Nourishing Obscurity Part Four: The Rotten Pseudo-Morality Jeremy Hartley Lives by

Jeremy Hartley is a little boy who never grew up.

Just as Carly Swan is a little girl who never grew up.

And little boys and little girls- if they masquerade as adults- can be very dangerous. And it's about accepting- learning- that something your parents told you was true isn't. Four years ago, I made the mistake of thinking both these people were people of the world, mature- and even good- people.

The last four years have showed me just how much evil a human being will do to cling to a lie. Both Jeremy Hartley and Carly carry out their Evil- ultimately- because they are so CHILDISH they think 'being in love' is in any sense a basis for a personal relationship. One can understand why they think so. Our cultural history was based on the fallacy. Marry the first person you sleep with so you won't get much experience of it and by the time you realise the premise is daft you'll either have become good friends- the only REAL basis for a relationship, or the kids will be in their teens anyway. Job done. You can't get a divorce either way and anyway, once the kids are grown up not long till you'll be dead, so why worry?

Thing is- life has changed. These days, most of realise by about twenty-four that 'being in love' is just no basis AT ALL for any sort of relationship. It doesn't- in itself- guarantee you'll be FRIENDS. Vote the same way, think the same way, have the same tastes, never disagree. It's an emotion. A subjective aesthetic judgement. Feels nice, sure, but being 'in love' with someone doesn't in any sense mean you can form a lasting friendship. Lasting friendships take a long time to form. They don't form because you are drawn to eachother, they form because you happen to end up being thrown together. You GROW together. I'm not sure I even LIKED my best mate- as he now is- when I first met him. Certainly I didn't figure that first evening we'd grow to care about eachother the way we now do. It probably took me a year to really get to like him. And fourteen years to build what we now have. That's fourteen years of doing things together we both enjoyed, agreeing with eachother on most things, thinking the same, enjoying eachother's company, not arguing. Complementing eachother. Making eachother's lives more fulfilled. It's not a FEELING, it's a symbiotic synthesis.

Those are the only relationships that CAN work. Ones where you don't so much feel their presence as you would feel their absence, as if it was an amputation. I sum my friendship up with my best mate in one simple sentence 'He's the only person whose presence in a room could be treated by myself as comparable in sense of comfort to being alone. I could do in front of him anything I could do alone, pretty much'.

'Feelings' don't give you that. Evolution of your lives give you that. The slow march of time and events. I didn't CHOOSE him as my best mate. He became it. It's- almost like having a twin brother, in some ways.

My Father was recently putting forward his view on 'relationships' and I have to say I refuted him in a manner gave him pause for thought. He advanced the view 'All relationships need time and effort invested in them. Work. You young folk just aren't prepared to go through the hardship'. I replied 'False. A working friendship turns out to be the perfect bargain; whatever is invested in it, timewise and moneywise, doesn't feel like an investment. That's the point. If it FEELs like 'investing', it isn't working. In a working friendship, it's the perfect synergy. What I put into it FEELS like I'm spending on myself. I invest, but I don't notice I am. Because I ENJOY the investmentment'. For once- my reactionary right wing father smiled and conceded.

So- what PLEASURE would someone like me possibly get out of a relationship/friendship with someone like Carly Swan? Well- there IS a pleasure to be gained from people like Carly. And it IS an altruistic one. I'm not going to pretend I ever saw Carly as my intellectual- or my moral equal. But that is the point. The joy in a friendship with people like her is in educating her. Raising her up. Enlightening her. We can never be equals because her intellectual and moral level is at the mundane; operating for herself and not for the common social good. But to bring her up to at least be a semi-enlightened human being, yes, it's a joy. Just as teaching a child is a joy- when you see the child learning.

I understand the mentality of people like Carly. They have been fed on crap such as 'be yourself' and 'let your feelings show' and other crap. That it's important to be SINCERE and GENUINE. Which is not true of course. It's most important to be nice and polite. If your feelings are not pleasant to others, you should NOT let them show. But people like Carly are insecure. They know, deep down, they are plain and not very interesting. And yes, this gives one a power over them. I concede that.

A friendship with someone like Carly gives you power over them. They want to keep you simply because of who you are, because you give them pleasure. They, in themselves give you no pleasure. The pleasure is in using your influence over them to reform them. The pleasure is when you start to hear them moderating their speech; where before they might have used a politically incorrect term, now they think before they open their mouths. The pleasure is in watching as they start- slowly- to learn to replace confrontation with passive assertiveness, to replace 'love and hate' with a blanket courtesy to all, as they learn to suppress PASSION and replace it instead with a desire to make their behaviour what others want it to be.

It is a regrettable tendancy in modern society- and totally against the trend of progress- to have created a new form of villainy which just doesn't make sense, logically. 'Manipulation'. What, after all, is manipulation but a soft focus way of achieving your goals whilst avoiding confrontation? If we are to completely eradicate confrontation, arguing, fighting, etc, then 'manipulation' is the only real way we can expect human beings to interact. It is not, in itself a dirty word, nor should it be seen as such.

The whole point of 'manipulation' is turning human existence- and emotions- as far as possible into a non-contact sport- like chess- rather than a violent, unpleasant excerise like, say, Rugby Football. The only interest I ever had in Carly Swan was her reform. That was the only joy I could possibly gain from her. And to be honest- at first I did achieve joy on this front. During the first month or so I knew her, she got into a fight with another blogger and deleted her Ubermouth blog with rage. But I set up a new blog for her- a nicer blog with a NICER persona. Because- let's be honest- having an online persona called 'Ubermouth' is part of the problem. It's not a nice word and it suggests not a nice person. I only visited the blog in the first place because Ms Smack promoted her and I wanted to please Ms Smack. There's no way, all things being equal, I'd WANT to read a blog called 'Ubermouth'. Anyway, after she had a row with Ms Smack and deleted 'Ubermouth', I actually created her a new blog. As you'll see, I was happy putting my name to it. 'Freya Speaks' is a NICE name for a NICE girl.

But Freya Speaks didn't last long. No, after a month she regressed to 'The Ego' and then back to 'Ubermouth'. Regression. What exactly would I consider reform?

Well, letting go of the Ubermouth persona, big part of it. It says a lot about how you see yourself. And to be PROUD of it, well. It's like being proud of being a stockbroker; becoming ashamed of being a stockbroker is something you're going to have to do before you can become a decent human being. But then there's the point about fighting. Now- when we see an argument going on, sometimes we may well say, as my Gran used to 'Six of one, half a dozen of the other'. Sometimes it is so. Nevertheless, there are some cases of two people in a room who could never argue. Now here's the thing- it is possible to avoid rows WITHOUT being submissive and giving in. One can turn the other cheek assertively.

Point one. Don't cause a row. If you're upset, you don't have to confront the person who has made you upset. If you do, they may well defend themselves- because they feel upset now. They then retaliate and upset YOU further. So, do the opposite to confronting them. Sulk. Let them work it out. They'll notice suddenly they've 'lost' you- in any sense that matters, as in, you're being moody. Let them come to you and grovel.

If- on the other hand- someone tries to bring a row to you because THEY are upset, just remember this. It doesn't matter if they have grounds to be upset or not; don't defend yourself. If you defend yourself, you lose the highground. Because, you see, if they carry on trying to row and you don't defend yourself then it doesn't matter why they're upset. You're in the right either way through not defending yourself.

Again, what you really think and feel matter not; it's how you come across. It doesn't matter who you like or don't like; it's your social duty to at least TRY to pretend you like everybody. If everybody did the same we'd likely find we DID like everybody. It's actually because we 're all 'being ourselves' and 'expressing our genuine emotions' that we DON'T get on. 'Faking it' a little is actually more socially responsible.




The problem with people like Carly Swan is they attach too much attention to 'genuineness'. Thing is, whether people are genuine or sincere or not is completely unprovable. So people like that are left with assuming that bad behaviour must be genuine. Which is probably true. I guess people don't fake unpleasant behaviour. So therefore these sorts of people are left in a world where you respect the people who prove how genuine they are by being unpleasant. People like William Gruff, or Baht At. People who are, indeed, GENUINELY unpleasant.

Me? I don't make any pretence to be 'genuine'. I just go for being pleasant. To ensure- as I put it- that I don't under any circumstances put words that aren't nice together in sentences that don't sound nice and I make sure I don't use a voice that isn't nice.

Shallow? No, not really. This concept of genuine is a fallacy. Facts are another thing. I don't make the mistake of thinking I'm actually real, unlike people like Hartley or Carly Swan. There IS no genuine me, it's a self created construct and I can be just who I want to be- as can Carly. Opting to be an 'Ubermouth' doesn't make it any more real. Being 'genuine' and 'sincere' is simply refusing to control the person you are because you don't want to accept you don't exist; that you're just a set of varying chemical states you call feelings tied together loosely by a databank you think is a coherent narrative memory. Most of 'you' is fake anyway. You created it. The question is, is what you created any good? Could you create better?

The only thing that is REAL about me is my logical processes. My mind. Because I can't fake that. All the rest of your personality, your 'feelings', your 'emotions', your name even, it's all a construct. You choose to make it real. What's important is that we all have a role to play; to fulfill a function. and that function is to play an active role in the collective and give as much pleasure to as many people as we can whilst learning as much- and getting as much pleasure as we can. Is this to be achieved by always being 'genuine'? No, it is to be achieved by striving as far as possible to be what I describe as 'emotionally hygienic'. By which I mean I don't want to watch other people take a shit. Nor do I want to hear people using unpleasant words constructed in unpleasant sentences said in an unpleasant way. If the emotions you are feeling aren't pleasant- FAKE IT.

I digress perhaps. I don't expect you to agree with me. But nevertheless, it is the life philosophy I promote and which I live by myself. It is the basic belief that human existence would be better if emotions such as anger, hatred and jealousy did not exist. Indeed, passion generally- using the accepted definition of passion as violent emotion. Therefore it is the duty of all of us to ensure we try our hardest NOT to allow passions to affect us. Emotions, fine. Passions should be a big NO NO.

Which is why- to a certain degree- I find this idea of 'Falling in love' something- as a species- we should have grown out of. Maybe it had a function once, so did hunting, knowing how to use a sword, knowing how to skin animals etcetera, but nowadays I think it does more harm than good. It isn't in my view LOVE in the true sense of the word, merely crushes encouraged to extremes because we haven't encouraged people to come to terms with them. Which is how I'd describe Carly Swan's 'feelings' towards myself. She says 'we never had a friendship'. Meaning, presumably, on her part were no feelings of friendship but merely 'passions'. A crush then. Something not based on mutual affinity, intellectal agreement and ENJOYMENT of eachother's company, but something based on 'chemistry', desire...

....how can a 'Christian' such as Hartley censure 'lust' but promote this sort of thing? It doesn't make sense. and nor is it Christian. Were Hartley a PROPER Christian, he'd know that the Catholic Church- which takes Marriage far more seriously than he does- reserves the right to refuse permission to marry. The Catholic Church can and does refuse to marry people on the grounds that whilst they may well be 'in love', the Church doesn't feel it's enough. They are chalk and cheese. It's just 'passion' and not genuine affinity of the sort which keeps people FRIENDS. Indeed, much of the drivel he writes about Marriage would raise eyebrows in a Catholic cleric.

In many ways my attitude to Carly Swan's 'feelings' was not dictated so much by my modern, Free Love attitude to sex but my far more traditional CATHOLIC attitude to what is emotionally wholesome. I have long viewed 'being in love' as one of those little temptations one faces in life- if there is indeed a Satan, falling in love is the greatest temptation of all to Evil.

And it can be shown here in Hartley's own thinking; 'Joe, it's unsustainable and I don't mean just the women's minds being trashed [and they can trash men very, very well]. It reduces us guys into Mike Tyson beasts with one difference - we're still pretty on the outside. We need a rock to hang onto and I have one but I'm no preacher. The guy with no rock goes over the waterfall. There comes a time when mental discipline and sticking to one woman, with all her faults is the only option but this demands a huge price of discarding all the others we have on the end of a telephone. We pour the emotions and fragilities into the one woman as both slowly, bit by bit get into one another.'

No, THAT cannot be your rock, Hartley. That is the road to Hell. Your rock can only ever be God. Which is why, Hartley, your bastardised sham Christianity is nothing but Pharasaism. There is no God in it, only a load of bible quotes.

Which brings us back to Carly's sin. For a long time I tried to persuade to simply resist the urge to dial my number every time she had it. To just forget it, work on suppressing her feelings and when she did so we could be friends. Because we had established- and she herself admitted it then- and admits it now- she had no feelings of friendship for me. So, by simple deduction we can only label such feelings what they were; Passion. As in, EVIL. A desire to 'have a relationship' with someone who wouldn't be your friend if you didn't have those 'passionate feelings'. And you would- even if they returned your feelings- likely fight cat and dog with. In this case, there was no 'likely' about it. The case was proven. Carly continually failed to get the point. It wouldn't matter what I FELT for her, except in as much that if I felt the same, I too could be misled by Evil. As people, we didn't agree on much, we had temperaments which were unsuited, interests that diverged, life philosophies that did not reconcile; feelings were a distraction. Any connection between us would yield a number of rows and instances of confrontation, possibly involving others in direct proportion to the amount of time we spent talking.

So- were I to be madly in love with her, morally, the judgement would be the same. We shouldn't talk. Ever. The sooner any feelings either of us had were desytroyed and harmony could return, the better. Carly likes to focus on the- rather irrelevant in my book- fact I had no 'passionate feelings' for her at all. That the most I ever saw her being, in truth, was a friend. Thing is, that's my point. Had I seen her as anything else, I wouldn't have bothered. It was the fact I believed a friendship to be possible that had motivated me. Because to me, a friendship and a 'relationship' are merely interchangeable terms distinguished by the rather insignificant fact that a latter is with the gender one prefers to have sex with.

This was not possible with Carly because her 'feelings' got in the way. The correct answer to her perpetual strident question 'Do you want a relationship with me?' had, in fact, the same answer it would have to ANY woman, regardless of 'feelings'. 'If a friendship and a relationship mean one and the same to you, yes. If not, no, I just want to be your friend'. I wouldn't want to be 'in a relationship' with a woman I WAS in love with (and her me), if we weren't friends. I'd rather be 'in a relationship' with a woman I'm not in love with (or her me), but we're friends.

Because that is what it is all about; friendship. And this is why I say 'falling in love' can be a remptation to Evil. Because one doesn't choose one's friendships; if you want to say God chooses them, she does. You are thrown together, you grow together. If it is the will of God that you are thrown into a friendship with someone you also happen to be in love with, then all well and good. The temptation to evil is that your FEELINGS will cause you to strive towards a connection that is Evil. And that connection might not be because either of you are Evil yourselves, but because the connection might well not be such as friendships are built from, only tempestuous passions.

This has been my attitude in adult life. Just because one falls in love with someone doesn't mean one should seek a relationship with them. You try and see if you get on as friends and can form a connection that involves both of you independently pursuing your own life goals and yet in doing so, find that your interests combine and you enjoy eachother as friends. Put bluntly, you need to know that you'll NEVER argue, no matter WHAT the circumstances. It takes months, if not years to know if such a friendship works. Time is the judge of that. Large amounts of time spent together without ever disagreeing.

Real Love- TRUE Love- and being in love, whilst nice, is when all said and done merely a pleasure like any other- is when separate individuals evolve together into a harmonious collective of two or more, working together for mutual interests- including pleasure.

That is the attitude of a mature adult and I'm sorry to say it isn't the attitude of Carly Swan. But we knew that. The fact is, however, it isn't the attitude of Jeremy Hartley either. People like Carly actually LIKE 'passionate fighting' in their relationships because if there's passion and fighting the emotions must be 'real', right? They then get off on the intensity of the experience.

Horses for courses. I derive that same intensity of experience from MASTERING my emotions, not abandoning myself to them. Creating a truly transcendant sense of mastery over oneself for Love that makes one feel a truly sexual/spiritual connection with God. To me, that 'passion' connection between two people is abandoning onself in animal nature, mutual wallowing in the degraded animal inside you, it is a powerful connection but not a true trinity- and that is the truest of all sexual/spiritual connections; one between you, her and- God. Such a connection was not one that Carly and I could form- and hence the one she SOUGHT to form could only ever be Evil.

It's just not a sort of connection I want to have with anybody. I have got to past thirty with a minimum of unpleasantness. I'm not saying I haven't been in some 'sticky sutuations'- but I have generally managed to avoid confrontation and argy bargy. Ultimately, my number one priority with any human being is first and foremost not to express anger, hatred or jealousy towards them- to ensure that whatever happens we can communicate smiling. Anything else is a bonus. I don't WANT to have a connection with someone I MIGHT at some point have a row with.

Ultimately, Hartley should have seen- as anyone sane can- what was really motivating Carly Swan's stalking and harrassment. She has such a high opinion of herself that she truly belives that she can shout at someone and scream and threaten and blubber but after she's done all that, they'll 'love her' so much they can just forget about the being shouted at.

The wise forgive but don't forget. It happened once, it could happen again. My own view on Carly's 'strong, in yer face' personality (as she sees it) is that it's just too bloody much for ordinary mortals to deal with. She's too over the top in everything she does for my tastes. After having had to talk to her on the phone four years ago for a few months, my main conclusion- after her rows with Phish and Ms Smack and subsequent blubberings, shoutings, threats, stalker mails, etc, were that I could quite happily NEVER meet such a person ever again. I've had my fill of 'strong, in yer face' personalities to last a life time. For one thing, it's quite hard to focus on what you're reading when they yammer on and on about their tedious emotions. And they actually expect you to listen as if it's actually interesting.

I don't actually think Carly IS a strong person. Like all 'in yer face' people, it's just a front created by their own insecurity, just as the 'sincere' 'genuine'(euphemism for loud, nasty, gobby trailer trash) personality is a actually a fake, a load of hot air used to fill in for the LACK of any substance. People with real depth are too complex to be 'genuine'. They think too much. But what Carly was angry and upset about- really- was having put herself in a fairly tiny category of people I genuinely would NOT want to spend any time with at all. BECAUSE of her feelings. No, I could never be 'in love' with someone like her. She just doesn't have that little lost puppy quality. That's what I fall in love with. I am attracted sexually to all sorts of women, but I fall in love with the ones make me want to keep them as pets. Carly isn't exactly pet material. That doesn't mean I seek relationships with such women- they are the sorts I fall in love with. I seek relationships/friendships with any woman who wants to be my friend and if she wants that friendship to be a relationship- well as long as she says it as I do, friends who go the whole way, then that's fine. Of course it would be nice to have that someone who also made you feel all tingly inside but at the end of the day, if God wants you to have that, she'll make sure such a woman becomes your friend.

What Carly was REALLY angry about was that I refused to have anything to do with her yet flirted with every woman online bar her. Of course I did. I had no reason to believe any of those women- no matter how much we chatted, or even flirted, would ever think we were 'in a relationship' or develop the unwholesome feelings Carly did. We were able to have quite amicable friendships and chat for hours without And I found every one of them preferable to talk to- including Carly's 'archenemy', Ms Smack.

That was Carly's real gripe. That the net effect of her expressing her feelings were that I'd rather talk to ANY woman than her; it was not hatred I felt for her, just revulsion. And that revulsion wasn't on the basis of her looks, but her personality. Her 'strong, in yer face' personality' of which she is so- er- 'proud'. It was a case of I didn't want to be 'loved' BY Carly- because I found the experience of being loved BY Carly to be unpleasant. And I'd rather not be loved at all than be loved by someone the way Carly 'loved' me. I derived no pleasure from being 'loved' by her at all- quite the reverse. Because the 'emotion' she felt was not, in my view, love at all. Certainly it did her no good.

Contrary to her view- which I cannot in all seriousness think she actually entertained-I derive no pleasure from seeing people humiliated. What saddened me was how much she was prepared to degrade HERSELF. Because that was what she was doing. All her nastiness, all her unpleasantness, all her clinginess, all her hankerings, all her panty protestations of love snarled down a phone while she cheerfully ran off abusive mails bullying other women away, all they proved was how little dignity she had.

Begging and bullying aren't too far apart; they are both a squalid attempt to gain what you can't obtain by simple power of persuasion. I love myself too much to degrade myself to such a level. Pride, it is perhaps my saving grace. I am too proud to get down on my knees and beg. I have an image in my head of an idealised version of myself I seek to live up to and I never lose site of it.

I don't know how Hartley sees himself- a little between James Bond and Sir Galahad, methinks. Perhaps he tries to live up to it, I don't know. Nor do I know how Carly sees herself- or what she aspires to be. Myself- no matter what I've been through- I try keep myself as a frail, waifish, fragile little boy, pure and innocent of the Evils of passion, a simple pleasure seeker. I try and see myself as Tripitaka, as Frodo Baggins, as- an ascetic aesthete if that makes sense. Oh, I know I am five foot six and nine and a half stone, I know I have stubble. But in my mind I am barely three feet tall and I have no weight at all, and in appearance I am curiously sexless, hard to guess age or gender, am I elf, fairy, sprite, djinn, boy monk or Eloi?

Either way my purity is in my vulnerability and my vulnerability is in my purity. That, essentially, is what this blog was set up to protect; the innate purity of the human spirit which human enlightenment has now enabled to reach a level of civilisation where it can truly be freed from the lumbering animal hulk that was it's progenitor.

Homo Sapiens has had it's day. 'Tis still a base brute beast after all, all hulking and sweating with it's vile passions.

Homo Illuminatus, the successor species, frail and fragile of form, pretty in face, frivolous in spirit, ruhlessly logical in mind is coming. A collective species, where individual is unique but interdependent, a helpless child on it's own but collectively God.

That is my faith. And I want to live my life as aspirant to Homo Illuminatus, not as a throwback to homo Erectus, which is how Jeremy Hartley and Carly Swan choose to live their lives. Here is his own account of his 'relationship' with a Russian girl called Anya two decades his junior. 'I came back here in 2008, after 12 years away in Russia and it's been very difficult to settle in. There I had one girlfriend, virtually a wife, for so many years and a few fellow bloggers have met her, especially when we went to Sicily. She was decades younger than me and we made one fundamental error - we thought we could overcome the age gap....... .....We were so into one another and I'm sure you were too. In the blogosphere, I made the error of blogging about my experiences and it looked as if the girls I wrote of I was going with. This was not so because I had Anya but we also had a very volatile relationship and whenever we were apart, men would come straight onto her and I had any number of girls who were friends to step into the breach.... ....As I knew so many girls, I was constantly accused, but never by the girls, of coming on. You can judge if this email now is a come-on or not. I can say with my hand on my heart that I never once came on and the reason was that I had a sensitive job for 10 years, a professor of English. ... .... So, when you mention the 40 year difference, well, we weren't that far apart in our case but I do understand how intense it can be. No one who hasn't been in that situation can know what it's like. You fuse with the other person and to me, that's the highest thing possible and all my writing on relationships is probably an attempt to recapture that for everyone else to experience - highly unrealistic but as you said, I have my head in the clouds - you weren't wrong there. Sadly, (name removed), if you have done, in your life, what I suspect you have, you are going to find it near impossible for such a long time to find anyone who will measure up to what you had. This is why Anya and I cannot sever the ties, while I successfully severed the ties with my former wife. It wrecks us for the future. This is why I get so angry when people, mainly men, nudge nudge and accuse me of what is so far from what I want. This is why I write as I do, trying to recapture something which has been lost. I want you to find someone soon who has qualities you looked for and once found but who's also different. What makes it even sicker is this disgusting animal is here ADVISING a woman in her early twenties about 'love'. And yet his whole worldview described here is utterly CHILDISH. What he writes about is NOT Love at all and for all his cant about being a Christian, his words would cause Jesus to turn in his grave!.




You see- here's my view- as a CHRISTIAN. And it was this whole viewpoint caused me to rebuff Carly Swan- more in sorrow than in anger. What’s being described by Hartley is not LOVE. It isn’t. And that’s what makes the worldview Jeremy Hartley has incompatible with what he claims- continuity with the philosophical framework of thinking started by Jesus and leading ultimately to Marx- and of which Free Love is in fact the logical conclusion- not this abomination of thinking promoted by Hartley.

‘In Love’ is NOT Love, not how Jesus meant it. It’s a pity perhaps we use such a similar word. It confuses. But do you think God loves you the way Hartley describes his ‘love’ for Anya? Is that how we are all meant to love our brothers and sisters? Of course not. If we can love eachother with a bit of affection and even feel real emotions for eachother, all well and good. It is not wrong in itself to be in love. But when it gets in the way of TRUE Love, oh yes it is.

And that is the sin Hartley encourages- and pardons in my erstwhile stalker Carly Swan. It is a notable point that the King James translation translates as ‘charity’ what other translations translate as Love. That is the clue. The clue to what LOVE and CHARITY both are, in truth. The same thing. Our fake charity of today is not charity because it is not love and our love is not love because it is not charity. What is being described by Jesus is something purer and more noble than what Hartley in his lack of understanding sees of Love. Love is EMOTIONAL SOCIALISM, it is Socialism, not as an empty system of values, but as a living, breathing, feeling system of caring in your hearts for your brothers and sisters.

Love- is the wish to live your lives (metaphorically speaking) as monk and nuns did. By which I don’t mean in a state of sexlessness- that is to get hung up on details- I mean living in collective harmony with your brothers and sisters, owning nothing and owning no one. Living in love and collective labour. A life of mutual CHARITY. The Romantic Love vision- to my way of thinking- is an obstacle to reaching this level of enlightenment; it elevates a selfish crush to the same level of true collective love for one's fellow man; it is nothing more than your selfish genes elevating hormonal impulses to the level of selfless humanitarianism; in other words, it's no more love than me saying 'I love beer' is love. If it is felt- and practised alongside GENUINE Love- whi saome call 'just' friendship, fine. If you and another human being are 'in love' AND you love eachother as friends, that's fine. But to pursue 'being in love' where there is no friendship, that is EVIL.

And I wouldn't mind betting that is exactly what this Hartley hypocrite did with this Anya. His dirty old man lusts preying on her gratitude at being provided for. They weren't FRIENDS; it was a mere addiction. That's what 'being in love is'. It's a drug. Now I have no problem with USING drugs. I'm not one of those puritans who thinks all drug use is ABuse. I USE Cocaine myself from time to time. I don't ABuse it. Being in love is the same. Use it, but don't ABuse it.

My charge against people like Hartley is when they say things like ; 'So, when you mention the 40 year difference, well, we weren't that far apart in our case but I do understand how intense it can be. No one who hasn't been in that situation can know what it's like. You fuse with the other person and to me, that's the highest thing possible and all my writing on relationships is probably an attempt to recapture that for everyone else to experience - highly unrealistic but as you said, I have my head in the clouds - you weren't wrong there.' what they really mean is that they are ABusing the drug 'being in love'. As Carly Swan did. and that is what people like Hartley advocate and what they do. What they think they promote is not LOVE, is it is ABUSING the DRUG 'Being in Love'. There is nothing enlightened about this, nothing Christian about this, it is just the justifications of a Cokehead. And yes I am in a position to preach- as a person who knows the difference between Cocaine use and Cocaine ABuse. I admit, I LOVE Cocaine. Hence I take care not to love it too much. When you take 'being in love' to the sort of levels Carly Swan sought to- and Hartley describes here- and I quote- it stops being NICE. It stops being a pleasure and becomes something detrimental to all encompassed by it.

There are always more than two solutions to a problem and the traditional argument for encouraging this whole line of thought has been stated above; childrearing. Fine, that explains why we once pushed this line of thinking. In a society with a welfare state it is only a small step now towards making society at large in loco parentis of all children and providing for the full costs of maintaining all children out of general taxation (in fact this means the financial burden for all parents would be reduced). The argument we still need families is redundant, in fact, from a socialist point of view they are divisive; merely extended selfishness. How many strikes were broken by buying off the family men?

One reader once said I seek to abolish relationships and outlaw them. No, that is to miss the point. That would mean I only wanted people to engage in meaningless sex with strangers. That is not at all what I want. I don't want to outlaw 'relationships', I simply want to render the concept redundant- as I do the whole idea of Romantic Love. I believe the whole concept that you have a different kind of- and more encompassing feeling- towards the sex you are sexually attracted to than the one you are not ( a feeling transcending even your feelings to God) has been a product simply of bottling up sexuality and it doesn't lead to loving one person MORE but everyone else LESS. It is a Pagan attitude that has survived in Christianity (perhaps a Judaic one too) but it is not Christian.

I seek to render the concept irrelevant by the following proposition;

1. That no one should seek to have a 'relationship' with someone who is not, first and foremost a friend, and would remain equally a friend if the 'relationship' ended.

2. That if one CAN make a friendship a 'relationship' (meaning if you have no aesthetic objection to physical intimacy with that person), one should. This approach essentially means that the- in my view meaningless- distinction between 'friendships' 'friendships with benefit' 'relationships' and 'Marriages' would whither away, along with all the concepts pertinent to such distinction. And when this happens, the ludicrous concept of a 'relationship' with someone who is NOT first and foremost a friend would- quite rightly- be condemned as a sick depravity of a barbaric age. It was- ultimately- Carly Swan's inability to understand this moral principle that left me with no choice.

If you think it was wrong of me to 'break her heart', I'm sorry I don't. If people's hearts need to get broken to get them to understand this moral principle, so be it. It's a whole paradigm needs breaking so we can move to better. Romantic Love needs to go so we can move forward to what Christ preached- and Marxism can realise- the Universal Brotherhood of Man. And I'm prepared to break a hundred, a thousand, a million hearts in cold blood to bring that into being. Because a broken heart is just a construct. Created by not growing up.

This would be the real outlook Hartley has maintained a personal vendetta against me for. Because he fears enlightenment. He cannot escape his bourgeouis prejudices which govern his whole narrow outlook.

At the end of the day, Carly wasn't a victim. There is only one basis for friendship- and loyalty to friends. Friendships and relationships aren't about work, they are about skill. If someone REALLy asks me WHY I love them, there is only one honest answer I can give; 'You know how to press all the right buttons to make me feel good and you know how to avoid pressing buttons that make me feel bad. Whether this is just luck or you're genuinely skilled at it, I neither know nor care'.

Since I know by empirical evidence many people who come into this category, I know that it's quite possible for people to acquire the skill of continually make me feel good in their company and never make me feel bad in it.

Carly could not acquire that skill. We tried, she couldn't. As far as I am concerned it really is that simple. I probably could have acquired the skill of making her feel good. But only at the expense of making myself feel bad by denying myself personal pleasures and giving up on having a successful career as a blogger.

Many, many people- by chance or by their own skill, including many bloggers were very good at making me feel good without ever making me feel bad- just Carly wasn't one of them.

Vengeance on me for making that perfectly justifiable decision was all that ever motivated Carly and Hartley is a liar to suggest otherwise.

At the end of the day it isn't MY fauly Carly is unpleasant to talk to- especially when she's 'in love'. I'm pleasant to talk to- especially when I'm in love. I don't need any advice from anyone on how to make people feel good. and there's a limit to how much patience I have towards those who just won't learn.




But this leads us into the next post. Which is much more interesting from my point of view. Because now we get to move away from the personal aspects and look at what frames bourgeouis conservatism as a class philosophy.

Because that, really is what it is all about; Hartley writes and fights for a social class and the social values of a class; the bourgeouisie. I myself come from such a class though I aspire to be- classless. Funny that, you might ask. Why do I aspire to be that? Surely a Marxist revolution is not in my interests?

Oh, but it is. And I'm not too corrupted to see it. The next post is actually the centrepiece of MY politics. And it may surprise you; because the next post will seem quite UN-marxist and quite UN-Christian. Which is because, in fact, it's pure Nietzche actually. It's about social morals and history. It's about the class war and Capitalism. It's about the pieces of the picture Marx missed and Nietzsche picked up on which explain the real history of human progress. It's about Man's REFINEMENT and the understanding of why the sole aim of bourgeouis values- the INGSOC of Orwell is to freezeframe a system and prevent progress.

Put bluntly, the next post explains the WHY behind Crushed By Ingsoc- and explains the POINT of Ingsoc- which as you probably know by now means, in my book, the ingrained worldview to be found amongst the western bourgeouisie.

It's the message Jeremy Hartley doesn't want to hear- or want others to hear...