The purpose of this blog, when I set it up, was twofold.
The first aim was to convert people to Marxism and Free Love. I have to admit, that one didn't succeed. Still, Rome wasn't built in a day.
I wanted to provide an avowedly Marxist/Libertarian perspective on world affairs. There isn't any such perspective offered by the mainstream. Most political blogs are fairly tame, conservative with a small c trite offering you nothing you can't find in the Daily Mail.
There is nothing pushing the envelope in a good way. Nothing challenging the actual system itself. And this is what people really need. Not an endless cacophony of conservative static. Because really, that's all the blogosphere is.
A voice needed to be heard that was firmly AGAINST Capitalism, AGAINST Marriage and the family. A voice FOR a United Earth. A voice FOR the abolition of private control of the infrastructure.
A voice FOR sexual freedom. A voice that woke people up to the reality of the world we live in.
'People of the world, unite you have nothing to lose but your chains'. Yes, that was pretty much it.
I hoped to build the blog up to the point where it had a mass readership and hopefully form alliances and even meet with like minded individuals all over the world who felt strongly that this current order needs to go.
The intellectual argument for what is often seen as 'Far Left'.
I have always baulked at calling my views Far Left because I don't like the whole concept of a political spectrum. It's a simplistic concept and not overly helpful. Besides, there are areas where I hold opinions not usually seen as Leftist. My position on abortion, for example, is very Pro-Life. I'm not a big supporter of the Green lobby, either. I accept climate change is real, but I think the Green lobby often takes a Luddite approach to solving the problems. And I don't much care for the word 'Socialism' either. I'm a Marxist and I'm a Democrat. It would be technically correct to call me a Communist. Even the term Anarchist, if used in it's Proudhonian sense of 'Property is theft' and looking forward to the withering away of the state. But the term Socialism is not one I care for.
The person within living memory I most revere as a hero, is John Lennon. And I think his 'Imagine' is such a beautiful vision of how the world could be.
If we get rid of all these silly nation states, religious hatreds, grasping corporations.
Oh, and grow up about sex and love. You'd think we only discovered it a generation ago. We need to stop with the stupid marriage and chastity crap, this idea that sex can be dirty, that sex 'corrupts'.
Which kind of brings me to a crucial point;
Thinking as I do and knowing damn well that sex sells, it occurred to me a few years ago that the best way to attack this system is to attack the central pillar on which it is built.
Quite naturally, the defenders of Capitalism want to defend traditional sexual mores. If the nuclear family model collapses, so does Capitalism.
So a key weapon in the arsenal of the left is- sex.
Truth? My own sexual orientation is quite well described in this Wikipedia article. I am what is described as a 'Cuckold Fetishist'. From my own personal point of view, yes, sexual liberation matters because I want to be able to not have to live in the closet and hide my sexual orientations. I actually want to be able to take pride in it and be open about it, the same way gay people can now stand up and say 'I'm gay and I'm proud'. Well, I'm a cuckold fetishist and I''m proud. I prefer making love to women I've just watched make love to other men first. (In point of fact, as the article states, I really DON'T get that sexually aroused by NON Cuckold sex. Not by comparison).
But more importantly, as a tool for fighting Fascism, it's a weapon I LOVE to wield.
I've often said in private that the most powerful symbol of Revolution is Inter-racial 'pornography'. The political symbolism of the image of one white woman making love with two or more black men at once is powerful. It is still taboo in many ways. And to me, it symbolises EVERYTHING the Revolution should be all about.
Yep, it should appear on the flag of post-revolution United States of Earth.
If you want me to explain the power of the image, I am happy to do so. But on the other hand, you could wait a while to have it explained far better...
I suppose the short answer is, it's a far worthier aim to fuck Capitalism than fight it. It has to be a 'Make Love not War' Revolution. But you've got to make Love in ways that piss the bastards off.
The Revolution has to be a sexual revolution and a feminist revolution as well. The Revolution is going to be.....pornographic.
Anyway. Back to my epiphany.
The other point of this blog, the REAL point was to act as a trailer for the book I want to write.
The Rise of the Fourth Tier. Well, it's either that or 'Human Society'. I like the Rise of the Fourth Tier, except it makes you think of the Rise of the Third Reich or some such and it's about no such thing.
It's about us. The human species.
It's about the fact the human species represents a new departure in the history of life. It looks at the human species within the contexts of time and space, it will analyse our basis of knowledge, the meaning of life, etc.
It will adopt a very Darwinist approach to history; indeed it's author will contend that really, Marxism and Darwinism are essentially two halves of the same basic truth; what Marx describes is evolutionary forces on a localised scale.
And of course- it will aim to put Nietzsche where he belongs. As the founding father of the science of Moral Relativism.
The book will argue that humanity owes a debt to these three men- and a fourth, Jesus Christ. But the Jesus Christ this author admires, is no divine being. He was a mortal man and a great philosopher. The first real revolutionary.
The book will also put forward a number of theories, several of which have been discussed on this blog. The central one is that human evolution is heading in a collective direction- towards becoming what I call a Fourth Tier lifeform. In other words, there is a level- now- in which human society does indeed have a collective consciousness and is a single entity.
Another crucial theory relates to the purpose of sex in the human species. I will be putting forward the view that sex in the human species isn't just for procreation, indeed our evolution has been driven by its use as a bonding mechanism. It is surely no coincidence that human beings are randy as hell compared to other species and are the ONLY species to experience an orgasm. And curiously, homosexual sex does seem to be a NATURAL part of human sexuality. Human life is pretty much driven by sex, which is why repression of it is used as a control mechanism. Yet there is a huge untapped power in it and once we can free it from these idiotic religious taboos, it can- I believe become a huge force for good.
I will indeed be doing what so many moralists do not- glorify rather than decry mankind's NATURALLY promiscuous desires.
But this is only a part of what the book is to be about.
The central message relates to moving beyond the Capitalist way of life and becoming a truly enlightened species. One that doesn't point nukes at eachother, cheerfully blame mass starvation and decimation of a continent on 'They need to get off their arses and work', see city traders and hedge fund brokers as a just way to earn a living, ban images of people making love, but glorifies war.
A species that isn't going to blow itself, but one that is going to colonise this galaxy.
And that's really what Crushed by Ingsoc was all about. To build up enough of a blog readership for me to be able to convince a publisher that people would read it, in spite of the fact that the author was- a nobody with a rather colourful past.
And instead, the last two years of my life have been wasted due to a persistent onslaught by a psychotic female stalker and a sanctimonious twat.
What has bothered me, really, was what COULD I have done differently? My own conscience was clear, I was the victim.
Thing is, I do believe in Karma. And I do believe that in the end, good wins over evil.
So- where was Karma? Why weren't these two evil people getting their comeuppances? And why had I encountered their evil ways at all?
I mean, Ubergob has to be the single most horrific thing I have ever lived through. Why? What purpose did it serve?
I have always had faith that ultimately the Revolution WILL triumph. And because I KNOW I'm a good person, I believe Karma will reward me and let me be part of that. And that also means, since 2007, I have believed that whatever evil acts were perpetuated on me by this pair, it would only end up serving the cause of good. That whatever short term victories they achieved, they'd lose in the end.
The fact it went on so long made me think that maybe they had a bigger role to play. I had encountered such evil for a reason.
I realise now, that there was a good reason. Hence my epiphany on Friday night.
Firstly, there are two things I have conquered on a personal level.
I have known for years that I am what is called a Cuckold Fetishist. I can love many women short term, but a crucial part of what I am looking for long term in a woman is- a woman who always at all times has other lovers aside from me.
I actually WANT to come home and find the woman I love in bed with other men. If I had a woman who I made love to every day but ONLY after another man- or men- had made love to her first, I'd be happy. And yes, a woman who will cuckold me with literally hundreds of men in our life together and give birth to children the whole world can see CAN'T be mine- yeah, I'll be sexually faithful to her, because why would I want another woman? When I get to make love to a woman like that? I'd even consider marrying her- in a public cuckolding ceremony, obviously.
And the thing is- I don't think this feeling is abnormal or wrong. I think many more men feel like this than admit it. And yes, I do like proselytising it. It's a BEAUTIFUL way to feel when you come to terms with it. It makes you a REAL man who can love a REAL woman properly.
Wikipedia says;
Biological origin of the fetish
The excitement and stimulation of the cuckolding fetish emerges from the biology of sexuality and the effects of sexual arousal on the brain. When a male believes that his female mate may have been sexual with another male, the male mate is prompted by biological urges to copulate with the female, in an effort to "compete" with the other males' sperm. The effects of sperm competition are well documented.[4] Further, when initiating sex, the male mate thrusts harder, deeper and longer, in efforts to remove the sperm of the other male, and is biologically driven to have sex multiple times. While he may be unable to have sex more than once under usual circumstances, the cuckolded male is prone to repeated sexual efforts. Meanwhile, the wife enjoys greater sexual stimulation, first by her other male lover and second by her cuckolded husband. In addition, the wife enjoys the neurochemical "highs" triggered by entering into a romantic or physical relationship with another lover. These highs include the effects of oxytocin and other neurochemicals which trigger excitement, euphoria and other feelings common to the beginnings of romantic relationships. These neurochemicals change over time, and as a relationship persists, with neurochemicals changing to ones that promote bonding, planning and nurturing. When a wife takes a new lover, she triggers the neurochemicals of a new relationship, bringing home excitement to her husband.[
Up until two years ago only two close friends and any woman I'd had anything more than a one night stand with knew how strongly I felt about this. Because I knew even then that that was what at heart meant I never stayed in love with a woman for long. I always tired of them because they couldn't give me what I NEEDED sexually. Which was- them having other lovers. Yes, any woman I've been with in the last few years, I have suggested that the addition of a few well hung black guys would spice up the love life and it has generally met a stony reception. But one day it won't. I have faith in that.
That doesn't mean I can't love other women, on a short term basis. Just long term, unless they're up for the cuckolding, it isn't going to work. Same as it wouldn't work if they didn't want children.
Now my stalker claims she was rejected simply because she refused to indulge in this particular subculture. Well, yes, tis true it was one reason I'd never really consider a long term relationship with her. But more importantly, she wasn't someone I could even love. And there are two very good reasons for that. For me to love someone they need to be- intelligent (and ideally well read and having similar opinions) and NICE. A NICE person. I pride myself in being a NICE person. I like NICE people.
And no, I don't apologise for encouraging her to fall in love with me knowing she was someone I couldn't REALLY ever love myself.
And that brings us to the second point I have learned. As my Dad sometimes says 'Foolish pity spoils the city'. He can be a hard man sometimes, my Dad, and I think that's one of his harder sayings. In many ways my own liberal humanist approach to life is perhaps partly a reaction against my Dad's rather harsh and bleak attitudes. My Dad couldn't give a damn WHAT happens to the planet as long as he can sail his boat up and down the Avon.
It's here. This is where the problem started. And the facts are simple. A FORTY TWO year old woman making a scene because a TWENTY THREE year old woman has stood up to her bullying. And the FORTY TWO year old woman expecting ME to support her.
No. It's very simple; the reason I gave then for NOT supporting Carly was this; 'Phish is a nice person, Carly. And you're not'.
And no, it mattered not whether or not I had encouraged the stalking Ubergob to fall in love with me. Fact is, the piece of crap is totally unworthy of my time. And yes, I thought that as a result of her bullying of Phish. And no, I didn't have the guts to stand up to Carly because she was blackmailing me. That and- pity.
But I shouldn't have shown pity. No, I never actually DID anything to hurt her, aside from reject her. But I damn well should have done. I should have publicly crucified the nasty creature and stated in no uncertain terms that if she contacted me again in any way shape or form, I'd report that fact to the Police.
I made the mistake of believing I was partly to blame for Carly being so evil. I wasn't. She just IS that way. I made the mistake of thinking she could be made a better person. She can't. I'd never in my life REALLY come into such close contact with someone that- morally imbecile.
And yes, pity, compassion, the milk of human kindness, etc, are wasted on people like that. They are true psychopaths in the sense they are aware of no one else, not really, the only emotions that are real are their own. They truly believe that the rest of us just exist in a state of suspended animation when they're not around.
My problem? Actually, I'm too nice to people. Always have been. Especially to women. Had she been a bloke, I wouldn't have been so patient. But Carly doesn't deserve to be treated like a woman. Because she doesn't act like one. Yes, I treat women with respect a lot of the time, because I believe they deserve it. I see them often as the BETTER sex. I think it's right and proper that we as men SERVE women. And the reason I believe they deserve our respect, is they tend to behave better. They set an example to men how men SHOULD behave. No, we'll never live up to it, but we can try.
Men's strengths? Men have different strengths. But men are pumped full of adrenalin and testosterone and I'm a prime example. It affects the way men think and it makes us better strategic thinkers and pattern spotters. It also makes us total knobheads when we lose our rag.
So- when you see men having public rows, it's not excusable, but it's understandable. Men can be twats. Men are pig headed and incapable of backing down and shutting the fuck up to keep the peace. And no, it's not an admirable quality. It's one of the negative sides of masculinity. It is to manhood what bitchiness, clinginess and whinging are to the female sex.
But women rowing in public? Women who are incapable of backing down and shutting the fuck up to keep the peace? Why should we treat women like that with any respect whatsoever? When they exhibit a vice that is just about tolerable in men, but certainly not tolerable in women.
If Carly was a bloke, eventually someone would say 'Shut your gob before I shut it for you'.
And lest anyone say this is sexist; er, no it isn't. You don't get what you don't deserve. Men don't hit women. There's a reason for that. It doesn't give women the right to behave in a manner that would be worthy of having your teeth knocked out if you were a man.
And no, I don't believe in violence. But if any man PRESUMED to speak to ANYONE the way Carly Swan thinks it's ok to speak to people, they'd deserve a damn good thrashing.
So no, I DID wrong. I did wrong by NOT hitting her so hard (metaphorically) that she never got up again. I was weak. You have to treat dirt like her as you would treat a rapist, or a dangerous dog. They're not domesticated, they're not housetrained, they don't know how to behave.
And I've learned that. That trying to ALWAYS be nice to everybody doesn't always work. There WAS no way to get rid of Carly nicely. And trying to get rid of her nicely only made it worse.
I didn't do anything to hurt her. I should have done.
Not doing so was weakness. At the time I thought it was turning the other cheek, but no, it was weakness.
And for that, I apologise. Because I let everybody down.
Still, water under the bridge now.
What all this led to, is something truly amazing.
All this, all along was about the struggle between Good and Evil. And strangely, these two nasty pieces of work have given me something very powerful.
You WILL read 'The Rise of the Fourth Tier' by Joe Dollin.
And you will read it because of the book I will write that will proceed it. And it has been crystallising in my head since Friday. And I know in my heart of hearts it will be one of the GREAT fictional works of our time.
I have a title, I have a setting, I have a heroine, a hero of the anarchic anti hero variety, a plot of sorts and- a villain. And a DEFINITE idea of how it ends.
Think lots of politics and gratuitous sex.
And yes, this was the penultimate post for the foreseeable.
Joe Dollin has a real life political party he needs to give the better part of his energy to and he has this novel to write.
But before I go, I DO want to leave you with a teeny weeny taster of what this novel that is begging to be written, is going to be about.
Just so you get to know exactly what the fruits of this blogging experience was.
The first Darwinists- including Darwin himself- were wrong in so many ways. Just because Darwin was right didn't mean many of his inferences were.
Darwinism was used quite often to imply that certain races were less less evolved than others. No prizes for guessing which.
It was also used to justify many not particularly creditable scientific experiments. And many bastard creeds came from it; amongst them National Socialism.
But Darwin was STILL right.
The first Marxists weren't in much better a position. And that included Marx. He couldn't understand the implications of his own theories- the urge to hurry progress along was too strong; the urge to raise consciousness amongst the socially alienated, to prepare for the end of Capitalism.
Which even Marx himself said probably lay in the twenty first century. Capitalism was still booming, it's support mechamisms still secure. And the ethos of post-Capitalist Earth not yet evolved.
In fact- it didn't emerge until the nineteen sixties. Whilst people instinctively still believed in colonialism, in white superiorty, in male superiority, in marriage, Capitalism was still secure.
Whilst the French were still 'foreigners', nothing like the English, whilst Nationalism reigned rampant, the system was bolstered by emotional sentiment.
Paradoxically, whilst the working classes were still BEING a working class, Capitalism still worked. They trusted- and connected to- their own ruling classes, not 'foreign' working classes. The rot had to set in and- that was a very long way away.
The first Marxists had no concept of what the revolution would mean. Not REALLY. They themselves were quite often sexist, racist, homophobes who would have looked in horror at the inhabitants of a sixties hippy commune. A modern rave would shock them. And yet those very social phenomena are ones which herald the revolution.
The instincts of the first Marxists- to grab hold of the vague term 'Socialism' and aim to build mass movements amongst the working classes to win power by democratic means and attempt to dismantle the Capitalist system peacefully were good ones, but logically flawed. The masses were not sold on such a dismantling and with Capitalism still booming, unlikely to be. Yes, they wanted a better life. Wanted their paymasters to be more accountable to them. But True Communism- no. They still dreamed their own children could one day be rich Capitalists.
Marxism of the Second International
The Second International was formed in 1889 as an international federation of Social Democratic (Marxist) parties. The problem with the idea was, what really was the use of winning power in ONE country at a time? The revolution needed to be global. And the masses weren't interested in revolution, just better working conditions. The Second International movements faced the problem that winning 'power' would change nothing. They coldn't alter the structure of global capitalist society, any attempts to move too far would result in the REAL powers removing them.
So Social Democratic parties gradually moved to compromise positions. The revolution was clearly a long way off, but until then maybe they could make Capitalism better. Alleviate the burdens of the working man. Fight inequality. Get women votes. Stand up for the colonised peoples.
Already by the First World War, Social Democracy was moving that way, or at least most of its leaders in 'democratic' countries were. Even parties like the British Labour Party, which was emphatically NOT a Marxist party, merely a Trade Union movement after some kind of Compassionate Capitalism, joined the International.
The Russian revolution forced the real split. The minority across the world became the Third International (what the world and itself passed off as True Communism) whilst the Second International majority distanced themselves further from Marx and gained power 'democratically' in Germany, Sweden and other countries over time.
The results of government by these collaborators have been mixed. In many ways one could say they proved more harm than good. The reasons are these; their hearts were in the right place. So they tried to alleviate injustices, redistribute wealth, raise the status of women, stamp out racism, improve life by introducing laws that showed people more respect.
Problem is; Capitalism works best when people are exploited, women are treated as no more than baby makers, everywhere outside your own borders is just territory to exploit and their people no better than animals to you. Capitalism works best when the government are wankers, basically. The bigger wankers they are, the better the economy does. For Capitalism to work- those who run it need to care ONLY about their OWN families. Or the families of those like them.
And thus progress has moved forward in most countries in a see saw motion. Ten years of centre right government leads to more material wealth, technological advance, improved infrastructures at the sharp end (though other areas suffer), but a total freeze on social advance. In fact social attitudes tend to reverse and society gets more divided and hardened. We become richer, but nastier people.
Ten years of centre left government ruins our economy, but a wealth of social legislation makes life NICER. Social attitudes markedly improve. We become poorer, but nicer people.
It has meant the electorate got used to being only able to have one or the other. Material advance, or societal advance.
For example, ten years of New Labour have RUINED the British economy, but we've still moved forward a LONG way socially since 1997. The Tories will get in in May and probably run the country better. But they'll push some pretty nasty social policies whilst they're at it. They always do. They already are.
So in reality, Second International type Socialism- it no longer has even a tinge of Marxism to it- is a failed attempt to make Capitalist society into something it can never be; fair. And it's failures in a way make the problem worse. They act as a release valve for the dissatisfaction of the many and all they really do- is perpetuate Capitalism.
Marxism of the Third International
Lenin was one of history's good guys. The poor guy's reputation has suffered by what his revolution led to. But it wasn't what was supposed to happen and though he started it, the results would have made him turn in his formaldehyde tank.
In 1917, Lenin and his followers thought that Russia was just the first of the Dominos. The war would never end and the troops in the trenches everywhere were poised to do what the Russian soldiers had done; turn on their masters and say 'We're NOT dieing for you lot any more'.
By 1920, so Lenin believed, Capitalism would have gone. Globally. And the new Communist dawn would come.
It never did.
The dictatorship of the proleteriat that was meant to be a temporary measure, almost like a 'war cabinet' until the revolution was completed, ended up becoming permanent. the robbing from the rich had been done- in Russia- but until the rich had been robbed everywhere, there could be no giving to the poor.
It was a bit like the FE college who demolished their old buildings having been promised EU funding to build a new campus, only to find the funding was pulled.
At Lenin's death, opinion was still divided over what to do. Trotsky said 'Do or Die'. Yeah, it looked like the revolution was well and truly fucked, but they had to push on, at least TRY and overthrow the seemingly stabilising Capitalist regimes. Stalin said no. Let's just consolidate what we have here.
Stalin won, of course. He won the brand name, along with Russia itself. The Third international became- a Stalinist Organ.
But was this Communism? Were the 'Communist' parties of the Third International Communist? Or even MARXIST?
No. By 1936, Russia was a Fascist state in disguise. THE USSR was an imperialist power. All 'Third International' parties REALLY aimed at- though many in them didn't see it- was making their own countries into dependent vassal states of the new Red Russian Empire under its new Tsar.
And this retarded the revolution. Of course it did. During the latter part of the twentieth century no sane person in the west WANTED their country to be like Soviet Russia. But it was the only 'Communism'- the only Marxism- they could see.
Yes, anti-colonial movements actually read Marx properly. And having nothing to lose, accepted Russian aid as better than none.
But the perversion of Marx's name by the Red Empire, meant that the very people in the west who Marx was speaking to, refused to hear his call. The new progressive movements of the nineteen sixties had the spirit in them that would have made Marx proud. But they were not predisposed to study him and learn that he spoke to them.
Marxism of the Third International variety is a dead letter. But the evil it has done lives on. It has made it so that the forces of progress associate Marx with the forces of evil.
And what could be more evil than that?
Marxism of the Fourth International
The record of the movements of the Fourth International is better, because they have no blood on their hands. The Fourth International consists of those groupings which stayed loyal to Trotsky. Who stayed true to the message and did not get lured in by the Ring of Power. Knowing that their task was hopeless in the short term, most of these groups adopted a tactic of 'entryism'. Use existing Second International parties and try to use them as a kind of Trojan Horse. Infiltrate them and use them as a recruiting ground. So that when the moment came, when the time for a TRUE global revolution was ripe- people who knew what needed to be done would be in place.
Up till then, true progressives should simply attempt to sabotage as far as possible the normal flow of Capitalist life. Rather than aim to overthrow a system in one go, just work away at it, each person on their own level. Like social guerillas, slowly picking at the fabric of Capitalist society.
The only triumph this achieved was taking over Liverpool City Council in 1981. Something could have been made of this, perhaps. IF THEY'D REFUSED to govern. Refused to govern, abstained, gone home. Forced the Thatcher government to impose martial law. Whatever. But no. They decided to govern. Waste. Of. Time. They lost the propaganda victory because they couldn't resist the sniff of power. But no, power has to be refused by True Marxists. Until we get a true global communist democracy, nobody has a true mandate to make decisions.
That has to be the position.
Well- because by this time, certain concepts had become ingrained. Sacred, almost. The idea of the class struggle, the almost violent language of the literature, the focusing on recruitment amongst radicalised members of a predominantly white, male working class meant that by the time Fourth International movements cottoned on to the most serious change in attitudes in western society since the French Revolution, they had missed the boat.
An assumption that Marx himself had made had been wrong.
Many Marxists in all the strands described have been public and private supporters of marriage and the family. Marx himself was not. Marx firmly believed in Free Love and the whithering away of the nuclear family. Thing is- he didn't push it. He knew damn well that Monogamy and the family are pillars of Capitalism, that Communism would need to be a Free Love society to work. But he assumed that Marriage and Monogamy would whither away AFTER the revolution. (One might note of course, that the continued existence of marriage and the nuclear family in Soviet Russia proves how much a NOT REMOTELY Communist society the Red Empire was.)
For that reason, Marx never pushed Free Love. He probably thought it would put off possible converts. To criticise Marriage and Monogamy in his day was a bit like pushing legalisation of Cocaine is seen today. He knew the masses wanted to hear about a better more just society. No need to scare them by telling them that the revolution they strove for would mean the end of family life as they knew it.
He could not have foreseen that paradoxically, the day would come when the pillar that was Capitalism's main strength would be the one that began to shake before all the others. That by the nineteen sixties, social opinion would have moved and many young people would be questioning the sexual ethics of the past.
Marx could not have known just how the contraceptive pill would change the world. Or known of the gay rights movement.
Marx could not have foreseen that the day would come when it was SEX that proved the biggest threat to the Capitalist order. And it really took a long time for his TRUE followers to get the point.
Overthrow Monogamy, you've fucked Capitalism up the arse so hard, it'll never get up again and Communism becomes INEVITABLE.
The Fourth International FAILED to harnass the hippie movement. It's leaders looked on and shook their heads in disgust, exactly as the right wing parties did. It didn't get them. Didn't get their strange clothes and their pot smoking and their 'loose morals'. And for the most part- too 'middle class'. It missed the point that the world these people talked of, was a world only the revolution could give.
The hippies were TRYING to live the way ALL people would be able to- if the revolution happened.
Most of the movements of the nineteen sixties were movements firmly inspired by good. And yet- the Fourth International failed miserably to seize on to this. It carried on banging on about class struggles and proletarian consciousness, all of which was- and IS- out of date, off message and no one cares. Especially if presented in a manner which suggests violence.
Make Love not War. God, what a message!
Here was a whole generation RIPE. All that needed to be done was show them what they felt wasn't just misguided idealism; that there was a creed that EXPLAINED their rebellion. All they had to do was NOT capitulate, NOT surrender to Capitalism. Mass refusal.
Literally, MAKE LOVE NOT WAR. Make it a way of life.
The collapse of Marriage, the significant rise in one parent families creates problems Capitalism cannot resolve. Capitalism NEEDS Marriage and Monogamy to work. Communism does not. In fact- it hampers the development of a sense of Community loyalty needed to make Communism work. In other words, the collapse of Capitalism in the west- and it HAS to fall in the west- can be achieved quite simply by smashing Marriage and the nuclear family. It is the basic building block of Capitalist society.
And so here we are today. Once again, the Fourth International failed to grab a youth movement ripe for Marx. The Rave movement. No, they didn't want to hear about class struggles. But they DID know they hated Capitalism in their bones. And wanted to dance and drink and screw, because the rest of life is bleak, cold and nasty.
Marxism generally has failed to change its order of priorities; we have a chance to do something amazing. A revolution, not caused by guns and violence, but by people rebelling against the ETHOS of Capitalism. Make Love not War.
Modern Marxism needs to come out and tell the truth; Hippies were good guys, everything they fought for was right and the world can be they way they wanted to be. The Rave scene was just as right; it knew what GOOD was. And it's rampant desire to find joy was born out of a reaction to the EVIL of the Capitalist world.
Can the Fourth International rise to the challenge?
Can a global mass movement be built to change the world for the better?
Can we overthrow Capitalism through a peaceful, bloodless revolution?
I think the answer to all these questions is; yes.
But it means waking the people up. Making them realise they really do have nothing to lose but their chains. And it is here in the west that the revolution must happen.
And it can be done by each single person adopting a twofold strategy. The first part involves simple non co-operation. It involves rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but living the rest of your life with one avowed aim; causing the system to collapse by the life you lead.
By making Love, not War.
The second part involves spreading the word. Uniting the people and preparing for the day when enough of us say 'No' for them to have to listen. The day we take back our planet.
The last two posts on this blog deal with how we as Citizens of Earth must do that.
I attended a meeting last week at which the guest speaker was a distinguished American psycho-analyst and author. The man was a highly intelligent man, Jewish but strongly anti-zionist. In fact, that was the point of his lecture; disbanding the zionist state.
I couldn't fault a word he had said. Of course, being Jewish himself he could say what I baulk at saying; that Israel is a disgrace of a state; an Apartheid state; a settler colonialist monstrosity. His words. He advocated a one state solution- a secular Palestine.
The same position I take.
After his talk, an audience member asked him about his first book, on the subject of White Racism. The speaker admitted to being a little embarrassed by it, his first book, for the simple reason that it was faulty. It lacked depth. It was flawed. Flawed, because at that point, he hadn't read any Marx.
I, like most of the audience nodded. But it is likely less than a quarter nodded for the same reasons as me. Over three quarters would describe themselves as Socialists, no doubt, and baulk at openly calling themselves Marxists. They know OF Marx, know he is the prophet of revolution and for some of them, membership of some of society's most socially alienated groups means that they WANT Marxism to be true, from what they know of it. They HOPE Marx is right, because otherwise, they have none. For others, Marx is a banner of rebellion, part of the student phase which will be dumped, like pot smoking, once they end up on the payroll.
But for some of the room- like the speaker- Marx isn't about 'right' or 'left'. He is true, or he is false. And we know he is true. We know Marxism isn't a political creed; it is a scientific theory of economics, history and politics. And it happens to be the correct one. It stands to all other theories as Darwin does to Creationism in biology, as the Heliocentric system does to the Geocentric system in astronomy.
For us, the battle isn't just a battle against injustice or tyranny; it is a battle against IGNORANCE.
Converting to Marxism isn't a Damascene conversion, it doesn't work like that. Marxism and allegiance to the Soviet system are not, nor ever were, the same thing.
People often criticise Richard Dawkins for his zealous Darwinism- especially his fanatical atheism. Personally, I don't agree with his atheism, but I can understand his point. The real target of his loathing is the Creationists and Intelligent Designers he encounters and they irritate him. Worse, he know what they are doing is a danger to the species and he knows they must be opposed. His misguided (in my view) atheism, is a product of his continually encountering the idiocy of Creationism.
It can be forgiven, I guess to support Creationism if you haven't really studied evolution theory in any depth. But when you get people with scientific qualifications like Dr Kent Hovind seriously arguing for Creationism; that's actually dishonest and worse; it's evil. It involves deliberate manipulation of science to support a faith position; the WISH that Darwin was wrong.
It is evil, because it causes people to form false conclusions. And this means that people are given a false understanding of the world and will live life on the basis of lies. So yes, any educated person who has studied any science at all and refuses to accept Darwin just because they PERSONALLY have an emotional investment in believing in a seven day creation is a moral and intellectual coward and what they do is deliberate sabotage of human progress.
Dawkins is damn right to feel strongly about that. I feel just as strongly as he does on that one.
The thing is- we don't really need to worry about this one. The powers that be have no reason to try and disprove Darwin. Darwin's deniers are a minority of nutters. They pose no threat to scientific progress. We can just laugh at them.
Marx- Marx is another story. He is AS important as Darwin, his theories just as correct, just as essential to human progress. And yet- the world at large believes them false. And that really is a worry. Because we are cruising blindly to our doom. It is very, very worrying. Marx hadn't predicted we'd have nukes in our hands before Capitalism collapsed. And a species so primitive it still has private control of the means of production and distribution isn't enlightened enough to hold in its hands the means to destroy itself.
So yes- it's important.
Because there IS an alternative to the revolution- but only one. Our extinction.
I first read Marx really to get to grips with the theory and work out why he was wrong. And yet- Communist Manifesto left me pondering. Incidentally, up till that point I was a practical opponent of marriage, though not as yet a theoretical proponent of Free Love. Communist Manifesto I found hard hitting and found it hard to seriously argue with the points made. Still, Communist Manifesto is overtly political. Yes, everything written in there does indeed sound good. What I wanted to know was why it was WRONG. And for that I needed to tackle Das Kapital.
Das Kapital is, to be fair, a bastard of a book to read. Each sentence is a paragraph long. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is the only thing I found more mentally demanding. But bear with it, get half way through the first volume and the light starts to dawn. And by volume two- you now see history, humanity, economics, politics- in a new way. There is no turning back.
It's a pity in a way that it's written in such in an inaccessible arcane form. Much of the basic theory can be explained over a pint to almost anybody in such a way that you really can convert ANYONE with an open mind to Marxism in an hour.
It's a bit like proving the big bang theory. It can be done in ten minute presentation where you explain red shift and cosmic background radiation.
The proof for me that Marx was correct was to apply the Occam's razor test. As with Darwin, what makes him correct- for me- is that one should be able to make definite predictions regarding human society and INDIVIDUAL behaviour, if it is true.
Incidentally, I had actually embraced Nietzsche BEFORE I embraced Marx. Very different process that, and pertinent in a sense, because Nietzsche is the philosopher of Moral Relativism.
In a nutshell, Marx describes history as a process of social evolution; a set of phases. History recognises the ages of Stone, Bronze and Iron. But then we have more; ones history as currently taught does NOT see as inevitable. But they are. And every aspect of them is interlinked. The age of Plunder states, culminating in Rome. Then the age of Feudalism, presided over by a system of knowledge preservation. Then the Absolutist Monarchy/Mercantilist phase. Then the era of Capitalism, sometimes euphemistically called the liberal democratic era. Each of these leads inexorably to the next and Marx explains the dynamics behind all this in terms of a struggle over materials, a battle between social groups, systems controlled by religious/ethnic paradigms as a method of creating battle lines.
He explains why Capitalism MUST one day collapse as human technology actually makes it possible for a true Communistic Democracy to exist. This day will come when Capitalism can no longer deliver to the majority of people on Earth and can no longer drive the expansion of the species.
The proof for me was that it answered my prime question.
Rome collapsed when a plunder system no longer sustained expansion; only Christianity could- in darwinian terms- expand the economy and make lives better. But then we bred too fast. We needed to expand, cross oceans. Mercantilism, and then Capitalism fuelled all that.
But now Capitalism fails to deliver. Progress has- stopped. The proof that all is not well is abundently clear.
2001 didn't happen. Space 1999 didn't happen. Capitalism has failed to fuel space coloinisation; our future. We haven't been back to the Moon since the seventies and we aren't on Mars yet.
And THAT is what converted me to Marx, PROVED he was right. We won't progress as a species until the next phase.
But was he right about the next phase? Is what he recommended better?
The objections to Communism are based on the failed experiment in Russia, but also a sense that OUR OWN lives won't be as well served. We won't be as rich, we think.
But without money, without private property- does it matter? If your life and mine are materially better and not only that, more rewarding and more FUN- and each of us needs to do far LESS work- surely that is what matters?
If we CAN have a united world- no nation states, no wars, no armies, no nukes- surely we should WANT that? Getting rid of the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack and the Tricolour- no big deal, really. I'm human. I LIVE in Britain. But the being human is the bit that matters.
And Free love- actually something Marx himself saw as somehow linked with communism and something he saw as part of the new era- Why can't it work?
In a communal society, we don't need a nuclear family any more. No need for monogamy. And why WOULD we want it, if we don't need it?
If you think about it- why would we NOT want Free Love if we really could have it?
If you think about- if all this IS possible- it's GOOD. For ALL of us.
It just takes the realisation of how many 'societal' values are promoted by people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
The whole point of Marx is that all this is coming anyway- unless we destroy ourselves in the process. His point was the main dynamic in all this would be in those who were socially alienated- the working classes of the west and the colonised peoples of the REST of the world- rising up and saying 'enough is enough'. And so it is in them that we must hope.
Now, it is my contention that in reality, every major decision maker in the world is a Marxist. Marxist in the sense they know damn well every word he wrote is true. But the point is, they HAVE the power. Their aim is to retard progress and keep the current elite going. So it is in their interests to keep his theories suppressed so the television can keep brainwashing you with;
'CAPITALISM IS GOOD. IT WORKS. YOU ARE WEALTHY. YOU ARE HAPPY. MARRIAGE IS GOOD. GET IN YOUR OWN LITTLE BOX AND LOCK THE REST OF THE WORLD OUT. ACCUMULATE. SPEND. OWN. FEND FOR YOURSELVES. FUCK YOUR NEIGHBOUR. TRUST US. SERVE US. AND WE'LL PAY YOU'
What they discuss at Bilderberg Group meetings is in my view this; how to keep Marxism suppressed and how to postpone the revolution. And if necessary, establish a global Police state to prevent it happening. They believe they can beat Marx, fight the tide.
There is only one conspiracy in the world; the fact that the haves know that Marx is right and try to convince the have nots that he isn't.
And yes, the day you realise that, it becomes the most important thing in your life. Because you know the rest of it, is all a lie.
And today, it matters more than ever.
Marxist thought has- since he wrote- split into several strands. Because those who have read his work and understood it- and not had a vested interest in suppressing him- have been divided about what to do.
I will leave you with two more posts before I go off and throw myself into this General Election; one is on the three main strands of Marxist thought and which one of them is the only one which really represents what he said.
The second is on the message I want to put out there on what YOU can do to make this world a better place. Yes, embrace Marx and the revolution, for sure.
But you need to know how we as a species must bring it about. And that will be my final message here for- quite a while :)
I am writing this letter openly because it is better than the kind of behind the scenes skullduggery, lies and outright fabrications so beloved of yourself.
I thought I'd quite simply state my case against you publically.
For two solid years you have run an online smear campaign against me and my blog for less than creditable reasons. You have been successful in hoodwinking many.
Let me just state now; I regard your actions against myself to be nothing short of a crime against the species. I have only ever sought to propagate my philosophies and political beliefs and I have always done so with an integrity and candour quite lacking in yourself.
I have chosen this course of action for a simple reason; I will be returning to blogging AFTER the election. When I do so, it will be under my own name. Until that point, getting Salma Yaqoob elected in Hall Green must be my first priority.
I am quite sure you will not be getting off your squirming, hypocritical arse and actually doing anything in this campaign. Actually trudging round streets on a cold wet day and talking to real people not quite your thing is it?
The point is, I've decided to pursue my politics in the real world, under my own name and fight for the very things this blog believes in AS ME. And I thank you for helping me make the decision to do that.
Unlike you, I actually care about my beliefs enough to devote my life to them. I'm not just interested in pontificating a mish mash of shallow, half thought out right wing beliefs and outpourings of a mind clearly tortured by sexual repression in an attempt to impress a load of other people and look like some kind of morally righteous figure which one can only do by- er- hiding one's identity.
If you run a blog like mine- politically radical, outspoken, pushing the envelope- anonymity makes sense. Or would do. Till you connived at my real name being bandied around. Not that that mattered, because I'm respected in real life.
Your real name has not come out yet. Your life has not been ruined that way.
Although as I say, the damage is less than I thought it would be. After all, I'm respected in real life. No one who has ever even MET me would entertain for one moment the possibility that anything you or Ubermouth have ever said could possibly be true.
So- I don't think your campaign has ACTUALLY meant I'll never get my book published, nor has it prevented me from spreading my ideas and fighting for what I believe in. That was what tortured me. That was what kept me awake at night. That your campaign of malice might damage the good fight and that the future of the species might be threatened by your petty jealousy/misguided sense of 'righteousness' and Ubermouth's thirst for revenge.
I still believe I have a REAL political future ahead of me. Because unlike you, I'm prepared to put my cause above all, even my own ego.
Back in 2007 you invited me to join a blogging organisation. I would imagine you did so due to the high quality of my writing and ideas, coupled with my willingness to debate and discuss with an open mind. In those days, you came across as a man of integrity- a man who any blogger would reasonably believe would PROTECT bloggers from people like Carly Swan.
In those day we were 'blogging friends'. None of my actions ever ruined that. I have never had any personal grudge against you, only your scurrilous actions regarding myself and others. I have never wanted war against you or anyone else.
Because unlike you, I believe arguing with people to be morally wrong. I believe hatred to be morally wrong. Even when you disagree with people, one should do so politely.
You clearly have disagreement with my views, which is fine. But YOU can't just disagree, you have to persecute. You only want to encounter bloggers who agree with you on the sphere. I don't think you objected to the Marxism, but certain views of mine you regarded as 'evil' and rather than debate them like a gentleman, you resorted to a whispering campaign to discredit the message.
You portray me as 'obsessed by sex'. Actually, as a private citizen, yeah, I enjoy it, but it doesn't dominate my life. Politics and philosophy dominate my life. I'm an intelligent man, Higham. My life doesn't revolve around my todger.
But sex as a political issue- yes, I feel strongly about it. As strongly as YOU do, actually. You have this bee in your bonnet about marriage. You do not realise how much a minority viewpoint it is. You probably applaud Cameron for his ludicrous proposals to give married couples a tax break. Many people are just as incensed at the idea as I am, but are less vocal.
You believe sex outside marriage is wrong and have even advocated the view that the more people you sleep with, it cheapens you. And you think homosexuality is 'unnatural'.
I strongly oppose that. I don't WANT our teenagers being told sex is wrong. It is NOT true that sleeping with lots of people in any way lessens you as a person- in fact, it tends to make you a more balanced, rounded human being.
Sex is only 'wrong' if it is NOT between consenting adults. And yes, I think views such as yours need to be fought against hard. You form a vocal minority. In the interests of preventing views like yours actually affecting our society, the case for sexual freedom, the anti-monogamy, pro-gay, pro-sexual promiscuity case needs to be made just as loud.
And yes, it's partly to make sure young people don't waste their lives with values such as you promote.
Free Speech does NOT meaning only tolerating views like your own. You have persecuted my views as reprehensibly as Christians were persecuted in Soviet Russia.
It may come as a surprise to you, but I get AS upset- if not more upset- by people promoting marriage and family values as you do by people promoting the alternatives. But that's how democracy works. We listen, we tolerate, we discuss. We don't try slur the messenger.
I believe a sexually free society is a happy society, if its possible to do so without causing harm. today we have a society where it is possible; dispensing with family values. And I firmly promote that view. Not for reasons of personal gratification, but because such a society would be more peaceful, less combative and divided.
Why? Because so often, sex is isn't the problem; it's the ridiculous hang ups society has developed that cause the problems.
Sex is a cause of strife, it is a cause of jealousy, of rivalry. Wishing we didn't have libidos as we do doesn't change that. It isn't our libidos that are the problem, it is the jealousy, the rivalry and the strife. And the judging.
Monogamy doesn't work because it is a social construct that goes against the true instincts of the species and no longer fills a social need; it causes more harm than good.
What you really seem to object to is my linking these views to Christianity. Actually, if you made any attempts to be the thinker you purport to be, you'd see the validity in such a position. However, you aren't actually a thinking Christian, just a 'Crutch Christian', the kind who has seized on to 'I'm a-walking with Jesus' to fill a void in yourself. You never post on matters of theology. Christianity only turns up on your blog to justify your views on sex and marriage.
True Idealism is a sentiment beyond your dead soul.
The danger with Christianity as blind faith is to miss out on Christ the Thinker. What really IS his point. One you miss, seemingly.
Christ's philosophy is the philosophy of Love. Of building a society built- not on hate and division- but on unity and Love. His REAL contribution to philosophy is the point' Love your enemies' 'Turn the other cheek' 'Do not judge'.
Yes, it's a hard one. The point is that you have to have faith that by not rising to aggression, by loving everyone no matter what they do to you, your way will win. Your moral superiority will defeat their hate. If your faith is wrong, you're fucked. But if it works, the price is worth paying.
The rest- the rest are details. To say marriage is a fundamental part of his teachings is fallacious; marriage predated Christ and he taught to a people obsessed with the idea sex was dirty- see Leviticus. He tried to fit marriage and sexual chastity into his theories, but it isn't Christ at his best as a thinker.
As his followers twigged. Marriage and sexual chastity don't quite fit with his theories. The Church solved the paradox by getting those committed to Christ to eschew marriage completely. Because society then still needed marriage and the family. But those institutions just don't fit with the concept of all men being brothers. And on a personal level, Christ doesn't seem to have regarded sex as evil.
Of course, Protestantism doesn't see this point. But then, I have always regarded Protestantism as a bastard form of Christianity, a return to Phariseeism; ignorance preached in the name of Christ. And since the reformation Catholicism too has lost its way, turned from being a force of the left, a force for progress to being a force of reaction for the most part. But true Christianity still exists in Catholicism- look at Liberation Theology.
Logic tells you that a society that adopted Communal Living and practised Free Love would indeed be one in which Jesus Christ approved. Ironically, a society that doesn't get his message, wouldn't be able to make Communism work. Or Free Love. Only someone who is a true Christian in his heart can FEEL those philosophies.
You do not know how to truly love a woman unless you can enjoy watching her make love with other men. And vice versa. You may find that a shocking thing for someone to say and call themselves Christian, but I DO say it.
And furthermore, I have a RIGHT to say it.
And furthermore, I believe I AM RIGHT to say it. I believe I feel Christ's hand resting gently on my shoulder as I say it, if for no other reason that he was more interested in solving the problem of stopping people fighting than stopping them from bumping and grinding.
Metaphorically, of course. Unlike you, I believe Jesus Christ lies buried in an unmarked grave. Like all of us, death really was death. There is only one life; this one. And it isn't a dress rehearsal.
And you must believe that too, in reality. You don't really think St Peter would let you and Ubermouth through the pearly gates do you? Pull the other one!
St Peter wouldn't be fooled as easily as Cherie and all the others who get fooled by your sleight of hand tricks.
Now, on to the real beef.
This Ubermouth problem first came up in September 2007. From the very start it was clear you and I had differing moral codes.
When I first came upon Carly's blog, my first impressions were this; her posts suggested someone loud, coarse and not well educated. And with ignorant opinions of a fairly negative type. White trash. I visualised her as unemployed, living in a council flat typing her blog surrounded by empty McDonald's cartons and lager cans, three kids all by different fathers.
Anyhoo. I was a little surprised the creature mailed me after reading a post on Nietzsche as I had thought Nietzsche would have been a bit above her, but I was impressed. She wasn't quite as coarse as I thought she'd be. And seemed to follow what Nietzsche was all about. And seemed sympathetic to Marxism.
You see, Higham, at least I attempted to do something decent with her. You have been 'friends' with her two years and she STILL remains a piece of shit. I thought- wrongly- that her 'love' for me could be used to turn her into someone decent. In other words, less of an Ubermouth.
Yes, I actually believed that after a few months, by which time Carly and I would have stopped speaking as a matter of course, all the nastiness in her personality would be gone. No longer an Ubermouth. Imagine that!
Even you have to admit that was a worthy aim. No, I didn't love her for anything more than her political support. But I DID want to turn into someone WORTHY of being loved- by someone.
What a waste of time THAT was!
In the end, I had to say enough was enough. Her outrages never ceased. She would see each attempt to pacify her as as a chance for the 'relationship' to happen. She needed to be told and told straight 'Fuck off. You're a piece of shit of a human being'.
The things Carly/Ubermouth has done to OTHERS than me since 2007, has been pure evil.
Not that you have condemned this.
But you carry responsibility for it. YOU do.
You, James Higham, carry responsibility for the hate mail she has sent many bloggers since then. YOU carry responsibility for her blog trolling. YOU carry responsibility for her having rang Kentucky Child Protection Services and made false statements regarding Chrystal Smith abusing her own child.
An offence for which Kentucky Police have stated they will charge Carly Swan if she ever sets foot in Kentucky.
Maybe you'd like to apologise to Chrystals' daughter?
And my grandmother?
If you won't apologise to me, apologise to Carly's other victims. Be a fucking man for once, not the skulking, snivelling little shit you have shown yourself the last two years.
A lot of women online- and offline for that matter- are waiting for apologies from you for the atrocities YOU allowed to happen.
You allowed them to happen by what you did in November 2007. The course of action YOU chose.
In November 2007 I informed you Carly was stalking me and harassing me. I asked advice on whether to seek legal advice or simply call the Police and get her banged up. You talked me out of it and implied you'd handle it.
Of course, the reality was you were in on her harassment yourself already, now clearly actively encouraging her. And indeed, you helped out very much over Christmas that year.
You made public and libelous accusations I was using my blog for nefarious purposes. Carly's revenge.
Of course it was. She wanted me to feel how she felt. No woman could ever break my heart. But damage to my blog could. Because my blog promoted the cause I believe in, the cause I dedicate my life to. Carly knows I really don't care whether women come or go, it's causes that matter to me.
You did it to make Carly happy. Helped, of course, that you don't like my politics.
You did what I would never stoop to. For anyone.
To be honest, I have no idea what goes on in your head. I've come across some deceitful liars in my time, but you're in a league of your own.
I was too naively trusting for my own good.
But yours- and Carly's machinations didn't stop. And by this time- for you- it was personal.
You would accuse me of 'attacking you behind the scenes'. Er, no. I was too busy with my blog. I didn't really give a shit about you, as long as you left my blog alone.
Nope. You couldn't do that.
And of course, Carly STILL wouldn't just fuck off.
I never had any gripe with her; I just wanted her to piss off and leave me alone. Just take her nasty, horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE personality away from me where I didn't have to see, hear or SMELL it.
I never had any gripe with YOU. Sure, I might find your political opinions oppressive, your moral values shallow and your grasp of philosophy and science non-existent, but hey, I can just choose NOT to read your blog. Or leave polite comments after a yawning skim read. The only reason I continued to read your blog was to see what bollocks you'd come up with this week.
YOU AND CARLY are the ones who prey online for vulnerable people. Those lacking the wordly wisdom to see through your facade, either through loneliness or the fact you butter up their self importance.
But what you get up to that they can't see is quite sick.
Both you and Carly have used Shelly Rayedeane for nigh on two years. This is a woman who, like Carly, has stalked many, many people online. She's more obviously barking than Carly- in that it took me three months to realise Carly is mentally ill whereas Shelly is clearly so.
Carly has used Shelly as a wind- up toy to attack people she dislikes, kind of as extra stalking hands, deliberately manipulating her mental illness, just as you manipulate Carly's. Of course Shelly also manipulates Carly and Carly also manipulates you.
Now Shelly has stalked my friend Chrystal as nastily as Carly ever stalked me. Chrystal has had both of them stalking her in fact, something you turn a blind eye too.
What's interesting is some nasty piece of work has cloned her blog and put it at the URL www.southernskank.co.uk.
Whoever did this is clearly a UK resident and that only leaves two possible subjects. Carly is too stupid, so I'm guessing it was you.
After all, you DID sit up all night one night trolling your own blog with anonymous comments, then claimed it was me.
This is the sort of shit you do.
For two years I have tried just to IGNORE you and Carly. My initial belief was simple; she's a psychopath, but you're just a weak dupe.
I realise now, that you're certainly a sociopath, if not actually a conscienceless psychopath yourself.
One has to keep watching out for the pair of you. Otherwise one hears the sound of breaking glass and when one looks round, the pair of you are nowhere to be seen, but there's a cricket bat lieing at your feet to incriminate you.
It really is the skullduggery you enjoy, isn't it? Like a modern Canon Brodie.
There's a guy who goes around online, whose name I will not print, an attorney from Portland, Maine. He is the founder of a group called the 'Fight Club' (formerly The Blogheisters). This group basically goes round stirring trouble and discord, trolling comments sections, manipulating people etc.
The main reason poor Chrystal is the subject of so much abuse is that she ended up being one of their targets, after breaking off a friendship with them after discovering what they’re up to. And then of course, she attracted the wrath of Carly and Shelly.
And you know- Carly is friends with these guys. People who DELIBERATELY and by their own admission go around online LOOKING for victims…
Which of course, in a sense, is what Carly does…as well as yourself.
She won't let you go. And if you try cut her off, keep trying to swat her off, like a very big, very fat fly, she will turn on you and hound you and MAKE YOU PAY.
The problem with both of your accusations against me has always been this; If you're attempting to found a cult using a blog and the purpose of that cult is to lure in vulnerable young women to get them gang banged by armies of black men, then stating on your blog openly that you believe in Free Love and that you like watching your partners have sex with other men is hardly the best cover.
Whereas your blog is the perfect cover for an online psychopath with something to hide.
Moving forward, I'm no longer really bothered what you are. Whether you're a psychopath or just a complete twat.
In one sense, you've wasted two years of my life. But I've learned a lot from you and for that I thank you.
There are things I regret over the last two years, I do. I let you play my weaknesses. You know damn well I don't believe in conflict or violence, but you also know that unlike you, I'm not actually a lilly livered pussy. I REFUSE to get into arguments, but push me into losing my temper and I won't sit and cower, I'll stand up, face you and knock you to the floor.
Grima, son of Galmod. Suits you actually. Chrystal's name for you is best though. The High Horse. I fucking love that one.
And yes, I've been a twat. I allowed a little prick like you to bring out the worst in me. I'm not proud of that. But it's the only thing I'm not proud of.
However, I AM proud of this blog and the quality of the posts written on it. I am proud of the philosophy behind those posts. I am proud of the example I set as a blogger in how to interact with people in comments sections.
I am proud of the moral rectitude I showed, for the most part, in my dealings with the pair of you.
And now I look at it, I think- yeah, but who the fuck are you, Higham?
You'll never be any more than a small time blogger.
And I say again; the reason you're a piece of shit is this. The only thing in life of any importance to you is this fake James Higham persona and your chance to play online at being what you can't be in real life; someone of importance.
You’re unconcerned with your actual purported cause, you’ve lost the plot.
The only thing you are concerned with is your own shameless self-promotion.
Two years ago I had a fairly dillitante approach to this whole revolution business and now, your actions you have actually helped make me take it seriously.
Politics isn't a playground, peoples lives are not toys, and I have better things to do.
And those things can't be done by skulking around hiding behind an avatar.
I have a duty to my species.
James Higham?
You are forgiven all your misdeeds, I absolve you in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. Go in peace and sin no more. (As in, stop the skullduggery, the lieing and the wanking. Or at least the skullduggery and the lieing.)
I forgive you.
To everybody else;
Sorry for stooping to James Higham's levels over the last two years.
I will post shortly to announce what the future of this blog is to be and what role it is to play in CHANGING THE WORLD FOR THE BETTER.
And I leave you all, for now, with a tribute to my old friend and adversary, a tribute to his dedication to the chivalric ideal.
The existence of God has always been something I have taken for granted.
No, I have never spoken in tongues or felt a mystical presence or any of that. In fact, I believe many people know of God without knowing they do. They reject religion but still know God.
What I have always struggled with is- what IS God?
Not the Old Testament God, that is for sure. Nor a 'he'. Not a 'creator'. Not a judge.
I suppose my deity is a very platonic deity. The God of Aquinas and Descartes. Descartes said that we are born knowing God, and I believe that. I FEEL him/her/it/whatever always. God is my conscience and he is my reason. Trying to express that and understand my relationship with that entity has been a major part of my life.
I was brought up Catholic and always admired the priesthood. I was quite deeply Catholic in my late teens, in a very Thomist, Opus Dei kind of way. The Divine Comedy and the Holy Grail, yes, they loomed large in my mind. And I loved dressing all in black. I felt the 'call', if you like. I felt God wanted me to be a priest.
But- I couldn't do it. I discovered sex and that put me in a funny place with God. I felt guilty about looking Christ in the eye in church. I had turned my back on the call, settled for being mere laity just for a bit of love and affection.
I joined the Tory Party in 1994, for three reasons, I think. I kidded myself there was deep political belief, but actually, it was kind of a subsitute church. I chose it because I hated Blair, firstly. Secondly, my favorite colour was blue. And lastly- it was unpopular. It was an act of rebellion against my peers going for the unacceptable option, the 'nasty party'.
I guess my late teens/early twenties were driven by the belief that good DOESN'T win. Toryism was immoral, but it worked. Communism was moral but it didn't. And I hadn't become a priest. God loses.
It made a certain kind of sense.
Well, as you mostly know, life gave me a damn good kicking in my mid twenties. And I believed- still believe- that God meant me to get that kicking. For running and hiding from him. What did he want of me? To be a priest?
I realised it was bigger than that. Yes, he wanted me to be a priest in the sense that a priest puts God first, but he DIDN'T want me to get ordained within the Church. He wanted me to reconcile the conflicts in my head and LISTEN to what my CONSCIENCE and my LOGIC were telling me.
And in 2006 I had the ONLY 'religious' experience I have ever had. It wasn't of the apparation/miracle type. It was a Eureka moment of realising 'Of Course. THAT is what God wants.' And suddenly feeling at peace with him/her/it/whatever.
All the apparent conflicts in my head were reconcilable. Free Love and Communism were the will of God. Christ's mission was not about a fantasy after life. Christ came to give us the Catholic Church to nurture the best of human conscience and reason until mankind could truly grasp logic and human rights. Christ came to show us the way till we, of our own free will, could reconcile our hearts and minds and truly live in Free Love and Communism.
And then ALL religion would be obsolete. Because we'd ALL be priests to one another. We'd all know God's love.
I realised that that is it. God is Love and Love is God. God is Energy, God is Truth, God is Beauty.
It's about loving God. Truly LOVING God. And you don't need to KNOW what he/she/it/whatever is. You KNOW what he is, it is the good within you. The self sacrifice in you. The you that appreciates beauty. The you that will buckle up your shield and fight and die for what is right. God is how you feel when your baby niece holds up her arms for you to pick her up.
God is what makes you feel holy.
And I realised further is that is what True Love is. Love of God. All sin is perverted love of some kind and many people don't love properly because in truth they do not love God.
There is indeed an emotion that feels 'good', just like Ecstasy, but is no more than a naturally occurring drug. If left to it's own devices unchecked it is the greatest perversion of all. It becomes jealous, covetuous, wrathful. It a 'passion'. And love is not a passion.
To truly love someone is to love God through them. They are at once the icon we kneel before to feel close to God and the priest that conveys God's love to us.
True Love is an act of religious worship. God is Love and Love is God.
God wants us to embrace Free Love and Communism; it is the will of a Loving God, a God who IS Love. And spreading the Gospel of Free Love and Communism is the solemn duty of all who feel his call within them
But whilst you ponder this, here's one to ponder over the New Year. Those of you who BELIEVE you love; ask yourselves this.
Do you FEEL closer to God because that person is a conduit to God for you? And do you think they feel God's love for them through you?
He wasn't born in the year dot. Herod was dead by then.
There was no universal census decreed by Augustus. And had there been, no one would have had to return to the town of their birth. The Romans weren't as crazy as Obelix thought.
Indeed, there was no stable, no shepherds, no magi. All this was gossip that did the rounds after his death. After all, the 'Messiah' had to be born in Bethlehem.
What we celebrate at this time of year is- 'Peace on Earth Goodwill to Men'.
This is the other festival of the Christian Calendar. At Easter we celebrate what he did. At Christmas we celebrate what he MEANT. Because the fairy tale of the stable, is exactly that; a fairy tale.
So- what did he mean?
Oh, 'Christians' will tell you what Christianity means.
They love to quote the Good Book. But Christ did not write the Good Book. Christ's attitude to the old can be summed up by 'I come not to replace the law but to fulfill it.
In other words, Christ's words are not the Old Testament.
Nor are Paul's words Christ's words.
In fact, I doubt Christ would even have LIKED Paul.
And I doubt he would have liked most 'Christians'.
Certainly, he would have had little time for the likes of Ian Paisley or most of the US Televangelists.
He did not sanction the inquisition, and he would have turned in his grave at much of the Christian Right today.
It would sicken him to see his 'followers' prepared to let a continent die of AIDS rather than use condoms. Or see regular church attenders support the death penalty.
The ignorance of Creationism, the intolerance of Homophobia.
Not in his name.
I don't find much written by Christ on the subject of sex. Love, yes. Sex, no. The only time he was asked to judge on this, he said 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.
But I see a lot about Pharasees walking by on the other side. About Good Samaritans. About the pure of heart.
I see a lot about not judging people. About forgiveness. About compassion. About common humanity. About....Love.
His God was not just a Jewish God. His God was the God of all men. His God hated war and persecution.
And his God hated poverty and injustice.
Christ was all about 'Turn the other cheek'.
In modern language, his message was 'Make Love, Not War'.
And when he got to his Father's house- he found it full of moneylenders and animals. I wonder, would he be any less disgusted today by those who take his name?
Perhaps it is an irony of our time. Christians no longer hear Christ's message; so many are the New Pharasees. And it is perhaps amongst the new 'Gentiles', the agnostics- even atheists- who decry traditional religion, that the TRUE Christian spirit is mostly to be found.
The Pharasees are too busy grovelling to their God and preaching at the sinner to hear the words of Christ the Man.
Too busy worrying about the chips in everyone else's eyes to see the logs in their own.
The Man was a truly great MAN.
One of the greatest who ever lived.
And maybe it would be a nice touch if just a few more of us could actually take the time during this season- between the presents and the food and the alcohol and the parties- to take a read of what he actually said and what he actually meant.
And wonder if he'd actually LIKE us.
Because if he wouldn't- then we're not doing it right.
You see- it's about being a good person. And it don't matter how often you go to church, it changes nothing.
And it doesn't matter who you sleep with, or how many, or whether you like to party. It doesn't matter.
Be nice to people. And tell the truth. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So simple most of his own 'followers' seem to miss the fact he said it.
A new decade starts in ten days.
Two thousand years after his death, are we actually going to start listening?
Every morning for the last two years I have struggled so hard to explain the core of the trauma Carly Swan caused and what lay behind it. And the worst thing was- not having anyone who could really understand it. Real Life people ask 'How DO you acquire an internet stalker?' Internet people- well, they only see the smoke, the shadows and the mirrors.
Only now have I been able to return to the trauma, to the ordeal of 2007. And for that, I have the only person who could truly understand- Chrystal- to thank.
Chrystal. Chrystal it has been who has provided 'regression therapy' for me to go back to the heart of my ordeal. Chrystal. She has healed me. Chrystal whose healing touch has enabled me to- deal with the evil that was done to me.
Chrystal. My heroine. My knightess in shining armour. My Britomart. Chrystal has been the one to heal those wounds. Chrystal it has been who has helped me out of that dark realm of abject terror that Carly Swan put me in. Chrystal it has been who has really helped me recover from that horrible sense of KNOWING you have been abused and that no one is listening. Worse; they are lieing about it and covering it up for sordid motives of their own.
It WAS like being raped.
The thing is, during those moments early morning when you wake up and you've thrashed so wildly in your sleep that you've worked your sheet off your bed because your sleep has been so disturbed, your mind shows you clearly. You can see into the heart of the trauma.
Why what what she did was beyond cruel, it was pure evil. And why it caused more pain and distress than anything imaginable. And why a certain lieing manipulator of a right wing blogger who has attempted to deny this- virtual rape- happened and present the rapist as a victim to aid his twisted blogging agenda- well, he's an accomplice to- abuse. And OF COURSE Carly SHOULD have done gaol time for what she did to me.
It was just as bad as rape. It felt like being raped. The psychology of the person who did it, was just like that of a rapist. I KNOW that. I've KNOWN that since it happened.
And then I get out of bed thinking 'That's it, that's the heart of it'.
It's remembering that moment, that single moment when it all got bloody scary. And I became more scared than I've ever been of anything in my entire life. Something that I'd been trialling, merely to see if it was POSSIBLE, became...
....a terror beyond compare.
It was actually some time in August 2007. I think I had been speaking to Carly for two months. I'd also just started a new job and no longer had time to talk to her. And yes, I was tiring of her. But I just thought 'If I cool to her, only answer the phone when I feel like it, she'll find someone else'.
It was one afternoon after a long day. And she knew I'd be busy. I'd told her not to call me, just to WAIT to be called. If I called, I called. If I didn't, I didn't. Simple, I thought.
And it shouldn't matter. We weren't 'in a relationship'.
And that's the point. THAT IS THE POINT.
I HAD NEVER MET HER. WE WEREN'T IN A RELATIONSHIP.
From a purely logical point of view, it was merely a series of phone calls. And UNTIL- or IF- we ever met, that was all it would be. I actually THOUGHT that was the position.
I was sipping my tea and composing a post. Then the phone rang. Wearily, I picked it up.
Me: WHAT? What NOW?
Her: That's a nice way to speak to me!
Me: Yeah, but WHY are you calling? I'm trying to compose a post. I haven't got time for this.
Her: It's important I talk to you.
Me: No. No it isn't. It can NEVER be important. Whatever it is, it can wait.
Her: Five minutes..
Me: No. No five minutes. Another time. Another day. Stop wasting my time.
Her: (screaming) WASTING YOUR TIME????? I invest two months of my life talking to you and you call it WASTING YOUR TIME????
I don't know the rest of the conversation. In such a case, I just say whatever has to be said to make the noise stop. Because whilst it's going on, I can't actually HEAR the words, it's like an electric current is being passed through me. Pure abject terror. It's just a fight to do whatever it takes to make the noise STOP.
I got her off the phone by agreeing to call her later. But I was scared. So fucking scared. Now, it had all got too much.
This was before her row with Phish, actually. That was when it started to get REALLY freaky and I started to seriously worry about how I was going to get rid of her without angering her. This WASN'T the deal I signed up for. This was the sort of stuff I just don't want in my life.
Now many have and still do argue that emotionally it was a relationship. And sure, I agree. But that is to miss the point. And I myself still keep getting sidetracked by arguments proceeding from this.
Bunny understood it, I think. Understood what I sought to create with Carly. And why I desperately fought so hard to abort it cleanly.
But it is now, now that I have Chrystal in my life, who has gone a long way to healing the trauma of Carly by initially BEING to me the completed article of what Carly was the first- failed- prototype of. And now by being- something not entirely explicable. I do genuinely love her with all my heart. All I can say is that if it's just a simulation, it's a damn good one.
But back to Carly. You know, it could have been anyone. Sod's law it was Carly. She was the first person I engaged in long conversation from the internet. And that conversation was- good.
And I guess the idea first formed in my head that week.
Since Claire, I have faced a permanent problem. Reality is, I'm too emotionally damaged to ever contemplate any form of 'serious' relationship.
And yet I'm addicted to love.
The feeling of it, anyway. That's why I like the drug Ecstasy so much. It literally IS the emotion of love, in pill form.
Not real? It's as real as the real thing. The sensation is identical. But it has one advantage. You control it.
I'm not a power crazy megalomaniac. I don't need to control the world. But I DO need to control my own surroundings. I can never trust what I don't control. My politics are against the notion of control, because I resent any attempt to control me. My close friends are- as Chrystal points out- within my circle of trust for the simple reason I have been able to assimilate them into my own processes. They have become like extra limbs. I don't control them per se, but the way we interact means that it makes little difference. They may not do what I want because I control them, but they do what I want all the same. I'm even comfortable handing over my decision making powers to them in many areas, because it frees me. Such as my social life. I allow others to organise it.
They allow me to remove from my mind any concept of personal future and enjoy a life without responsibility for anything bar going to work. To me, life beyond payday is not my responsibility.
I enjoy emotional experiences, but only when I control them. In fact, I like all emotional processes to be entirely predictable. I have learned to switch emotions on and off like tap. This does in some ways make life hard. It does leave me in a semi-permanent state of hypertension driven mainly by neuroses punctuated by waves of adrenalin and testesterone. Finding releases for these pent up, supressed emotions isn't easy.
Football is one. I often need to be supported by people as I leave football grounds, I have expounded that much emotional energy on the terraces. Going out clubbing is another.
Womanising is another. But it's a fine balance. Because it isn't really the sex you want, you want genuine affection and intimacy too. But here's the paradox. To get that, you have to advance some way towards genuine bonding.
So it's a balancing act. You have to allow them to fall in love with you to some degree but know when you need to just cut them off without explanation. Bar their phone number, hide.
You need to allow them to open up to you just enough that you can feed off their emotions for a while until you are satiated, but escape before they get their claws into you and the emotions they feel- or YOU yourself feel- get dangerous.
It's dangerous when it's something you personally don't control. And you yourself can't allow YOURSELF emotions that you yourself can't suppress at will.
The crucial test- to me- always is this; can you reach the off switch at all times?
If not, it's dangerous.
And it's a risky business. One can still find onself confronted by uncontrolled emotions that you can't neutralise.
You don't WANT a 'relationship'. Not really. You don't need a wife. Collectively, your friends do everything a wife would for you, except provide sex, affection and intimacy. The first of those exists in a fairly plentiful supply, if you know where to look. So all that's missing is affection and intimacy.
So it's a lateral thinking problem. Without ending up ACTUALLY in a relationship, can you create a controlled simulation of one? Where you can receive the affection and intimacy, but it is still something you control. That you can switch on and switch off at will. That doesn't affect your life. That you never have to make sacrifices for. That never causes you stress. Where there are no arguments. A sanitised, neutralised, cauterised relationship that you have to pretty much log into to access. And when it's switched off, affects nothing.
Why would you want that, some ask.
Why do we play computer games? To enjoy the sensation of something without the nasty side.
I don't believe in war. I'd never fight in a war for Britain. I might conceivably fight as a volunteer in a political conflict. But I don't REALLY want to kill people.
Nor do I want to move around much more than I can help it. Certainly not RUN. Or jump. Or anything athletic really.
And yet- create a simulation of all this, and I'm hooked. Love it. It ticks every single box. A huge outlay of testerone and adrenalin, the thrill of the kill without any REAL danger and without a spatter of mud or blood getting anywhere near me.
I die, I just return to where the game last saved.
I get all the EMOTION, all the ADRENALIN, all the THOUGHT PROCESSES of actually running round the debris of the Black Mesa facility in Arizona blasting aliens and hostile government troops and yet...
...it's not real.
Every man's dream. And yet if I'm sitting there thinking 'Damn. Can't see how I get past this water barrier'...
I can press pause and go and make a cup of tea.
But crucially, just because it's not REAL doesn't make it FALSE. It's better than real, it's VIRTUAL.
The word virtual comes from the word virtue. If something is virtual, it has all the virtues of reality, but none of its vices. Virtual reality really is better than reality, if done right and used properly.
Now, I've slated 'netpeople' very much before for taking online stuff too seriously. Of using things like Second Life for things that are by defintion, things you can only do in reality.
There is no POINT in cyberbeer, cyberpubs, cyberspliffs, cybersex. You can't get the sensations reality provides.
But running round underground tunnels basting aliens...yes, virtual is better than real.
What makes me laugh about people who meet people in Second Life, marry them in Second Life, have a row, get divorced because your partner 'cheated' in Second Life...and they never met...is this.
The whole point about Virtual Reality is it's supposed to be BETTER than reality. How is THAT better?
You're taking it too seriously. The whole point is you're able to experience things as if they are real, but keep them as a GAME. Fun. And press the off button and forget about it till you switch your PC ON again.
You are in the position where, if you choose, you can have the sensation of loving and being loved in VIRTUAL form. As in, all the emotions, all the sensations and yet...
...keep it in a box. A simulation.
Funnily enough, this idea first came to me years ago. Only a cyberwoman, as in a computer simulated woman could never quite cut it. For it to really be what you want it to be, the woman would need to be real. But she'd have to treat it like you did. Allow real emotions to develop, allow it to have the emotions of tenderness, affection and intimacy. But also be capable of logging out and returning to reality. Keeping the emotion at arms length from reality. Enjoying it in virtual form.
Fenced off from actual existence. Neutralised. Sanitised. Cauterised. Perfect.
You just contact them or they contact you and say 'I'm bored and lonely. Fancy playing 'Love' for a bit? I'm going out at half nine though'.
Almost like an application on your computer.
Now THAT would be an improvement on a real life relationship. For both of you. Especially if you both stayed sexually active in real life. Furthermore, it would enable you to totally separate the emotional from the physical. It would use up your need to love and be loved therefore enabling you to greater defend your barriers in real life. Much the same way football acts as a focus for your barbaric, tribal urges thus enabling you to think as a liberal, metrosexual male the rest of the time.
In other words...
...the POINT of Carly was to better defend you from EXACTLY what she turned out to be.
It's true. After a week or so of talking to Carly, I saw the possibility of running Carly as what might be described as a 'virtual relationship' or, as Chrystal calls it a 'relationship in a box'.
It didn't really matter what she looked like. And did I REALLY intend to EVER meet her?
Well, that's a hard one. Only when I was speaking to her. This is what she found so hard to understand. Not when off the phone. The 'relationship' as she called it, was only a reality within the context of the phone conversation. Otherwise, it wasn't real. Virtual, yes, real no. So of COURSE it FEELS real. Just like a computer game FEELS real.
But for it to BE real, it would have to take place in three dimensional space.
It's actually about- Doublethink.
We ALL Doublethink. Perversely, one can't experience LIFE without doing so. Doublethink basically means being able to 'believe' two things at once which can't BOTH be true, or more accurately, accept something as true but only for limited purposes. Reality control.
To really ENJOY a Computer game, at some level you have to believe it to be real, in an emotional sense, whilst the game is running and yet know it's just a game when you come off the PC.
But life itself involves Doublethink. As a Catholic I 'believe' a lot of things on two levels. As a rational human being, no, I don't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. And yet I will defend these positions if challenged by NON Catholics and in doing so find I FEEL as if I BELIEVE them to be true. I KNOW they aren't. But at some level they are to me. At some level, I believe in Purgatory, Seven Orders of Angels, the lot.
In fact, it might surprise you but I can still bang out the Rosary under my breath in a matter of minutes and frquently do so when hoping for some form of divine intervention..
I know in reality that no one hears. But the ingrained belief they do makes me feel better.
Now, the whole point of any form of relationship taking place over the phone or in Internet Messenger is the fact that SOME form of doublethink needs to be in operation.
You may well be in a position whereby you AND the other party both FEEL the emotions to be real. And they are. But emotions are NOT reality. Even in 3D world, emotions aren't real.
The important point is for BOTH parties to always retain the existence of two separate realities. One, self contained within the telephone conversations or Internet Messenger where it feels like a loving, caring relationship.
And then the underlying reality. The REAL truth. That you are two unconnected strangers who have never met, have no conception of eachother's real lives except through the narrow window THEY give you. You have no obligation to eachother, no relevance at all to eachother.
It is NOT insane to believe the emotions to be real- they are. But it WOULD be insane to ACTUALLY believe it to be a VALID relationship.
What is it's REAL role?
Well, it's much the same as masturbation. Emotional masturbation.
And the fact is that's ALL any cyber or phone 'relationship' EVER is. Emotional masturbation.
So why do people do it?
Well- for some people it's all they CAN get. They lack the ability to make people love them in real life. So they look for it online. For them, there really is no difference. They treat it as actually being REAL. They masturbate emotionally for the same reason they masturbate physically.
But for other people- such as myself- there are other very good reasons for it. It's not that we CAN'T get the 'real thing', we don't WANT the real thing.
Reason? Most of it is superfluous to requirements, to me. A lot of the support stuff a partner gives you- I get that from my mates. BETTER in fact. My best mate is MORE protective of me almost than his own partner. Having a woman in my life competing with him for that position would cause tension. Sex, well, whilst the Great British Pub exists, so does sex for the price of a double malibu and coke. Companionship? Again, mates. The pub.
And by NOT having 'serious' relationships, your life is less stressful. Your time is your own. You don't feel insecure in your own home, you always feel SAFE. You are the master of your own time. You can actually devote time PROPERLY to the things that matter.
Now I'd already started to realise that blogging is a HUGE time drain. But potentially- the sky is the limit. It really can make your dreams come true. But there's a price.
Look around the blogosphere. By and large, the good come and go, only the misfits stay. Because the good- they just blogged because they were bored, they go when Mr Right or Ms Right comes along.
Its a question of time. Weekdays, you're up at six, you'll need to be in bed at half eleven.
You have five hours free. Take an hour out for eating, shopping, random stuff, you have four hours.
If you ever want to get anywhere as a blogger, you'll need to give it about two and a half hours a night.
That leaves you an hour and a half.
Well, you want to watch CSI when it's on. And the odd other thing here and there. And you DO want to go to the pub.
Doesn't pan out. You officially have NO TIME to devote to a 'relationship'.
Not that you care. 'Relationships'? More trouble than they're worth.
And so....
Carly seemed a good idea.
You knew, if I'm honest, I never really BELIEVED a word I said to her. It was- just like playing a sim game. She gave me what I wanted- for about two months.
Which was- she directed traffic to my blog and she helped me get to sleep. She was a kind of ersatz pillow talk. Believe it or not, she CAN sound like a woman when she wants to.
I just used to curl up in my bed in the foetal position, fluff up the pillows and place the receiver next to me and let her talk away. It was calming.
Yeah, that's what she was. A 'Dial the voice that loves me' service.
To be honest, I was just using her for her 'I love you's. She could have been anyone. It didn't matter. I worked out the net effect in psychosomatic terms of five minutes of her telling me how much she loved me and came to the conclusion it was the rough equivalent of two pints of bitter or one joint of marijuana. If it was done before I started writing a post, it would focus my thoughts better. If done after I got back from the pub, it would help me sleep.
And the net effect of feeling loved. It just adds to your sense of personal security. To be able to have that sensation in a seemingly trouble free way- it seemed like a perfect solution. It just needed perfecting. Carly wasn't the finished article. In fact, she was totally wrong for the role. But then again, she had only been selected for it because she happened to be there at the time.
And I had made a number of assumptions which turned out to be false; the key one being that Carly was sane. And that should I decide I just didn't want to speak to her any more, there wouldn't be a problem. That assumption had always been implicit.
After a couple of months, the situation rapidly changed over night. In fact, it became pretty terrifying. Essentially, the problems began because a new job meant increased working hours and increased blog traffic couples with more readers mailing in, meant considerably more time needed to be devoted to blogging. The blog was on a roll and if I wanted to get to the pub at all of an evening, Carly was going to have to be pared right down. Ideally- put on hold. Phased out.
Anyway. This was when Carly became a REAL problem. And when I started to get VERY freaked out and scared.
The problems fell into two categories, but those were intertwined. It was BOTH her online and offline behaviour that was the problem, but had it just been one, the problem could have been easily tackled.
The offline problem was that I tried to put her on the same footing as standard callers. Now generally, I don't answer my phones. There are voicemails to take the calls and I return the calls at my convenience. I only take calls I am expecting and wish to take. And I attempted to put Carly on the same footing as say, my Mum or my Gran. Which is 'Leave a message and I'll call YOU'.
But Carly would not be put on that footing. She would ring. And if not answered, she'd ring again. And if not answered she''d ring again. And if you finally answered and said 'I'm busy I'll call you back', she wouldn't take that for an answer. If you hung up on her in frustration, she'd call AGAIN.
It was very freaky. And very, very disturbing. She would say 'I NEED to take to you. It's IMPORTANT'. And you'd shake your head in disbelief. Nothing could EVER be so important she NEEDED to talk to you. After all, it couldn't REALLY matter- EVER- if she NEVER spoke to you again. What was her problem?
And her conversational style had changed. She'd just become- too emotional to deal with. Hectoring. Confrontational. Threatening. Five minutes of conversation with her could bring on a migraine.
I tried to suggest that really, we needed to cut down talking. Her reply would be 'If we do that, the relationship will die'.
Well, yes, of course. But it will do so in a controlled way, phased down. So neither of us will care. Better it ends with a whimper than a bang, surely?
I tried to point out that there were no hard feelings, but really, we weren't suited to eachother as people. Of course, I didn't yet really know the full facts about her, but we were clearly temperamentally unsuited. That didn't mean we had to hate eachother, but that communicating with eachother probably wasn't a good thing. And it really boiled down to one simple point. She was too much. I couldn't cope with her. She would then come up with total non-sequiters like 'None of my other boyfriends said that'.
And this would be the problem. The inability to LISTEN. I'm not talking about your ex boyfriends. I'm talking about ME. YOU are TOO MUCH for ME. Too emotionally demanding. I can't cope with people with wild, uncontrolled emotions. It gets me defensive, it makes me draw into myself, I'm not comfortable around it. The fact that you will call and call and call UNTIL the phone gets answered rather than wait patiently to be called and adopt the 'If he calls he calls, if he doesn't he doesn't' approach scares the shit out of me.
What scared me was that she wouldn't listen. And this was what began to alert me to the possibility she was actually a fairly dangerous pyshopath.
The fact that I had TOLD her she was pressing on my one vulnerable spot and that she wouldn't stop pressing.
As I have indicated, I'm by nature a fairly emotionally detached person. I get wildly impassioned at football matches and I put my heart into the dancefloor, or did in my clubbing days, but otherwise I control my emotions fairly rigidly. In many ways, I'm about as easy going as you can get. The only opinions I have are based on empirical data and it has been said of me 'You have an opinion on everything but you believe nothing'. It's true. I have no blind faith, I only trust that which I understand, can predict and.... is firmly under my own control. Leaps of faith are not my thing.
If I have a faith at all, it's in reason. I believe in the truth of Darwin and Marx and Nietzsche, I belief in the ethics of Christ and I believe in the species. I believe in scientific fact and empirical data.
If I have a flaw, it's that I find questions which science cannot answer to be ones I cannot answer either. If it doesn't have a logical answer- I cannot answer the question. For example, the logical answer to 'Which cake would you like, chocolate or fruit cake' poses a quandry for me. I like both so I cannot answer. The only answer I can come up with is 'Whichever is easiest for you'. 'Do you love me?' is one of those ill defined questions which I can only answer on the basis of 'Right now, you make me feel good' or 'Right now, you're bugging me'. Otherwise, the question is meaningless.
As I say, I'm generally easy going. Not much bothers me, personally. I don't much care what other people do, along as they're polite to me. I like people, in terms of I enjoy being out and about in company. I enjoy conversation, I enjoy studying people. I'm quite a frivolous hedonist, really. I don't take much seriously, unless it has ramifications for the wider world.
It bothers me that most people still don't see the lies upon which the Capitalist system is founded. Africa bothers me, slave labour in China bothers me, persecution of Muslims bothers me, the life the underclass in the west leads, life of drug addiction and prostitution, that bothers me. Animals being tortured bothers me.
But a relationship? Bother you? If they come up to you and say 'I'm finishing with you because I've been shagging some other guy behind your back'. Bothered?
Maybe a bit, but go down the pub and get pissed, shag someone else and you won't care tomorrow. Plenty of fish in the sea. It really doesn't matter. It's not important. It doesn't affect the result of the next election.
Clearly most people don't see life like that. I do. The only thing of real import in your life is what you do for the future of your species. The rest- trivial crap.
But what Carly did was keep prodding on the chink in my armour. The ONE thing which can cause me to get agitated, scared, panicky and- potentially have a nervous breakdown.
I explained it to Chrystal and she understood. I explained to her that this is what happened to me night in, night out. It was how Carly made me feel by rowing with Phish when I had asked her to back off from Phish AND myself. It was how she made me feel by just NOT backing off, by not just LEAVING ME ALONE. By keeping ringing up and saying 'But do you still have feelings for me? Do you still want to meet me? If you don't, then you need to tell me what changed and why?'
And you're telling her WHY. Why she just HAS to stop TALKING to you. At all. Just go away. Forget it. Leave it.
My Mum is about as emotionally detached as you can get. But neurotic. Like me, basically. Only without the external front of extroverted abandonment. In thirty years I've only known her scream once. (My Dad got angry at the dog and my Mum threatened to throw him out for it). But you just don't irritate my Mum. Or criticise her in fact. She'll burst into tears.
On the face of it, I'm my Dad's son. But unlike my Dad, or my brother, or anyone in fact, I know what my Mum's nerves must be like. Because mine are the same.
After graduation I had a job interview in Redditch. Redditch is a fairly soulless New Town with a large ring road system and I had directions; just off the ringroad. Anyway, I was working nights then so my Mum drove me so I could get a nap in the car.
It was long past rush hour. About half nine. And the ring road was confusing my Mum. I knew where we were going, my Mum...did not. At one point I went 'There. It's over there'.
And then my Mum burst into tears 'Look, I CAN'T go that way! Just shut up a minute!'
And we ground to a halt and stalled. My mum was shaking like a leaf. Car horns beeped behind us. I knew to say NOTHING. My Mum started breathing and slowly started the engine. We went all the way back round the one way system.
I know how my mother felt then. Like an electric current was passing through the back of her head. Pain. Suffering. She saw the road, but the images meant nothing. My voice was just another irritation, just a noise. All she felt at that point was panic. To the exclusion of anything else around her. Fear. Total and abject fear. The only thing passing through her mind was 'Make this stop. Make this stop. I want to be at home with a cup of coffee in my hand and this nightmare of a one way system gone.'
And when I told Chrystal this and how talking to Carly made me feel EXACTLY like that, she understood. 'Control. You'd lost control and its the worst thing you can think of. It's the only thing you truly fear. Your mother was frightened because she felt powerless. And that's how Carly made YOU feel. Powerless to control the situation'.
Yes. And Carly KNEW that was what she was doing to me. But didn't care. The only thing that mattered to her was that she 'loved me'. It mattered not that the way she went about expressing that caused me more pain and suffering than anything else could have done.
That's a psychopath.
So- why did I let it drift? Continue to take these calls. Call her as well.
Well, I continued to call her because calling her is an improvement on her calling you. At least you control the time. True, it's not as good as not talking at all, but it's better than HER calling YOU. At least you are prepared for it. Psyched up. Had a beer or two, ideally.
Why didn't you just get rid of her, you ask?
I think for anyone who has seen the way she behaves, that question answers itself. You can't just 'end it' with Carly in polite conversation without Carly shouting. You get 'Why? Why? Why?'. She wants reasons. She'll actually ARGUE with you. And shout. It's not a case of 'Ok. I'm cool with that'. But there was something else as well. The threats she would make.
I didn't know how to get rid of her without her getting upset. And a gut feeling was telling me she might lash out at my blog if rejected.
Anyway, that pretty much covers the offline problems.
Now we come to the online ones.
These were simple. Carly was bad PR. I mean really, really bad PR. For a kick off she loved going round saying we were 'in a relationship' when we hadn't even met. That is called taking it too seriously and frankly I didn't want people thinking I was actually the sort of crazy person who'd treat a VIRTUAL relationship as being REAL. So if questioned by- oh every single reader of mine, because trust me, she HAD to tell every single one- I'd say that no, we'd never met and therefore no, we weren't in a relationship, I was single. Which was true.
More to the point, I didn't want to be connected with her at all. The Ubermouth persona is NOT something you want your blog connected to, if you want your blog to get anywhere. If you REALLY want to break into the bloggerati. Why? Well, she argues with people. Usually, for no real reason at all. Her blogging ethics are totally non-existant. She couldn't keep to observing simple ethics that I'd told her time and time again HAD to be the rules of blogging interaction.
1. Be nice. Be charming. To everyone. 2. Be everybody's friend. 3. Never fall out with anyone. No need to, really. 4. Never divulge personal information about other bloggers. Maintain the 'avatar' illusion at all times. 5. A lot of posts written are not interesting to YOU. But they are to the person who wrote them. So think of something NICE to say. 6. Sometimes you might strongly disagree with a post. Fine. But you can word a reply that critiques it whilst still keeping the author onside. Show you understand that they mean well, even if you disagree with their conclusions. 7. The issue of whether or not you LIKE a blogger as a human being is totally irrelevant. It's a professional environment- or should be. Personal issues should be kept out of it. 8. You should respect the right to freedom of speech. However, you should not abuse that right. The right to freedom of speech does NOT extend to personal attacks. 9. Never be publically hostile.
Now you might point out that I've broken some of these as regards Carly. That is true. But Carly has been breaking all these rules since she started. She provokes others to do these things and then tries to play the innocent. But the way she blogs has always been a disgrace. In fact, her blog itself has always been a disgrace since I've known her. Even in the days when we got on, I never saw the supposed humour. Most of the time, it's just offensive. The way she speaks to people just isn't on.
Carly could never see this. It's not just that I personally didn't want to get into arguments, I don't want to associate with someone who wants to get into arguments. And if you get into arguments because you lack the diplomatic skills to engage in conflict avoidance maneouveres, I am NOT getting involved.
I didn't want people thinking she was any kind of friend of mine. I wanted to remove her link from my blogroll and ideally NOT have her commenting on my posts. Because having her around my blog at all was- bad PR. Kept away the 'better class' of reader. Nice people.
Losing her would almost certainly result in more traffic. Losing her would make it easier to form MORE blogging alliances and devote MORE energy to blogging.
Losing her was the right thing, politically.
If losing her was possible.
You see, I knew already before her row with Phish that in REAL LIFE a 'relationship' between myself and Carly COULD NOT work. I just wished she could come to that conclusion without me having to direct her there. She clearly believed such a 'relationship' COULD work. I knew it couldn't. It was just I couldn't exactly express the intangible point in the clarity needed due to how much Carly disturbed me. In fact, I only REALLY grasped it clearly talking to Chrystal last night.
Never met Chrystal in the flesh. But last night I found myself saying 'You know, I could sleep next to you quite comfortably. I'd sleep like a log'.
And really- that's what it's all about. I trust Chrystal enough to know I could sleep next to her and feel safe. I know she'd make me feel SAFE. You can have sex with someone but not feel comfortable going to sleep next to them. Because being asleep you are vulnerable. You REALLY have to TRUST someone to go to sleep next to them. I could never trust Carly enough to go to sleep near her. If you can't trust someone with a little thing like 'Don't call me when you KNOW your calls are upsetting me' or 'Please do NOT do anything which could negatively affect my blog traffic' how the hell can I trust you with a big thing like going to sleep with you on the same side of a locked front door as me?' And That's the point. Carly shouts and gets angry over nothing. I couldn't ever feel comfortable or SAFE going to sleep with Carly in the same flat as me, let alone the same bed.
I guess that's it. You could not sleep next to Carly and feel safe and protected. If anyone had ever treated me the way Carly already had, the way she'd shouted, the way she'd screamed, the way she'd argued with myself and others that I'd seen, the way she'd rung back after being hung up on- I couldn't actually EVER go to sleep next to someone who had that in them. Was CAPABLE of that.
It's funny isn't it, this sleeping with someone thing. One night stands, sometimes you are happy with them staying, sometimes you don't really trust them enough to actually SLEEP with. My closest friends, I'm comfortable enough to sleep next to all of them and have at some point. Trust. You can't really have a truly close relationship with someone you could never feel comfortable sleeping next to.
When you really love someone, it's not sex you want with them, it's going to sleep in their arms and waking up still in them. That's the icing on the cake. We take it for granted often.
But I- miss Chrystal. I miss her every night, just like I MISSED Bunny. I could never feel that about Carly. Because that level of COMFORT was impossible. Due to her personality.
Before her row with Phish, I had indeed been thinking about this seriously. I didn't at this point realise just how much in danger I was and that I was about to go through an ordeal comparable to rape. But certainly, I realised that this task was going to be one of the hardest things I had ever done. It needed all my mental efforts to work out a way to excise Carly from my life and make her as if she had never happened.
I was worried, no denying that. She had already implied- when angry- that if I rejected her she'd run posts on me. That was what I was afraid of. Otherwise, there would be no problem. I'd have lost her long ago. The only question I pondered was this;
Was Carly REALLY so evil that she'd turn on my blog and try and destroy it if I 'broke her heart'? Was Carly REALLY so evil she'd badmouth me to other bloggers if she felt badly treated? Was Carly REALLY so evil she'd destroy MY happiness in vindictiveness at me not being able to give her what she wanted? Was Carly REALLY so evil she'd expose my real name and address, the names of my friends and facts about my past and present that were things I had told her in confidence?
Could Carly REALLY be THAT evil?
That she'd do that if I 'broke her heart'?
Ruin my entire life because I rejected her?
I tried to see the good in her and believe she wasn't THAT evil. I really did.
She couldn't REALLY do that. She wouldn't, surely.
If you bit the bullet and gave her the flick, she'd go quietly.....wouldn't she? Just go back to her blog and her picking fights with people and her strange sense of humour. You wouldn't hear from her again. Well, maybe the odd 'How are you these days' e-mail, but no more of the freaky phone conversations.
She couldn't be that evil. Sure she- she was a complete lunatic. But evil? THAT evil? We'd be talking Rose West levels of evil here, if she did. Countess Elizabeth Bathory. Or Salome with her 'Bring me the head of John the Baptist'.
She COULDN'T be THAT evil.
I dismissed all this as paranoia. It would be ok. Carly would fuck off eventually. If I just ignored her calls, she'd find someone else. It already looked like James Higham was sweet on her. Good. He could take her off my hands and the problem would be solved. She could bore him with her emotional rantings.
James Higham was going to be my knight in shining armour. He'd take her off my hands.
So you'll be surprised to know that one Saturday afternoon in Mid August 2007, I was happily strolling across the park to visit my Mum and the dogs. And as I puffed away on my joint, I congratulated myself somewhat prematurely on having hit upon the perfect way to get rid of unwanted relationships, be they virtual OR real. Line a new boyfriend up for them.
I was so certain that things were all going to be OK, I wasn't exactly stressing about the e-mail in my inbox from Phish.
I had no idea that from that day forward, every day would consist of striving against an onslaught of evil. And this onslaught of evil would go on and on and on. And would not stop until my blog was either destroyed or I killed myself.
+copy.jpg){kind=small}