Well, it seems the cyberstalker has finally got her comeuppences.
I suppose five complaints to her local Police by SEPARATE bloggers of stalking and harassment has that effect.
But now that brings us on to the mystery of Higham. What stands out to me now in retrospect is the seriousness of all this; Higham's lieing. And its very serious consequences.
There can be no doubting that Jacky/Carly Swan is a severely disturbed woman. That must surely be patently obvious to anyone. It isn't immediately obvious. It took me three months to realise that she was a grade one psychotic. By then of course it was too late.
But as regards Higham- he must have known that, he MUST have known that she was not just a pathological liar; she was criminally insane.
He CAN'T have believed her unquestioningly. Sure, even if he believed her lies about myself, he MUST have known about her other cybercrimes.
So- why did he push her lies?
And why did he invent other fabrications? Other non-existent women with similar tales to the cyberstalker?
Or allegations such as the one that I had a homosexual lover at Uni that topped themselves? A fact he MUST have known to be a lie?
Why claim I was founding a sinister online cult, or that my ideas were like Hitlers? Facts he must have KNOWN were lies? Any fool can see I'm the next logical step in the sequence 'Rousseau, Proudhon, Marx, Trotsky, Crushed'.
Why carry out a behind the scenes campaign of spreading malicious defamation to try discredit this blogger and the writings on this blog?
And why cast aspersions on my character- using such emotive terms as sociopathic- when anyone who has spoken to me for more than five minutes can see that I am a person with a very highly defined sense of right and wrong?
In other words- we know what motivated the cyberstalker's campaign of character assassination, rejection. But what motivated his?
And let us not forget the results of his campaign. Not just for myself. The guilty party got away unpunished and continued to commit their cybercrimes on others, getting away with it for longer.
When if Higham had told the truth and acted ethically, she could have been arrested back in 2007. And many, many people would have been safer online.
So it's not just that he lied with the agenda of destroying my blog. It was that his lies protected and encouraged a mentally disturbed woman who belonged in gaol to continue to be an online menace.
When Jacky/Carly Swan carried out what the Kentucky Police make no bones about was a FELONY against another female blogger, was not Higham in a sense an accomplice? Was he not, by his actions, guilty of aiding and abetting a felony. But in fact, of course, he knew she'd done it to another female blogger before.
The more one looks about it in the cold light of day- as I have- the wider implications of Higham's dishonest conduct stand out.
In his war against my blog, he not only completely inverted truth, he pretty much protected the equivalent of an online child molester so they could continue with their crimes.
What would drive someone to DO that?
He's never spoken to me in person- certainly never met me. The only information he has about me are statements made to him by a clearly mentally ill woman. So why hate this blog so much- so much he would deliberately LIE to destroy it?
I realise of course, that like Carly, he lies so well he does not realise he is lieing. He comes to believe his own lies. He thinks people can't be bothered to go back and check the facts. They can't, most often. It's how he gets away with it.
But of course, his whole online image is a lie. And if one reads his blog CLOSELY one can spot the cunning plot devices he uses- like any cunning propagandist does- to divert attention from reality.
I'll deal with that part later.
Anyway, when the insanity of the now-gone-and-not-lamented started to impinge on blogging for sane people (her public row with Phish) he asked me to explain what (if any) was my involvement.
And he knew- because I told him- that it was none. I was not responsible for either party, I was not interested in the dispute except in so far as I was being dragged into it against my will. But as to who was in the right, I had an opinion on that.
Thinking Higham to be basically a 'decent bloke', a man who'd lived a little, who came across as having been around- a man who knew the score- I was quite candid.
However- I made a classic mistake. All of us, I think, judge the world according to our own norms. The blogosphere certainly SEEMS a microcosm of the real world. It has national diversity, people from all walk of life. But- then again it has some rather unusual features.
One is its right wing bias. Quite the opposite to what one would expect. A progressive, forward looking medium should- one would assume- be liberal, left-leaning, tolerant. Extroverted. And yet- it isn't. It is dominated not just by political conservatives, but be people VERY socially conservative in their values and who wrongly believe their values to be 'normal'.
And another peculiar point. So many people online attach way too much significance to 'having a partner'. I can remember one female blogger dear to my heart who continually listed as things wrong with her life that she 'didn't have a regular boyfriend'.
A paradox. Quite a high proportion of people who blog actually BADLY want a 'partner' and haven't got one. If they had one, they'd regard that 'relationship' as an important feature of their life.
Most people in the real world tend to pick up my basic position and respect it; single out of choice. It seems to be a position so many online people just don't get. And yet in real life most people know at least one person who has made that decision. The decision not to make the quest to find a 'life partner' one's main concern. Because to me, it's not important. One can always find women, always find sex, always find intimacy, always find love if one knows where to look.
Whoever wants to give it to me, I'll accept it. But I won't pay anything more for it than it's worth.
I admitted to Higham that numerous people had fallen in love with me over my life and Carly seemed to be one of them. Or thought she was. Nevertheless, that didn't alter the fact she was behaving like a lunatic. OF COURSE I'd led her on, in a sense. I always do, with all women, to some degree. They're interesting for the here and now, but I'll get tired of them, most likely. And with Carly, she was only interesting to me when she was a loyal blog supporter in my early days. But now the blog had grown, I was tired of wasting my time on her. Yes, she'd been used to gratify my short term whims.
And now she was a problem. Because in real life, once I'm tired of a woman, I generally just stop returning their calls. Here, that wasn't an option. And yet, as I pointed out, she had made implied threats. That if I gave her the flick she'd run posts on me saying what a bastard I was and worse. Revealing my real identity and details about my past. And certain of my more extreme sexual tastes. Such as, taking pleasure watching my partners have sex with other men. Specifically, well hung black ones.
So- I needed his help in getting rid of the lunatic. A lot was at stake and for it to get damaged because of a woman's broken heart wouldn't be right. Sure, I had made a mistake and regretted it, but there wasn't much I could do about it now.
But I explained how I couldn't find a way to persuade her to just forget it, just leave me alone and forget my existence.
I explained to Higham what was at stake. Blogging for me wasn't- isn't- 'just a hobby'. It's linked to my raison d'etre.
There are two things I want to accomplish in life. and blogging provided a way to achieve both of them.
One was to write- and get published- the book I want to write. Regular readers will have got the gist of the subject matter. Yes, it's a political work and yes, it's important. I would say it's my 'Das Kapital', my 'Genealogy of Morals', and yes, it draws heavily on those ideas and takes them further. A full study of life by setting human history in context of natural history and explaining the evolution of society to a fully democratic communistic society and beyond, to where anarchy, in the sense of no government any longer being necessary due to the high development of human intelligence and technology.
And yes, Free Love would also feature in that. The book would quite definitely be promoting a whole new set of moral values on sex and love.
So this blog was- and IS- partly about getting that book 'The Rise of the Fourth Tier' written. I've tried writing before, but I don't get very far without continuous feedback. so yes, every single commenter counts, and as diverse a group of commenters as I can get.
And Carly was, whatever she thought, of no more importance to me than any other reader. She had nothing to offer me that I had any interest in, except feedback on the posts. Once her contribution in terms of comments tailed off, she ceased to be of any interest to me.
And of course, by publishing posts online under an assumed name, I was touting for publication. The more plaudits one got, the more links, the higher the blog was rated, the more likely one could get the book published. And the past life of the author wouldn't matter.
Once it WAS published then the past of the author really WOULDN'T matter. You could skip the anonymity. And devote the rest of your life to actively campaigning, actively working, actively engaging in doing what the book would opine would need to be done- and the second point- to me- of blogging. The other thing I wanted to get going through my blog.
The good guys exist, of course. It's just about uniting them. In this country we have the Respect Coalition which encompasses many 'Good guy' groupings, including the Birmingham Socialist Resistance, itself a member group of the Fourth International. Broadly speaking, I think we can say the Fourth International are the good guys. But we need to unite this into a global front for change.
Using the Fourth International and other True Marxist groupings as a nucleus, the Movement needs to bring on like minded groups across europe and the world. Much of the thinking of the Green movement is sound politically, even if not, paradoxically on environmental issues. In fact, their economic and social policies are usually bang on; it's just the swampy type ideas that sometimes lose the plot. But in principle, Greenpeace and certainly animal rights activists have their hearts in the right place. We need these people on board.
And other single issues pressure groups with their hearts in the right place need to know that only the Revolution can deliver for them. Gay Rights groups like Outrage!, feminist groups, ethnic minority groups, these are the people we need.
And there are other groups across the world, organisations already fighting the good fight. In Ireland, elements of Sinn Fein can be deemed sympathetic to the cause of freedom. And one looks to the French and Italian left as trailblazers too. And in Latin America, groups such as FARC are actually fighting the good fight with their very lives. In Nepal, the good guys have made strides, forcing the end of a backward monarchy and giving a sign of hope in a dark world.
Out of all these disparate elements, I believe a true United Front to smash the Capitalist system can be formed. The Good Guys.
I wasn't stupid enough to think I could do it alone. But getting 'The Rise of the Fourth Tier' written and published would be the hard part. Once that was achieved life itself would become a dream. No, I didn't think the royalties and spin offs would make me a millionaire. But hopefully they'd mean I no longer had to serve Capitalism. With my bread and butter guaranteed, with the Revolution already GIVING to me, I could devote the rest of my life to the struggle.
And the internet of course, was one major tool in that plan. But more importantly, once the book was published, I could actually travel.
Devote the rest of my life to what I truly wanted to devote it to. Political meetings, rallies, protests, being part of building up a truly global resistance movement to Capitalism.
Proselytise the Gospel of Free Love and Democratic Communism.
No, I can't do it alone. But 'The Rise of the Fourth Tier' would put the case so that no thinking person who could call themselves a good and decent human being would fail to see what was needed. And it would inspire others to fight for what it right.
The elements I have described above need to be united, the Global Front needs to be more than just an enlarged Fourth International. It needs to be coherant, with a global manifesto. It is not about division, it is about diversity amongst one species. No more nation states, no more corporations, no more private property, no more sexual chastity, no more monogamy, no more government by executive.
We need to be a global movement, the 'United Peoples of Earth'.
It needs one Manifesto, globally, calling for a United States of Earth, the abolition of Capitalism, the setting up of true Democratic Communism.
This can only be achieved by actively spreading the word. And many are there to hear it.
Any honest Christian for a start. Not a PAULICIAN, but a true follower of Christ. Christ was the first revolutionary, Christ was the start of this movement. We need to reclaim him from the forces of Fascism. Christ was about spreading the love. The logical conclusion of Christ's teachings are Free Love and Communism and we need to make that clear.
And ironically, it is in Catholicism we have hope here. The advent of Liberation Theology has proved that WITHIN Catholicism the true voice of Christ is still audible, even if it is not in most Protestant denominations. I don't think it impossible that one day Liberation theology could triumph within Catholicism and the Church actually embrace Marxism and even Free Love.
But ultimately, we need the young, The new generation.
The United Peoples of Earth needs to recruit amongst university students. They are our future. Proselytise Free Love and Communism at every Student Union across the world.
And more. We need to embrace the best instincts of the human species and show people that- far from being vices- these are the virtues of the new age.
The Revolution isn't just about dry politics. It's about changing society. So the 'United Peoples of Earth' needs to get involved in that.
Other political parties hold social events such as barbecues, wine and cheese evenings, etc.
And the parties that we wish to federate together as the United peoples of earth should do the same. As they do. But we need to do more. Push the boundaries. Especially amongst young people.
The Rave scene and the Swing scene. We need these. These should be brought along as instruments of Revolution.
That's what it's all about, you see. That is one Revolutionary value we should be encouraging every young person to take up. Make love to as many people as you can, as an act of resistance to the Fascist/Capitalist/Ingsoc system. The Scottish Socialist Party ran a campaign in schools and colleges a few years ago, against the family values fascists' campaign of 'Abstinence before condoms'. The SSP's campaign was called 'Fuck Abstinence'. The implication is clear.
We should be telling young people; 'Fuck Capitalism'.
Because that is literally what we will be doing. Destroying the strata of family values and sexual chastity on which it relies to create its system of values.
I'd also go so far as to say that the best way to push it to conclusion would be to have a 'Fuck Racism' campaign encouraging people to have as much sex as they can with those of different races and a 'Fuck Homophobia' campaign encouraging young people to engage in same-sex sexual activities.
I think it is clear. The world I offer you is a better, a nicer, a more MORAL, a more DECENT world than the one advocated on Higham's blog.
And it is the vision I want to devote my life to. Fighting for Good.
I didn't, back then, explain all this in detail to Higham. Though I had outlines the concepts to my cyberstalker before I realised she was fruitloops bat shit crazy.
I'm not sure who embellished the facts and made them sound like a sinister cult was intended- him or her. Both, I suspect.
I'm sure he must have ALWAYS known DAMN WELL that my true intentions in blogging were exactly as I have written them above.
After all, you only need to read this blog to know that.
So are we any closer as to the true causes of Higham's lies?
A little, yes.
It is clear Higham's politics are opposed to mine. However. He has never been able to argue coherently against any of my posts in my own comments nor ever bested me in debate in HIS. In an open debate, my views versus his, I'd win.
That debate has always been one he fears; his views versus mine. In public. He always has been. And he knew back in 2007, that's what I wanted. A gentlemanly debate.
And it worried him he'd lose. He would have done, had the debate been fought on fair terms. For simple reasons. My philosophy is well thought and consistent and it is based largely on philosophers people ignore at the peril; Marx and Nietzsche. You cannot ignore these guys. What they say is empirically correct; you can't win a debate against someone who knows- and believes in- Marx and Nietzsche anymore than a Creationist can hope to beat a Darwinist.
Conservatism may well be a point of view but it suffers from a simple flaw; it's wrong.
To debate me fairly would be to show once and for all that Emperor has no clothes.
In other words; Higham knows that if 'The rise of the Fourth Tier' is written and receives a wide readership, the world will change. Just as it did when Darwin wrote 'Origin of the species'.
The scientific and moral case for Free Love and Democratic Communism will be made and- being made by me- will be irrefutable.
And being an intellectual coward, Higham cannot face that victory- the victory of every ideal he fears.
The cowardice of the semi-educated WASP male.
So like the Creationist, he falls back on the line 'It may be logical, but the devil uses logic to deceive us'.
Use of whispering and falsehood. You can't shoot the message so let's try discredit the messenger.
It is a general fact; conservatives of any type fall into three broad categories; those who have not grasped reality, those who seek to hide reality, and those who refuse to see reality. The last type are the most dangerous because they will carry out any atrocity to hide the fact their worldview does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
They will place banners on their blogs glorifying the fact that men earn their bread killing other men in far off places at the behest of Capitalist puppet governments, most of these men knowing nothing of why they die. This, they think, is a good thing. Men killing men. This, they think, is better than men fucking men.
They think its perfectly OK to earn your money working for Goldman Sachs, laundering the profits of third world dictators and people traffickers, but NOT OK to earn your money in the porn industry, say.
So should we surprised these sorts of people are messed up? Morally bankrupt?
And now we move away from the political and move to Higham's support of my cyberstalker's campaign of stalking/harrassment/blackmail, etc, on PERSONAL grounds.
In a civilised society, we have to accept that society is a diverse place. We don't all seek the same things. Not everyone wants to find one person to settle down with in a mutually exclusive sexual relationship 'one woman, one man'.
This phrase keeps appearing on Higham's blog. it is an obsession of is. He tries to cover it, but he certainly think it is morally wrong to indulge in sex with someone of the same sex. And he also believes it is morally wrong to sleep around. He even goes so far as to imply sex outside marriage is morally wrong.
Now people are entitled to believe that. If they want to live like that, no one is stopping them. What they do NOT have the right to do is expect other people to WANT to live like that.
Most of us know it is wrong to persecute people on the basis of their sexuality. But sexual orientation is not so simplistic. And by the same token it is surely wrong to persecute someone on the basis of what makes them tick in terms of what they want out of relationships, as long as what they want is not criminal.
Now in August 2007 I admitted my problem. I explained that my cyberstalker had fallen head over heels in love with me, in spite of not having met me. And I admitted to having encouraged it, to a certain degree. I also made clear that I didn't know two months earlier, that she was such a fruit cake.
I'm NOT a 'one woman, one man' person, I don't believe in it. I hadn't been totally honest with Jacky/Carly/Ubermouth on that front, but then I didn't think I had to be- at that point. We weren't ACTUALLY in a relationship. And as to whether we ever would be, I'd not had much opinion on it, I was just an option I kept open. and now, on the basis of her nutty begaviour I'd decided definitely NO, but how to tell her that without her going psycho on me? I'd seen what she'd do.
Even if I HAD chosen to have a 'relationship' of some sort with her in real life, it would never have been a sexually exclusive one. And one I would have reserved the right to end at any point, as soon as it became a nuisance. That's kind of what I do. Just drift from one woman to the next. And in fact I usually have more than one going at the time.
They're friendships, just friendships with sex as part of it. They last as long as they last. No rules, no commitment. I assume they'll end one day when they want more. But there will never be more. No shared life, no setting up home together- certainly no marriage- just going for drinks together, spending time together here and there- and sex.
That's IT. That's what a 'relationship' MEANS to me. It doesn't stop me being single. I don't REALLY stop thinking- or acting- like a single person would.
Even the pitter patter of tiny feet wouldn't change anything. One has an obligation to one's children, naturally, and I don't believe that should be neglected. If a woman chooses to use my DNA to get pregnant with, naturally I'm honoured and I will do my best to be a good father. But that doesn't mean we should BE together.
After all, if you were to follow that, you'd only end up reproducing with one person. Hardly ideal.
And Higham doesn't like this outlook. Not only that, he resents the fact I make it work for me. That I reject that which he seeks. His blog is in many ways a lament to his two failed marriages. He hasn't made a 'family' work. But he wishes he had.
And here am I. Single out of choice. I don't NEED to make a 'family' work. And it's not a priority.
Anyway, Higham knew I was trying to get Carly off my back in September 2007 and that she was blackmailing me into not giving her the brush off. I told him.
But he didn't care. Jealousy and disapproval skewed his integrity.
But there was more. The bit he AND my stalker put a nasty slant on. And dragged in other of the nastier types that prowl the blogosphere to help spread whispers. To persecute someone on the basis of their sexual wishes. The two main culprits were both fat, bald, bearded drooling perverts, but there were a few malleable women of vulnerable dispositions roped in too.
It was the fact that I had told Carly that I don't mind never finding a 'relationship' that lasts for life, where we live together and have some form of commiment to eachother. But yes, I would like one. Just not of the conventional type.
Carly depicts this as I 'insisted she sleep with multiple black men', which Higham words as a 'Manson type cult involving inter-racial group sex'.
This is a completely false description of reality. Of course, they know the facts are- unusual, though not unique.
I have no power to tell ANYONE what to do in their sex lives. However, it does remain the case that what I'm looking for in a partner is the following deal;
I don't want you to be sexually faithful to me. Not. At. All. In fact, I want you to sleep with as many different men as you possibly can. Only conditions. I'm the only white guy, all the rest are black. And I get to watch, as far as is possible.
Ideally, the TOTAL amount of sex you have with them will be far greater than that you have with me.
And if you're THAT girl...
You get the full right to dictate who I go to bed with. In fact, I'll go to bed with people only if you tell me to and WHOEVER you tell me to.
Believe it or not, this type of relationship- where a man holds a sexually submissive position to a woman with an insatiable lust for, specifically, as many black males as possible- is not uncommon. I am in fact a member of several internet forums where people in these relationships discuss them. It's generally known as the 'Cuckolds' community. The white males are known as 'cucks' the black males as 'bulls'.
The best known ambassador for the ideal is Candy Monroe, a kind of internet heroine to the Cuckold Community.
So it's not that I seek to FORCE any woman to do this. And I'm perfectly capable of having relationships with women who DON'T desire it. Just that those relationships can never REALLY be what I'm looking for.
I'm looking for a woman who WANTS to be like Candy Monroe and WANTS a man who'll love her for it.
I guess most men find this idea bizarre. That in my ideal world, I'd NEVER be making love to a 'faithful' woman. I'd ALWAYS be making love to a woman who'd had four or five different well endowed black men inside her since I'd last been there.
And the side issues as well perplex some. One of the nastier creatures Higham and my stalker set upon me mailed me once saying 'It is my opinion that a man who likes his ladyfriends to sleep with black men secretly wants black cocks inside HIM'.
Moot point. No, I've never done it. But if my Candy Monroe girlfriend decreed that to get to make love to HER, I had to take one of her lovers each time- yes, it would be worth it. I'd do it.
So yes, I'd rather get fucked by a black man so as to make love to a woman who has ALWAYS had many black men inside her before me than have a sexually faithful partner.
I'm not quite sure why this makes me a bad person.
It doesn't stop me being a NICE person and that's the point. I want this but am a nice person. Carly and Higham don't want this and yet AREN'T nice people. Your sexual inclinations don't make you a good or a bad person- unless we're talking about those who desire non-consensual activities. What DOES make you a bad person is...
Behaving the way Carly does to people. And actually, behaving the way Higham does to people. Victimising people on the basis of their sexual peccadilloes.
Now, I kind of expected some support from Higham back in 2007. for obvious reasons. Carly was barking mad. It was the fact she actually thought that me and her- two people who had never MET- were in a 'relationship'. How can you be? No matter what definition you put on it, to actually be in a relationship, people need to be in a position where sex is physically possible. If they aren't, then it's not a 'relationship', just a 'might be'.
And yes, I'd erred in allowing her to believe it was 'will be', and erred also in not specfiying what sort of 'might be' was open to her. But being a sane person, I thought-realistically- that that was a bridge to be crossed when one came to it. None of it was real until- and if- we ever met. And realistically? We most likely WOULD never meet.
That surely HAD to be the sane way of looking at it.
And on the basis of how she behaved- I just wanted her to fuck off. But at the same time I didn't want to hurt her feelings. Why? Because I knew she'd go psycho if rejected.
I knew she was the sort of person who would start trying to damage my blog if I rejected her. By trying to spread poison about me amongst other bloggers. she wouldn't accept a 'Goodbye Carly. I don't want to talk about this. Not now, not ever. Go off and go back to your own life. And forget about me'.
And I needed help. She scared the shit out of me. On the basis of what I'd seen of how she treated Phish.
And I kind of assumed Higham would be sane and see 'Jesus Christ. You're right. I can see why you wouldn't want her in your life. You don't want to be nasty but- no one should have to have this sort of aggro.
But what he used against me- were the nastier of her lies. When she was stalking and harrassing me, I tried laying it straight with her. She wasn't- and never had been to my mind- a 'relationship'. But even if she had been, it could never have been under the terms she wanted.
I go through numerous 'relationships' of sorts. And where I put the lines are different to other people. People are either friends or acquiantances. I actually don't much go for sex with total strangers, though naturally, if asked, I don't turn it down. I prefer the 'frends with benefit' scenario.
And in all honesty, that was all that was ever available to Carly. Perhaps a very GOOD friend with benefit- but even that, only after several years. Good friendships don't just turn up after a few months telephone conversations.
And why I had no interest in taking it further was- she wasn't even behaving like a FRIEND. I would soon stop being friends with someone who kept phoning me when I kept telling them I was busy, wrote things about me online without consulting me first and e-mailed other blogging friends of mine, got into rows with them and then expected me to join in.
To say NOTHING of threatening my flatmate- a person far higher up the pecking order in terms of my friendships than Carly could EVER hope to be.
And what REALLY turned Carly into an evil psychopath was partly her rejection- which had been her own fault- but also what was on offer to her and WHY she would never have that position she wanted of 'girlfriend'. That position described above. Because that title, to me, has the sanctity most people would give to 'wife'. The fact I sleep with you might make you a very good friend, it doesn't make you my girlfriend.
In fact, we could have children together, it wouldn't make you my girlfriend. In fact, I can see any number of women romantically at one time and NONE of them be my girlfriend. That position is reserved for the right person. And Carly could never be that.
You see, in spite of what Carly and Higham claim, I don't force women to sleep with black men. Why would I want to do that? Then it wouldn't be what she wanted, it wouldn't be love. The woman I'm looking for WANTS to.
And clearly there are couples out there who find eachother. Couples who 'live the dream' as I call it. There are women out there who secretly would love to have the chance to get to sleep with many, many black men and yet STILL have a loving, lifelong relationship with a man who loves them, not in spite of it, but BECAUSE of it.
And I don't expect the guys living the dream first approached the woman they now live together as cuckolded husband and BCW wife by saying 'Hi. I'd like to watch you get spitroasted by Lexington Steele and Justin Slayer'. But when one day he brought it up, she felt a quiver of pleasure and KNEW she'd found her man.
And I'd be a liar to myself if I settled down with a woman who didn't want that. who wanted to be faithful to me. Because i'd hate it just as much as most men would hate having a girlfriend who cheated on them. Or like a gay man forced to live in the clset with a wife and children.
So no, I don't force it on women. I can have happy relationships with women- and do- where we both have a good time. As long as they know they can NEVER be the one. In that sense, I'm still looking and always will be till I find it.
But that doesn't mean that aside from that, and as long as she doesn't expect me to either be exclusive to her, or class her as my girlfriend, or move in with her, or otherwise change my life or plan my life around her....
Yes, we can have a good time. We can be very, very good friends. And sex can be one of the things we do togetger. We can even, one day, be as close as I am with my closest friends. The only thing out of bounds is being Ms Crushed.
But that isn't a problem, really. Not for many women. I'm good for a fling. And a fling with me is good fun, as long as you don't take it seriously. I'm a fairly attentive person to spend time with and I'm quite a sensuous lover.
I don't shout, I'm good tempered. I'm charming, witty, knowledgeable. Yeah, as long as you don't want anything from me, we can always be good friends of the type who play a lot of the 'hide the sausage' game together variety.
Now Higham clearly doesn't take to this attitude to relationships and sex.
fine, he doesn't have to. But nor do I have to take to his 'No sex outside marriage' 'One woman, one man' 'Gay sex is wrong' bigotry either.
You do what you want in YOUR bedroom, I'll do what I- and the other person- want to do in mine.
And to accuse my values of being 'sociopathic' just because they aren't YOURS makes a persecuting, witch-hunting BIGOT.
The point is, my values are based on consent. I don't actually force women to do anything. AND I don't encourage them either. But any woman who wants to go to bed with me, fine. As long as she's hot. Or has a great personality. Or both. Well actually, as long as she's not a dog or a gorgon.
What Higham seems to object to is that the position Carly wanted to have and which thinks I led her to believe she could have- is only available to women who- have a fervent desire to cuckold me with black men.
So she doesn't fit the bill. Not to be Ms Crushed, no. Nothing she could ever do could make her fit that bill. And yes, it's because she would want to be sexually faithful. And I just don't WANT that.
But to accuse me of using my blog to FIND a woman who does and 'lure them' into being that woman is patently ridiculous. The woman who wants to do that ALREADY wants to do it. And yes, I will sometimes when getting to know a woman ask her questions which lead me to assess how she feels about that. And once that's done? I know if she's a potential Ms Crushed or just a potential 'Good friend with benefit'.
I want her to 'live the dream' because she WANTS to.
But you see, Hgham, thinks it evil just to think like that. And because I feel like that, I shouldn't be allowed to talk to other people. Certainly not be 174th UK political blogger.
Hwever, stalking someone, harassing someone, blackmailing someone, harassing their friends and family, that's OK, apparently.
So because of all this, Higham thinks it to be MORALLY justifiable to LIE about me. It was MORALLY justifiable to persecute me, just as it was MORALLY justifiable for Carly to stalk me.
And so we see the true moral difference between Higham and me. My values are based on consent and individual freedom. Higham's are based on telling other people how to live their lives, as if he- with two failed marriages behind him and no freinds in real life- is in any position to judge ANYONE.
And a man who thinks a woman who behaves like Jacky/Carly/Ubermouth- actually causing real distress to many, many people is not an evil piece of work and yet I am 'evil' simply because I happen to be a Trotskyite whose ideal is to live in an open relationship with a woman who has many black male lovers.
When it comes to morals, James Higham, you have no idea where to begin.
But let me give you a clue.
Jesus Christ would turn in his grave at the thought of YOU calling yourself a Christian. You are not a Christian. You are a Paulician, a Pharasee.
I, on the other hand KNOW that Jesus Christ would approve of EVERY word I have written here.
I know I'm a GOOD person and a NICE person. You, James Higham, are neither.
The funny thing, I never persecuted this guy. I never had any problem with his views. I thought they were WRONG, but only ever sought to debate with him. I DID- rightfully- expect assistance when I was in the clutches of a psychotic lunatic who wouldn't stop stalking me long after being told to piss off.
He's treacherous, dishonest, disingenous, bigoted, intolerant, dictatorial, cowardly, spineless, whining, thinks he's better educated in philosophy and the ways of the world than he is and...
He's a fraud, a sycophant, a chameleon, a bender of truth. Not only that, he's a sanctimonious, preaching bore, hiding his twisted sexual rage, the fact that women in real life find him as charming as Albert Steptoe behind a mask of Pecksniffian prudery.
He's a peddlar of a mish-mash of right wing conspiracy theory, Boy's Own magazine manhood and hypocritical, witch hunting puritanism, he is a meddle aged failure raging at the values of the world which he feels never gave him what it should. And it's the fault of all these 'new fangled' ideas.
Back in the Shire, he'd have been fine. So what went wrong, what made it Mordor?
People like YOU did, Higham. People like you. You aren't Frodo. You're Ted Sandyman.
Time and time again, I've offered Higham the olive branch. Look, I'll make peace. But you got to stop your lieing. Tell the truth. And we'll leave it that. You tell the truth and you apologise.
But it's not happened.
And it's not going to. He lacks the integrity for that. Not man enough, for all his cant about what makes a real man.
Because being an honest, decent person is just not his thing.
He isn't interested in fighting for the truth. Just fighting to be the prancing prince of a medium he thinks should be reserved for those who bow down to his worldview.
But the reality is; The emperor has no clothes.
He's just another bore in the bar regurgitating unthinking right wing drivel and half truths, another false internet facade of a human being with no loyalty, no principle and no personal integrity. A mediocre writer who sustains his tedious blog by charming middle aged women who live alone, fauning unctiously to like minded bloggers and railing sanctimoniously at left wing bloggers, liberals, feminists and socialists.
And a man who fights dirty and deceitfully.
Not a nice man at all. And not a principled one. And actually, a bit of a bully.
Well, I say once again.
I'm still here, Higham. And I'm still right and you're still wrong, politically.
I still have the truth on my side and you're still a brazen liar. You're still know what you did, what you have condoned and the very real things you have on your conscience.
If you truly have one.
And I'm still the true CHRISTIAN and you're not.
I'll see you around, Mr Higham. That's a promise.
+copy.jpg){kind=small}
0 comments:
Post a Comment