALLY want to take up arms. But if it came to it, it would be irresponsible not to.
I pity Jacky/Carly in some ways, I do. But never for very long. I look at the evil she did. Ultimately, she never cared for my politics, or for the furtherance of the ideals of this blog. So what DID she want it's author for? That's what troubled me. It's kind of a paradox, I guess. If her 'love' for me was WORTH anything, she'd have cared so much about this blog succeeding, she'd have made it her number one priority and nothing else would have mattered.
What sickened me, I guess was that her 'love' wasn't built on an admiration of the ideals of this blog- it was just built on wanting a man.
It saddens me, I guess, that all the time I talked to her of the revolution, about Darwin, about Nietzche, about Marx, about understanding Christ's real message, about Free Love, about how we could strive for a better world- all she was thinking about was- me fertilising her eggs. Not how she could help me be a part of realising these hopes
It does sadden me, yes. Because I believed she could become a better person than she was. That through her rather narrow and pointless obsession with 'having a relationship' with me something positive could be created.
A desire to fight and die for Free Love and Democratic Communism.
Of course it saddens me. It's a question of priorities. Jacky/Carly tries to defend her actions by claiming that I claimed to have feelings for her that I did not have solely for political reasons, to use her to promote my politics. Is that a bad thing? Even if true?
I don't think so. It's a black and white interpretation that ignores the subtleties. And I can't see how she could claim she got hurt by it.
But what she did- claim to have political opinions she did not have solely to land a man (proven by the fact she now HAS landed one- one with fairly extreme right wing views)....
She knew my political views the first time we spoke, she can't pretend she didn't. And she purported to agree with them all. Marx, Nietzsche, Free Love, the lot.
Otherwise I wouldn't have wasted a second's time on her. Now clearly that was a lie. If you believe in this sort of stuff, you don't attack the blog of someone promoting those things, no matter how hurt you think you've been by them. And if you really believe those things, you CERTAINLY don't go asking a right wing Christian fundamentalist to be your knight in shining armour. And then blanketly take on his creeds.
Oh- and then force him to marry you.
Jacky/Carly once left a harassing comment on here (one of many, many) which read 'I don't care who online likes me. I don't come online to start a revolution'.
Ay. That's the sad thing. You don't. You just come online to meet people. For what? 'Re-lay-shun-ships?'
That, I guess, is the saddest bit about it for me.
That all that time I thought she was listening thinking 'Yeah, he's right, we can fight this, the Revolution CAN happen, Capitalism CAN be overthrown. Free Love IS better than Monogamy. I believe in this guy, I believe if enough people listen to what he's saying, things can change'- all she was really thinking was 'I want this man to fertilise my eggs. And I don't want any other woman to get her hands on him'.
And that makes me feel dirty. Even now.
I guess people wanted to know. :)
I guess that pretty much draws a line under it all, all the facts are out now.
And now this blog- and all of us- can move onto better and brighter things.
There is a Revolution to strive for :)
And you'll be pleased to know I've finally got off the fence in real life regarding that. I've kind of come out of hiding. I've started to take the first steps myself to being part of the movement that will- I hope- lead to Global General Strike, May 1st 2025.
And the overthrow of Capitalism by passive revolution.
I'm hoping to recommence blogging properly soon, but when I do, I hope people will realise that for the first time since 2001, I am actually a member of a political organisation and that will involve time. My priorities in order will be; my job (because I have to live), then the organisation I agreed to join yesterday, then blogging.
And after that other things in my private life- friends, then Birmingham City FC, then women.
I look forward to being back with you properly soon.
Have faith, people.
I mean for the good guys to win. And I mean to devote my life to it.
A nice girl in some ways, in other ways, well, she had a predatory side. She slept with most of us at one point or other, I think. Very intelligent she was and very self assured.
And not ashamed of her running total. Hence her nickname; Forty Dicks Kate.
She had a boyfriend from back home who came to visit once a month or se and the rest of us went round whistling 'Us? Been shagging your girlfriend? Perish the thought!'.
Forty Dicks Kate also kept a special type of tally. Her hobby. Cherry Popping. She liked to find young men who hadn't been initiated into the arts of love making and be their educator.
Men didn't last long for her. She took them in, chewed them up and spat out the skin. We all knew long before they did that their 'talk' was due. After three weeks or so, she'd find another man. and the next day, she'd meet the existing lover and dispatch him over a drink.
Not all of them took it very well.
This one in particular I remember. Adam. She'd popped his cherry and he'd- got quite hung up on her. She never invited him to come out with us- it would have cramped her style- but he kind of learned our patterns. So often we'd be walking down the hill into town and we'd 'bump into him' just happening to walking along the junction where Penglais Hill met the Llanbadern Road. Too often to be coincidental.
And his excessive need to know what she was up to sealed his fate. He didn't last long.
He didn't take his dismissal very well though. I think it was presented to him as a fait accompli- she'd started sleeping with someone else. That was when the stalking started.
It wasn't threatening, not really. Just the repeated coming round and knocking on her door and standing outside going 'Kate- we need to talk'. And inside Kate and her new man just ignored him. He was more an annoyance, I think, than anything scary.
But it was the principle. He gave up in the end and never REALLY got threatening. But he DID go around telling everyone that Kate and her new man were 'Evil'.
I guess, in a way, I felt sorry for him -a little- even then. And he gave up before it got nasty, but still, a stalker he was, briefly and perhaps harmlessly, but a stalker nonetheless.
And it's actually a very good example of the dynamics between the relationship between a stalker and their victim.
Because the reality is- Kate was the victim, not him. That's the point. She became the victim when he started knocking on her door going 'Kate we need to talk' and not going away for hour on end.
It's a funny crime, stalking, by it's very nature. The dynamics are unique. The uniqueness of it is in the capacity of the culprit to present themselves as a victim, to elicit sympathy. And yet what they do is- in practice- the psychological equivalent of rape.
It is forcing someone to give you attention that you do not want to give them and which they have no right to expect.
The problem with stalking is that most victims are people like Kate. And most culprits, people like Adam. This problem gets worse when the victim is male and the culprit female.
In other words, where the victim is quite clearly a predatory male who finds it easy to attract women and the culprit is an unattractive, socially inadequate female who feels that they have been used and determines to gain either his attention which she feels entitled to or- vengeance.
The temptation is to say 'He deserves it'.
????
I think we'd all be a bit worried if courts started acquitting burglars because the victims didn't install a burglar alarm, thus making their home a target. Or if courts acquitted fraudsters because their victims should have been less gullible.
Quite clearly, with any crime, certain people are more likely to be targets and certain people more likely to be victims.
Part of the problem is in the still enduring attitudes which not just some men but also some WOMEN have to rape. How many people still think that a woman is somehow responsible for being raped if she is known to be sexually promiscuous, or is drunk, or dresses provocatively?
Completely overlooking the point that a woman can be out looking for sex, but NOT be looking for sex with YOU.
Again, we now agree that a husband does not acquire rights to the body of his wife for ever. He still has to ask. The existence of a relationship does not mean presumption of sexual consent.
We need to be in the mental framework where we understand that raping a drunken woman who has already had sex with two other men that night and clearly wanted it with those two, but NOT her rapist, is AS WRONG AS RAPING A NUN before we can truly accept the dynamics of stalking.
Because yes. It is a modern crime. It is a modern dynamic. Once upon a time, we would not have seen it as such. It has been created, indeed, by a whole modern values shift. And that values shift is correct.
The paramountcy of consent in human interaction, above all else.
It is true that rock stars and celebrities get stalkers who they have never met, or maybe only met once to sign an autograph. Complete fruit cakes. But most stalkers aren't stalking celebrities. So how DO they start stalking their victims?
Well- the honest truth is- usually- the victim gives them hope at some point and then retracts that hope. Like with Kate and Adam, both parties will have gone through an experience which meant one thing to one party and something different to the other.
The victim is usually everything the stalker THINKS they are looking for in a partner and at some point the victim allows them in. Victims are usually people of a certain type. They inevitably have the following qualities;
They are attractive, intelligent, sexually promiscuous and go through sexual partners quickly. And yet they are also quite internally insecure and far more emotionally needy than they let on. They will tend to clutch at straws and being in constant need of reassurance will often make the mistake of feeding any source of admiration they can. Hence their promiscuity.
They are, by definition, attractive, yet promiscuous, intelligent, yet insecure in many ways and likely to have a very fragile internal nature that they hide behind a front of assertive charm.
In other words; the stalker has an advantage. Their victim will probably go out of their way to placate them and being a person who naturally avoids confrontation; the stalker can simply chase them round the spider's web.
And the other thing about being a stalker victim is- you cannot help but ask yourself 'AM I to blame? AM I the bad guy here? HAVE I done something wrong?'
And the answer is no. You haven't. Nobody 'deserves' to be raped. Nobody 'deserves' to be tortured. Stalking is a crime. The stalker will blame the victim, just as a rapist will say 'Yeah, but she WANTED it'.
No. It's just that the way you behave, the way you ARE, makes you a target for stalkers.
I had an ex-girlfriend in real life who turned into a stalker- so yes, I've TWICE had a stalker. Same dynamics in many ways. Of course, in real life these things are far easier to deal with. An analysis of the real life stalker situation may be worth an appraisal for showing how these things work.
It is undeniably true that only certain types of people attract stalkers and only certain types of people become stalkers. Some men and women- like myself- really do have a compulsive need to just 'get through' as many members of the opposite sex as we can. It's kind of a compulsion. And it's not just about sex. It's kind of more about affirmation. This makes us especially vulnerable to the types of people who will become our stalkers.
The story of how I ended up being stalked and harassed by Sara is, of course, unique. But it has parallels with my stalking by Jacky/Carly Swan. And those points have a lot in common with how Kate ended up being stalked and harassed by Adam. Furthermore I have seen at least one close friend have an ex who turned into a stalker and have talked to several people who fall into that unenviable- but larger than many people realise- group of people who have been stalker victims. There is indeed a special dynamic to the situation. It is indeed, a far more traumatic experience for the victim than many victims will admit to. In psychological terms it IS almost like being raped. Because whilst it may not involve a physical invasion of one's person, it is often a long drawn out process, the sense that someone you do not consent to being in your life is always there in it and it makes you feel unclean and ashamed in some kind of way.
An Unequal Relationship
Sara was suggested to me by a work colleague. She mentioned that Sara was single and looking for a man and suggested I might be interested in taking her out. She showed me a picture of Sara and she looked- well, a trifle plain, even a little shy, but petite and dark, which was a good start. She on the other hand had been shown pictures of me and delivered a 'He's gorgeous!' verdict.
I rang her before the arranged 'date' or whatever we want to call it- and she expressed her concern that she was not good looking enough for me. I allayed those fears but it has to be said that when she turned up I did consider the point that in normal circumstances I wouldn't have looked twice at her. And being honest there was only one thing about her attracted me to her as the evening progressed; her obvious attraction to myself.
I was able to form a good analysis of her quite quickly; insecure, a history of being used by men for easy sex, a dull, tedious life of admin jobs, never really enjoyed the highlife.
Over the next week, she certainly fell head over heels. And I was flattered, to be sure. But it was more. I pitied her and though I knew she could never be Ms Right, why not give her what she wanted for now? She'd never had it this good, that was palpably obvious. But why not let her see what life COULD be like?
Comment: A common dynamic, the besotted and the beloved. Talking to all stalker victims, it began like this. They pitied their later abuser once, allowed them to become besotted out of a sense almost of charity. Sure, it was selfish too, selfish in that the attentions of the besotted were a profound ego boost. But there was a genuine sense of giving something to the other, as with Kate's desire to educate the insecure, sexually inexperienced Adam into the arts of love making.
Most often, these situations don't go nasty. But there are really only two ways people become victims of stalkers. One is that they are a celebrity. The other is that it began in a similar way to the situation described above; the stalker and the victim were once besotted and beloved.
Very early on, a certain topic of conversation kept rearing it's head. She kept re-iterating how much she wanted children and worried it would never happen. Fears of the impending three zero. It was hard to negotiate these conversations, because it was clearly a sore point for her. I suspect she deterred many men by her constant obsessions with this point. I tried to negotiate round it with 'Well, you're seeing men and sleeping with men- as long as you continue to do that, there's a good chance you'll find one you want to get pregnant by'.
This of course, would bring up the question of what I thought about children, long term. And this, of course, is a problem topic. The truth? I am more than happy to fertilise any woman's eggs- leastways, I won't object if she allows it to happen. I'm prepared to support any offspring that carry my DNA. And be as much a part of their lives as possible. And that is my position on the subject of children. It would help, obviously, if myself and the mother(s) of my children were on amicable terms. but marriage, even sharing a property together- reality is, I'd never agree to that. Ever.
So such conversations are difficult. Because you don't want to give her the impression you wouldn't be prepared to be a father to her children- you would. But that doesn't mean anything. Naturally, I want to leave behind as many descendants as I can. Ideally, with as many different mothers. Reproduction is a matter of tactics, a business of cold logic. I will strike any deal I can to maximise the survival of my genes- and I will go for the best deals I can find.
Problem was, I allowed her to believe that for all my obvious contempt for the whole nuclear family ideal, that I was possibly the one to walk her up the aisle. Even though I ruled it out. She still 'believed'. Told her Mum, in fact.
Comment: This sort of situation should give cause for alarm. If she simply wanted children, she'd have made sure she got pregnant. The fact she hasn't, yet still obsesses about it tells you all you need to know. She wants a man to trap. And fast. If she finds a man fits her vision, she won't find it easy to let him go. Generally speaking, one doesn't discuss children and the like. One just doesn't. One discusses them as and when they show up. The only reason one MIGHT discuss them is if one had been in a relationship for a year or two and the woman showed no interest in getting pregnant, THEN the man might indeed question why. And actually say 'Look, if you won't have children, I want children, so I'm going to have to go elsewhere'.
But these sorts of situations get out of hand. All besotted/beloved relationships have similar situations, I think. One envisages a long future and the other is too weak willed, too soft hearted to say 'Look, THAT is never going to happen'. You think 'Ah, let them believe just a LITTLE longer'.
Inappropriate and Abusive Behaviour, Warped Perspectives, etcetera
These are things one should watch out for, or at least the beloved and those who care for the beloved. Little signs that the besotted is unhinged. Taken together, of course, they will amount to such an impossible strain, the beloved will almost certainly decide to end the fling early. But it may be too late. He or she may ALREADY be an incipient victim. If the besotted does one or more of the following things, then they will almost CERTAINLY turn stalker, once the object of their obsession spurns them. Which, given they do at least ONE of the following, is inevitable.
Sara developed an irrational dislike for people she'd never met, simply because they were part of my life. At the time, my friend D was going through some problems which necessitated us regularly meeting up. Since I was looking for a flat at that time, I decided to go for a two bedroomed and rent a room to D. So myself and D were meeting in the pub possibly twice a week for an hour or so to discuss options. Sara resented this, because it obviously meant I was spending more of my evenings with D than her. But I didn't really have much choice. She also resented that fact that before 9.30 was reserved for the internet most nights a week as well, so she also came to resent the internet and internet related issues. None of these things were any of her business, but she would take them personally.
On one occasion she said 'I hate D'
I was shocked and pointed out she didn't know her and had never met her. Her reply; 'She keeps you away from me'. I warned her 'If you ever speak about D like that- my friend- I will walk out this door and never speak to you again. You do NOT hate people. I do NOT want to know, or speak to, people who hate. D has as much right to my time as you do- more so, I've known her longer. I give you time. It's a privilege, not a right'.
Although this blog was in it's early stages then, she hated that too. As something that- quite rightly- took precedence over her in terms of time allocation. After all, there isn't really much point going out before 9.30, so there really isn't much point allocating time in the working week before 9.30 to a 'partner'.
Comment: The sort of attitudes shown by Sara here are the sort that should sound warning bells to anyone not hoping to come home and find boiling bunnies in their saucepan. It's generally a sign they don't have a life of their own. They are already starting to centre their life on YOU, and no one person's life should EVER be centred on another individual. Take yourself away from them, and it might just be like depriving a heroin addict of heroin.
Effectively, that is what a stalker is, in psychological terms. It's just not a drug they are addicted to, it is a person. And not so much a person, as an idea of a person and their need to feel that person is THEIRS. In their clutches. The more worrying practise Sara began to take up was unauthorised calls at inappropriate times. Most people understand that there is a time and a place for things. Sara seemingly didn't. The first example was two weeks into the 'relationship' when I was on my way up to Manchester for a party. I'd promised Sara I'd ring her when I got there. And possible on the Saturday, though likely not. And I'd see her again Sunday. When we'd go out for a meal.
So let's just say I was a touch annoyed when she rung me on the train before I'd even GOT to Manchester. Kind of ruining my attempt to seduce a cute redhead nurse (actually going quite well up until that point).
And she rung AGAIN on the Saturday afternoon. This time, having not slept, I was a trifle less calm about it. There was no necessity for the calls, she knew I was coming back Sunday, period.
More worrying was what began a week or so later. We had a minor incident of completely trivial significance where I rolled up at hers at about midnight having had slightly too much to drink. I had kind of promised to be there earlier, but events had conspired against me. And I was a little too drunk and tired for the act of intimacy to be on the agenda. Which led Sara to assume that either; I had already had sex that night or; I didn't find her attractive.
It was a tedious subject and I had little interest in discussing it. In fact, I wasn't going to discuss it. It's a boring thing to discuss. I was too drunk to get it up. End of. It happens. Blame the Guiness brewery and the Jamesons distillery.
But I didn't hear the end of it. Worse, she's still trying to ring me at work about it the following day. 'I'm just worried you don't find me attractive. I bet if I'd been black you'd have had no problem'. I tried to bat it off, but no, they kept coming 'I feel so, so unattractive right now'.
Christ. Does this woman not realise I'm paid to talk to clients about marketing campaigns and software and the like? (I was then, anyway. And am again now in point of fact.) I'm not paid to counsel women on how they feel because their boyfriend was too drunk to perform. I'm of the belief that if women want to talk to someone about this stuff, it shouldn't be their boyfriend. Maybe a best friend of their own sex, or failing that, a counsellor.
And if I really HAVE to listen to that sort of crap- and I will try avoid it- then not in working time. Preferably not at all.
Anyway, she started to get into the bad habit of bringing this kind of trivia into my working day. Other issues began to crop up as well, equally as banale and none of them things I should have had to trouble myself at all, even outside work, let alone whilst working.
Comment: This is actually pretty serious. And should worry the object being bothered this way. It shows the botherer is entirely self centred. They are incapable of asking themselves whether it is the right time and place for the conversation. Or even whether the conversation is appropriate at all. All that concerns them is that THEY want to talk about it and THEY want to talk about it NOW. For them, the issue they want to discuss SHOULD be in the forefront of your mind. It is as if, in a sense, they think you exist in a sense of suspended animation when they are not around. The sum total of all the rest of your life doesn't matter as much as the bit of your life with them.
They have already proved that they think they are more important than your job or your social life. In other words, if you find this sort of stuff happening to you, worry.
You are not yet a stalker victim. But you are going to be one. Because what they are doing now is nasty enough. But you are still- by default- consenting.
The oddity is, you ARE being abused. But what makes it so odd is that the abuser is, so often, the weaker party, the stupider party, the less attractive party. And the party being abused looks- too confident, too intelligent, too attractive to be an abuse victim. Yet they are becoming one.
The last point that should tell anyone in a 'relationship' that they are going to become a stalker victim, is something I can't point to any examples of Sara doing, though my other stalker did. And Kate's Adam did too.
Those accidental meetings on the hill down to town when she'd told him she wasn't going out. All those coincidences which were too unlikely. The just happening to bump into him, hanging around places she was likely to show up. The watching out for her, seeing who she was with. The checking up.
Comment: If someone does this to you EVEN WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP, you are already a stalker victim. It's stalking. It's started already.
Perhaps this is a societal change some don't get. Time was when it was considered ok for a partner to spy on someone because they might suspect something. No, it isn't, not really. We don't treat it as stalking, but we should really. And if someone finds out that someone they are in a relationship with HAS been following them, spying on them, etc, etc- well, they should finish with them immediately and probably consider getting an injunction straight away. This person is a danger to society. And they WILL continue to stalk.
Ultimately, Sara brought the ending forward herself. Though she didn't see it coming. This is what astounded me. My patience isn't limited, everyone only has a certain crap quota before the 'You are the weakest link, Goodbye' moment comes looming. I have a certain amount of patience, but perhaps, to be fair, not that much really. And I don't see why I have to put up with boring conversations, being shouted out, being bothered with trivia at work, endless phone calls asking me where I am, whinging that I'm not spending enough time with her, etc, etc.
Life is for the living. The here and now. These things are supposed to be a bit of fun. 'Relationships' are about laughing, drinking, screwing, with the odd bit of intelligent conversation, a few meals out and the odd art gallery thrown in. Or they are for me. There can never really be worth anything getting that angry about. If you argue more than once in the same week, you're not compatible as people. Simple. Really, you should enjoy every minute of eachother's company, never NOT enjoy a minute and- not stress at all when the other isn't around. And just live for the here and now. What the two of you do together matters, what you do apart, doesn't.
It should be PLAY, not WORK.
Anyway, one afternoon, I'd knocked off early and was in the pub. And then my phone went off. I smiled to the girl I was chatting to and said 'It's Sara. I'll just finish with her and then I'll be back'.
I wasn't joking either. I'd had enough. It was taking the piss.
I think the conversation my end went something like this 'You have fifteen seconds to explain the reason for this call. Not good enough. No, that's not a reason for bothering me in the pub on a Friday afternoon. No, I just said; I'm not interested. Haven't you got work to be doing? Me? Clearly not; I'm in the pub. Anyway, that was your last warning. What do I mean? What I mean is I've had enough of your shit. No, I shouldn't have to put up with it. No, now is where you shut your mouth. I'm not interested in hearing about it. See you later? No. Listen, I'm in the pub. It's packed with women who are, to be fair, better looking and less annoying than you. Chances are that over the next five hours and aided by the great British icebreaker, alcohol, I can find someone to go bed with tonight without having to go through the sort of irritation you provide. Er, yes, I'm serious. Do I sound like I'm not? Er, no we won't talk later. That's what I said. I'll be round on Sunday to pick up anything I left at yours. I think I left some shirts and a bag of CDs. Enjoy your life, Sara.'
End.
Not a bad ending, in many ways. The fact I still had property at hers was an issue, but there wasn't any way I could have got them out without arousing suspicion. Otherwise, it was quite well done, I thought. And I actually felt in a pretty good mood when I returned to the girls. It's very rare one has to actually 'end' a 'relationship', usually they end themselves or more often, they turn into something better, but sometimes, like this one, they start to make you feel almost dirty. And in those cases there is something powerfully liberating about their end. You think 'Bring on the beer and let's drink to my liberation with the next pretty girl'.
So yes, I was in a great mood all night.
Comment: Rejecting someone is never easy. The path of least resistance is always the easiest to follow. Most of the times these things just drift. And sometimes, they drift out of existence naturally.
But in 'relationships' of the sort described above, that isn't going to happen. At some point, the worm has to turn. And usually it is at a point when they feel safe enough to make the decision- and have had a couple of drinks to give them nerve.
One thing that can often be missed is that people like Sara are in fact, bullies. She didn't look like one, small, timid, insecure. But over time the cumulative effect of her behaviour was exactly that. Just as with Kate and Adam. During their brief 'relationship', she may have seemed to have the upper hand. Cleverer, sassier, smarter, more confident, a woman who could bed any man just by clicking her fingers and him the awkward, grungy social inadequete.
The besotted has- in relationships such as these described- and in the case of my online stalker too- become a bully. What the beloved refuses to give of their own free will, they use coercion and underhand tactics to get out of them. They know that if they make a nuisance of themselves, the beloved will give them what they want just for an easy life. Whether it be time, support in an argument, attention, sex. The besotted starts to believe they are entitled to things and in classic psychopathic logic, concludes that if the beloved DOESN'T deliver then it is the beloved that is the 'abuser'.
But the beloved isn't the abuser. The abuser is the one who attempts to gain things from the beloved by means other than the whole hearted consent of the beloved.
The trump card the besotted bully uses- and what makes them a bully- is they know that the beloved will do almost anything to avoid confrontation. The beloved will always adopt whatever tactic is necessary to pacify the bully.
The bully will scream at the top of their voice 'Do you love me? Do you love me?' knowing that the other party won't dare say no. But then the bully plays the doublethink trick. They forget that they only got a yes answer because the other party is frightened NOT to say yes. They have created an atmosphere where their abuse victim is frightened to break free, because they know the besotted bully will shout and scream at them. And perhaps worse. In other words; they don't even, at this point, necessarily understand that they are being a bully.
But they are. They have created a situation where the prime concern of the supposed object of their affections is; avoiding the bully. The bully believes they are in a 'loving' relationship just undergoing some minor problems, but once these are overcome, Paradise is round the corner. They have absolutely no insight into the mind of the other party. The other party just wants to get away, to be able to press a magic button and just not see their face or hear their voice. But is scared shitless.
The relief that people like me feel in such a situation is; the joy of being free again. The joy of having escaped from a fling that had got of hand, become unpleasant. The sea is full of fish and not all of them are sharks.
On the Sunday, Sara rang me and asked where I wanted to meet here to pick up the CDs and other items. I suggested a pub, being neutral territory and morever, public territory. Always a wise decision, as it means difficult conversation can be avoided. And she would have to behave herself according to social convention. Which, to be fair, she did. In fact it was completely peacable and amicable. She seemed to have taken it quite well.
There were several CDs missing, but she said she'd find them and call me when she had them. And I bought her a couple of drinks and, being a civilised and polite human being, made it clear that I didn't have a problem going for a drink in the future and also- well, to be blunt, if she ever needed a no strings attached casual fuck, she knew where I was. No hard feelings.
It all seemed very civilised. I was quite pleased at how it had turned out. I'd missed the point. It was amicable only because she didn't yet understand that it really was over. The missing CDs were a clue. She had left them out on purpose, to keep a link going, a reason for me to go round to her flat to get them.
And as the days went by, I heard nothing. No texts or calls to say 'Shall I meet you in the Star? I got your CDs'.
So I consulted some friends and colleagues and they advised it was best not to go round there, that was falling into her trap. Best thing to do was to write a formal letter and deliver it by hand, stating that you would like the CDs returned and if she had any queries, to communicate with you through your lawyers. I agreed it was the correct course of action, and it is what I did.
Anyway, the day I delivered it, she rang. So I met her in a neutral pub and collected the CDs and a T shirt I'd forgotten she had. I asked her why she'd been holding on to it. The answer was a little bit scary- she'd been sleeping in it. Now I know most women DO keep a t-shirt of yours to sleep in nights you're not there, but- after they've been rejected????
It turned out she hadn't received my letter yet. In fact she was a little upset that I'd sent it. She HAD expected me to call round. I explained why that wasn't a good idea; I wasn't prepared to meet her on HER terriory, in the circumstances. Anyway, I think it finally dawned on her; there were no more chances for her. She'd blown it. I just wasn't prepared to put up with her crap. Besides, in my view it hadn't been a bad run. The fun part was over, why perpetuate it?
And then I made a classic mistake- I had had four pints by this point and I was kind of feeling relaxed. I said the following;
'We're getting the flat nice now. You not seen it yet, have you? You should come round some time. When D is out, obviously. I've got a lovely new bed. I'm afraid I've already christened it, but you know, no reason we can't still fuck is there? Friends who fuck once in a while? No one need ever know. If you're ok with that as a deal, I certainly am.'
In retrospect, it really was the wrong thing to say. More than anything else, I think that rather matter of a fact explanation of what the situation now was unleashed the subsequent psychotic behaviour on her part.
Comment: With Besotted bullies, the amicable transition from 'relationship' to friends who can still be reasonable to eachother and even have a covert sex arrangement isn't possible. They will cling onto every hope you give them. But deprive them of hope and then- You are in trouble.
The stalking began after a couple of nights. Well, in fact is was textual harassment. Text after text after text. All angry, bitter and nasty. If you've not been there, you can't know how scary it is. You reply hoping to stop it. But it doesn't stop it.
All my replies were 'Why are you doing this?' 'This is quite unfair. I always treated you well. I don't deserve this' and 'Leave me alone' and finally 'If you text me again, I'll call the police'.
That would stop them. Until the next night.
A week this went on. It really was a horrific ordeal. In the end I persuaded her to stop and meet her for a truce drink.
Probably, I should have at least made a statement to the Police. Because she could well do it to someone else, having got away with it once. Yes, it was a very scary week and having D there helped, certainly.
All in all, I think she sent about thirty to forty texts. it would probably have been enough to get an injunction and maybe enough to have gotten her charged, though whether the courts would have taken it seriously, I don't know.
Anyway, when I met her for the truce drink, she did concede she had been totally out of order. In point of fact, she sat there and stared down on the floor whilst I pretty much lectured her on how disgraceful her behaviour had been. I could feel her shame. She had calmed down, it seemed and finally come to see what she had been doing, what she had done. And had come back from the brink.
I swigged my pint 'You accused me of some terrible things in those texts, Sara. I know you didn't mean them, but that's the point. You know the power of such words to cause hurt. The word Nonce is not a word you should EVER use to anyone. Because it means someone ultimately evil. It means a rapist, or a child molester. It doesn't mean someone sexually promiscuous, Sara. But what you really need to face is that what you did, SENDING those messages, that put you on the road to being what they are. It's no better, Sara. Let me put it this way, men found guilty of sending offensive text messages to an ex girlfriend will be treated as a nonce, if convicted and sent down. So think about that. What you did over the last week actually came into that category of activities known in street jargon as 'noncing'.
To be fair, she was thoroughly ashamed. I pointed out how good to her I'd been. That even now I was paying for the round, as I had paid for meals, bought her trinkets, indeed had never shown unwillingness to stay her friend. Fact was, I'd given her a good time. I had. And no, of course it doesn't last forever. But she should have enjoyed it for what it was while it lasted and not poisoned it.
As I pointed out 'Even when I spoke cross words to you, I never spoke them with raised voice. That's all I ever ask of anyone. That you never raise your voice and when I say a discussion is over, that is what it means; it's over.'
At one point she mumbled 'You hurt me.' I replied 'No. You hurt yourself. And I shouldn't have suffered for that. I gave you a good time. And that's all I wanted, all I ever want. A good time.'
So we parted, finally, on reasonable terms. Though we never spoke again. I still see her at the counter of Wilkinsons sometimes and her eyes face the floor, ashamed, as I run my items through.
Apparently, if anyone mentions the Star and Garter pub she still tells anyone 'Do you know a guy called Joe who drinks in there? I used to go out with him'.
Comment: It's hard to actually explain the horror of such a situation to someone who has never been in it. It Is traumatic, no two ways about it. it is- psychologically- just like any other form of assault. The simple words used in this paragraph do not fully the convey the absolute horror of receiving text after text after text- the content of which is angry, spiteful and threatening- from someone you do not want to hear from.
The thing which I think, people often miss- is the non consensual violation of personal space. The defintion of the most unacceptable crimes. And it is this which makes the stalker one of the nastiest types of criminals. What differentiates it from ordinary assaults, is the cowardice of the victim. They use underhanded methods to cause to distress, to coerce, to threaten.
The point with Sara- and her more serious successor in the world of stalking from my point of view- was their violation of space. When Sara and I were in the same room there would indeed be times when she'd start to get upset and start yelling. And I'd simply respond. 'Don't. Don't raise your voice. Or I'll go' or there would be times when I'd get tired of her topic of conversation and I'd say 'Ok, I'm not discussing this any more. No, I mean it. Not another word. Change the record, or I'll go to the pub instead'.
In other words it's absolutely impossible to argue or get into a shouting or slanging match with me. I'll just get up and walk away. You raise your voice to me and you and I will cease communicating until you come back apologising and promising never again to mention the topic of conversation which caused you to raise your voice.
So what Sara would do- in the context of the 'relationship'- was to pick ways of causing distress. Because one gets angst ridden, angry texts at work, or angst ridden, angry phone calls, one's instinctive reaction is to try minimise their damaging effect. Priority number one is stay calm and focussed; work must come first. It's a catch 22 situation. Answer, the texts won't stop. Don't answer, the texts might not stop either. The temptation is to try to resolve the situation quickly so you can go into the client meeting as non plussed and breezy as you were before.
In other words, they are- or should be- a low priority situation for you, but they believe they SHOULD be a high one. So they'll MAKE themselves one.
And that is while you ARE at some level happy to be a continuing some form of 'relationship' with them. Or at least, you are if they stop being a pain in the arse and accept their relative importance in your life.
But when you have asked them to leave you alone and they STILL bother you...
My father once pointed out something very innocuous and yet sinister about modern methods of communication. It was to do with the fact that he tends not to answer the phone when he's at home- just let it click through to voicemail, a habit I myself have long adopted, for the most part, especially since the advent of Caller ID. When you're in your own home, you are entitled to restrict access to yourself. It's your home. When you're in your own home, people should only be able to converse with you AT YOUR INVITATION.
Sending someone unwanted texts is thus a violation of your individual space. If they threaten, it's the equivalent of breaking into your house and threatening you. The same goes for unsolicited phone calls. But how do you define unsolicited?
Now here is something Jacky the cyberstalker used to do WITHIN what she called the 'relationship'. And failed to realise why EVEN WITHIN A 'RELATIONSHIP' it amounts to abuse and harassment.
It is an established point of principle in law that any forms of telephonic communication need tacit consent. What Jacky would do, would be to ring my number, knowing me to be at home. I'd let it go through to voicemail. She'd ring again straight away. I'd let it run through to voicemail again. Then she'd ring again. sometimes she'd leave messages, (usually involving the word cock sucker), sometimes she wouldn't.
Of course, she's committed a criminal offence here, 'relationship' or not. The whole point of a voicemail service is for you to leave a message. It's up to you to decide whether or not to use that service. If you don't, then clearly you have to wait a good hour or so at least before calling back. If you DO then- you can't call again. You have to wait till the person you have left a message for calls you. IF they call you.
This is the problem with stalkers. They fail to understand that all human relationships are- in civilised society- built on persuasion and consent. I have the right to persuade you get into bed with me, I have the right to not call you afterwards. You have the right not to be persuaded to get into bed with me, but if you WERE persuaded, you don't have the right to over-ride my subsequent decision to cast you off like a used condom, if such is my decision.
The problem with stalkers such as those described in this post is they were persuaded, they consented, they then tried to change the power balance and- lacking the ability to persuade- tried to co-erce. Therefore forcing a non-consensual situation onto the other party.
And the psychological distress that causes can't be overstated. It really is horrific. What it involves is continually feeling someone's presence in your life that YOU DO NOT WANT IN YOUR LIFE. The sense that you will never wake up and them be gone. You will feel unclean, dirty, sullied. Weak. Somehow- polluted.
It involves the weak using a power they have unjustly acquired to gain some kind of vengeance on their victim for the fact that the victim has a power over them that they do not have over the victim. The victim has power over them; they are besotted. But the victim is not besotted back. The stalker attempts to 'right' this by creating a power of his/her own; fear and intimidation.
The true secret of the relationship is always the same. The victim was flattered by the attention of the besotted first. Stalker victims, like Kate, like me, have a fatal weakness. We don't tend to form long lasting relationships, or if we do, they're often quite loose and open, but addicted to love, we are. Or more pertinently- addicted to being adored. And that is our Achilles heel. That is how stalker victims get caught by their abusers.
Because the besotted demands a price, and the price for their adoration is always, always too high. And now they turn. The stalker victim, so used to being the hunter in a fairly benign game of attract as many people of the opposite sex as you can, now becomes the victim in a very sinister game indeed.
Ultimately, all human laws are- or should be- governed by consent and nothing else. We have the right to persuade and no one can condemn anyone for using the powers of persuasion to full ability. But co-ercion we should give zero tolerance to.
If you can persuade a thousand women to go to bed with you using honey tongued voice and promises of the Sun- more power to you. And to any woman who does the same vice versa. You do nothing wrong and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
But if any of those you seduce try to apply co-ercion to you after you've done with them, if any of them threaten you, or attempt to stay in contact after you have indicated a desire to be rid of them, if any of them start behaving in an uncivilised and vindictive manner, don't be fooled into thinking you have done something wrong- you haven't.
Any more than the nineteen year old girl who has slept around, goes out dressed with the deliberate intention of turning men on and is openly looking for sex that night deserves to get raped.
No means no. Leave me alone means leaves me alone. I don't want to talk to you about this means I don't want to talk to you about this. Don't shout at me means don't shout at me. I don't want to take your call means I don't want to take your call.
Being a stalker victim is in the same league as being a rape victim; never forget that. And just like rape victims, you are afraid to come forward. Ashamed in some way. Afraid of all the 'S/he asked for it, leading her/him on like that'. All the whispering 'S/he's a proper dirty little tart though. Had it coming'
And the lack of help from the authorities. You go to them looking for help and all you get, for the most part is 'Are you in immediate physical danger, sir?'
All the insinuation that somehow, you deserved it.
I recently had the honour to speak to a woman who has been as great a victim in some ways, if not greater, of Jacky the Cyber-Ripper and her ring(piece)wraiths.
I'll just give you an idea. Because it's actually even nastier in some ways than what was done to me- because of it's real life effects.
Yes, Ubermouth rang the Child Protection Services in the US state in question and accused Southern Chrys of sexually abusing her own daughter, posting naked pictures of her online, burning her with cigarettes, etcetera. Just another day in Uberland.
And oh no, no word of condemnation from the internet's greatest charlatan, the blogosphere's own Jerry Falwel. There's a shock.
We're not just talking about her campaign of lies against me- now proven to be such. We're not just talking about the fact that just go around the blogosphere and read her comments and you can see what a nasty piece of work she is (Ubermouth, not Southern Chrys). We're not talking about her long record of harassing other bloggers, or the fact she is a proven liar who claims to be a nurse when in fact she is a former prostitute.
What we are talking about now is not only vicious and beyond the pale; it is cowardly.
Because she knew that Southern Chrys was innocent. And she knew that the US authorities would not trouble themselves to extradite the Cyber Ripper for such an offence.
But let's be honest- if Jacky/Carly Swan/Ubermouth lived in a US state, she would even as we speak be wearing an Orange jumpsuit. Because what she did to Southern Chrys is a crime beyond any justification. To falsely accuse a woman you don't know of abusing their own child just because you yourself are a vile person with no conscience, with no concern for the misery you cause to innocent lives...
Had Southern Chrys' daughter ever hurt you, Jacky?
I don't believe in the death penalty, but people like you should be put down. Period. You're scum. End of.
And yet...
One still sees women defending her.
And certain men making tits of themselves acting as knight in shining armour to a woman needing a knight in shining armour about as much as a Gorgon does.
So why, I ask myself?
And then we have Chrys. Now I didn't know Chrys at all until recently. I'd seen her around for a while. It was clear she'd had some online problems- harassment, bullying, people going round victimising her. I didn't take too much notice, I'll be honest. Too often it is too easy to walk on by on the other side. A part of us thinks 'No smoke without fire'.
In other words, with so many people ganging up on her- was there a reason, the old grey cells say?
And now I've come to know Chrys I know the answer. And it's more to do with squalid human nature.
You put Chrys in a room, a REAL room, a real life public room and all the women will secretly envy her and most of the men will fear her because they know they couldn't handle a woman like her.
So the first. Chrystal is still stunning at forty. I mean, physically stunning. Most young women will look at her and hope they still look like she does at forty. And be so self assured. She's not had an easy life, but she's a fighter. And a good mother to her daughter. She works two jobs.
Chrystal is a role model for 21st century women.
And some women closer to her in age envy her for being what she is. In a low, spiteful, malicious way. She has femme fatale qualities, always has I'd guess and always will. She'll never be an old crone. Even at seventy people will say of her' 'She must have been very beautiful once'.
And men?
Where are the men who should be defending her against the outrages that have been done to her online?
What a sorry crop of excuses for men we have in the blogosphere! You'll stand up and defend nasty harpies who will stick you in a pinney if you let them because deep down for all your cant and your protests against feminism, you admire women who henpeck you or are doormats to you, either or, but you can't handle real women.
Chrystal is a real women.
She knows what she wants, but she's hard to get. Full of sexual allure, YOU'LL be the prey. And some men don't like that. Because they don't know how to relate to women like that. Women with a healthy, 21st century attitude to female sexuality and confident in their own sexual powers.
And she's clever. I mean, very well educated. I'm telling you, this women is a real challenge in intelligent conversation. You can chat philosophy to her for hours and she not only knows her stuff, she actually has her own mind. A mind capable of taking things in and remoulding them with her own thoughts before spitting out opinions learned by rote like so many others do.
Not only that, she has a special kind of love and compassion. Pure. In spite of a long hard life, she's not lost faith in goodness. She has a sweet, excited, excitable HAPPY voice. She sounds like Sarah Michelle Gellar on the phone.
If she has a fault, it is the strengths of her passions. She has a certain tendency to doubt, to fear. But I can relate to that. And anyway, how can this be faulted when never, ever does she turn vindictive, even against those who have wronged her and in spite of overwhelming provocation? If ever woman turned the other cheek, it has been Chrystal.
She is a breath of fresh air in the lives of anyone she touches and if you've got anything bad to say about her, it must just mean you like your life smelling like a compost heap.
Over the last couple of weeks I have started to feel very protective about Chrystal. She is a woman worthy of protection- not because she NEEDS it, but because she DESERVES it.
THAT is a real woman. A woman worthy of honouring.
So to those who criticise her, those who lie about her, those who persecute her, I say this.
You are not fit to kiss the toes of her shoes.
And if you want to read into this post some crazy arsed psycho nonsense such as we're engaging in phone sex orgies or otherwise degrade the sentiment of this post down to YOUR level- holding a phone in one hand and masturbating with the other- feel free.
If one day, myself and Chrystal should ever happen to be in the same hemisphere, trust me, we'll make love all week long. On a personal level, I'm very, very attracted to her. But she DOES kind of live oh, a small matter of 7,000 miles west of me. So we're not planning to be skipping round planning a future together or any crap like that. One day we may meet and enjoy a great time together, but then again, we may never.
+copy.jpg){kind=small}