Crushed By Ingsoc

An Ending

2011-12-17T07:30:00.001-08:00

The last post on this blog will be simple.

I don't often agree with my father. On many things he is plain wrong. His views on many things are close to those of Jeremy Hartley/James Higham- if you leave out the crazy views about 'Them'.

But unlike Hartley, my father isn't a dribbling buffoon. He would, frankly, think Hartley a complete twat, in spite of the similarity of their political views. And just occasionally, he says something sensible.

My father says we all need love most of all because we need someone to believe in us. To see the best in us. To drive us onward when we are alone. We need someone to believe in us to make us become what we should be.

My father was lucky. He had that from my mother. She believed in him, had faith in him.

When I encountered the Swan women in 2007, I found something I had never really found before. I had had women in love with me before, but for the wrong reasons. They did not see in me the me I could be, or should be. They loved me as a biological mate. A potential father to their children.

My mother didn't love my father for that. She loved him to make him what he became.

Because Carly Swan first wrote to me after a post on Nietzsche, because our first conversations were political and philosophical, I thought her love was for the part of me that was the best. The bit of me no woman had ever loved me for before. The RIGHT reason.

The reason my grandmother loved me. I thought she loved me for the priest within me. I thought she loved me for 'Crushed'. For my mind. For what I thought. For my philosophy.

And that meant a lot. It was WHY I THOUGHT she loved me made me love her. Because I BELIEVED she BELIEVED in me. As a priest. As thinker. As a writer.

And because of that, because of the support I thought she was going to give me in my life's work- I wanted to reward her. I loved her BECAUSe of why I t5hought she loved me.

But it was a lie. Carly did not believe in Crushed.

Carly did not understand what Crushed was all about.

This blog was to be my church, me it's priest, my posts my sermons and my readers my congregation.

But priests do more than preach sermons. They hear confession, they provide moral and spritual guidance one to one for their flock. They are there for them, on call, twenty four seven. That is why priests don't marry. They are married to their flock. They are the shepherd.

If Carly could have supported that, been a bedrock of support, it was what I needed. And I was prepared, in return for that support to breach certain principles of mine, as long as it was out of sight. Because ultimately, the Free Love message was part of what I must teach my flock. Not the most important thing, but still something I had to stand by. And I had also to be there for my flock.

Carly couldn't handle that. She could not understand my flock had to come first. That her role was to be behind the scenes moral support. It was not for her to involve herself in my doing of my duty to my flock. But she started to put the cart before the horse, see my flock as a threat to 'her relationship'.

Because, in truth, it was a lie. Carly did not REALLY believe in me. She did not WANT me to be a priest to my flock. She just wanted a biological mate.

And I discovered that. When it all boils down to it, that was REALLY what her fight with Phish was all about and why I was sickened by Carly. Carly did not want Phish to be part of my flock or, indeed, any woman who might 'interfere in her relationship'.

But it was Carly who was interfering. It was Carly who couldn't accept that I can't turn my back on anyone. That even Carly's 'archenemy' Ms Smack was entitled to come to me as her priest, if Ms Smack wanted me for her priest.

Carly did not believe in me as her priest, so how could she claim to love me? When she did not give a damn for what is best in me- what this blog was.

I had made a mistake. I had seen in Carly something that wasn't there. I had thought what existed between us was something it wasn't.

Because, you see, I believe in CLERGY. I believe in what it stands for. I believe that what the clergy did was special.

What was that? Ok, well, you can see what the ideal of Romantic Love WAS. One woman, one man, bonded together. And outside that was no sex, no children. Not only that, not even a cuddle.

That was what priests were EXPECTED to give up. So as to be- carers. For two thousand years there were no social workers, no Samaritans, no counsellors, no psychiatrists. No one to provided a social welfare system of detached people to CARE for the weak and the vulnerable.

No one to ensure that the meek truly inherit the earth.

No one but the clergy. No one but the CATHOLIC clergy.

That was what the Catholic faith was all about. You give up Romantic Love so as to be able to LOVE. Love your flock. Console them when they are weak, intervene in domestic disputes. Guide them. Calm them. Be a FATHER to them.

Because that to me was what Catholicism was all about, morally. All the disciples, they left their families- their wives and their children- for Jesus.

And I believe that is what is RIGHT. The weak, the vulnerable, the needy, they must come FIRST.

Because that is what is wrong wirth Capitalism. Protestant Ethics. Because yes, each man knows best the way to his only happiness. But not all are equally equipped to acheive it.

The tough, the brazen, the 'In yer face', they acheive their happiness. The meek and the mild get kicked down. in the name of 'Freedom'.

And I don't want that. I want the meek and the mild to get served first.

What I thought I saw in Carly was a belief in that system of ethics. Rising above your own emotions and feelings to stand aside and PLAN the happiness of others. To be there for the weak, the needy and the vulnerable.

But she did not love in me that desire to give of myself to THOSE WHO NEED. She just wanted a biological mate. But she had no NEED of me. What use was my intellect, my Samaritans training, my passive desire to suppress my own emotions to meet the need of others? What need had she of that?

Well, she did have a need, it was a true. But not a need she would acknowledge. She had a need to learn how to suppress her feelings. Her desire to mate. To become PURE.

Had I known what I was eealing with before I started, I could have made adequete provision. I could have treated her as what she was- strong and loud of personality but emotionally weak. Unable to sacrifice her emotions for the greater good and therefore, not an EQUAL, not a COMPANION, but another person needing me. A person I would need to remain emotionally detached from because one would have to balance her needs against the needs of others.

And meeting Carly's passionate desires is a low priority. In fact, it would be the reverse of a priority. If I had an inkling of her passionate emotions, I would have been able to treat her as someone one sought to teach how to SUPPRESS their feelings.

In short, Carly was not in need of mollycoddling or being given love to raise her up. What she THOUGHT she needed- from me- she didn't need. She needed quite the opposite.

Which posed a problem. Because now she had these 'passionate feelings' and-

-well, my duty was to suppress them. Because she couldn't control such emotions. In short, it was a paradox. The very fact she would cling on like grim death to a 'relationship', the very fact she would fight off women she thought 'threatened' her relationship, all these things made taking the relationship off her a NECESSITY.

I could not- in all conscience ALLOW a woman to have those sorts of feelings for me. Surely it must be apparent to anyone with an ounce of ethics that if a woman develops such feelings for you YOU HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO BREAK HER HEART.

That was the point. Carly had no actual need of me at all. And that was why I had considered her as a 'helpmeet'. Not because I sexually interested in her- I really don't HAVE sexual desires- not because I wanted her to be a Mother to my children- I don't see that as somethinfg I get to choose- but because I believed she would be a good support for me in my supporting and BEING THERE for people, online.

In short, I THOUGHT she was a good 'Priest's wife', as far as such a thing as ever possible. But by and large, it isn't. And if you try allowing priests to marry, en masse, you end up with a diluted priesthood that ceases to retain it's respect- and trust- amongst it's congregation, because they no longer see him as truly impartial. After all, are you really going to seek confession and absolution to a man who might tell his wife your confession during pillow talk?

How can a priest put his congregation- EVERY MEMBER OF IT- above his wife? And yet that is the function of a priest. And why experience has showed, if you want the Church to be central to the community, if you want the clergy to be the clue that keeps communities peaceful, an unmarried clergy is what works. Go to any Catholic church and see the respect the priest is treated with and then compare to any Protestant church.

So a good priest's wife- if there was one would be a woman with no needs of her own. No desires, no passions. A simple helpmeet and moral support for when the priest comes home after hearing six difficult confessions, intervened in eight marital rows and visited five people on their deathbeds and he CAN'T talk about it, she's just THERE. There for HIM. As he is to his congregation.

Because he must ALWAYS be emotionally detached. With everyone. Even her. He can tell her NOTHING. He is bound by vows to the Church.

That just wasn't Carly. And it isn't many women. Or men, if the Church allowed women clergy. It's not an easy task. but, Carly wasn't up to it.

And if you're not up to that task then that- and not 'being in love' determines our 'relationship'. As in- are you my congregation, or are you a fellow priest along with me.

You see, the real reason for Carly's hatred was that she did not WANT me to be for others, just her. Even though being there for her served no positive purpose, in fact, tended to serve negative ones.

And Hartley? Slimy Jeremy Hartley?

Well, Hartley just didn't want me having a congregation for much the same reason Ian Paisley went out protesting when the Pope visited Ireland.

Because Ian Paisley believes the Pope to be the Antichrist and the Roman Church to be the scarlet whore of Babylon.

It stands to reason, therefore, that a Catholic who preaches Marxism and Free Love must be a minion of Satan, doesn't it?

To quote Conor Cruise O'Brien 'Protestants fear Catholicism, but they do not fear Catholics. Catholics fear Protestants, but they do not fear Protestantism'.

What that basically means is that Catholics have learned that Protestants will hurt them as individuals. Burn their homes, castigate them, persecute them, but their faith- being based on idiocy- will never triumph. Protestants know that as individuals Catholics will turn the other cheek- but as a faith Catholicism is the one that keeps growing. Because it's based on a bit more than LITERAL reading of the Bible.

I'm a Catholic. I'm a Marxist. I'm a Darwinist. I'm a Nietzschist.

Therefore, what I teach my congregation is truth.

I have no regrets, I did what was God's will and I will keep doing it.

And I WILL make this world a better place, as I swore to do in 2007. I WILL finish what I started then.

Oh and here's a clue.

John Lennon- one of my heroes- got in so much bother for saying he was bigger than Jesus. And yet, of course, he wasn't meaning to be blasphemous. Just stating a fact. At the time, he was getting mobbed by fans in a way hadn't been seen since Jesus.

That's all you're getting :)

Risen Crushed

2011-10-31T03:28:00.001-07:00

I started this blog in 2007. I got to 174th UK political blogger in six months.

SIX MONTHS.

The fact is, this blog made a difference. A real difference to the people who read it.

I only made one mistake. A mistake I could easily make being green to the internet.

Love to me doesn't mean what you see between a man and a woman over a candlelit meal. That's just one aspect.

Love to me is being NICE. It's about giving money to down and outs. Caring about the third world. About supporting groups who get a tough cut of the deck.

It's about supporting feminism, black people, gay people, etc.

It's about world peace and a United Europe- or world for that matter- and wanting an end to war and poverty.

To me this blog was about waking people up to that clarion call which permeated from Haight Ashbury in 1966 and saying enough is enough, this shit ends and it ends NOW.

What shit?

Oh come on! You know damn well what shit I mean. I don't have to call it Capitalism or Monogamy or competition or Racism or Sexism. You know damn well what I mean.

Divide and rule. Let's all kick everyone else in the teeth to get our own little piece of the pie. Of course by the time we've kicked everyone else in the teeth our piece wuill just be crumbs, but hey.

Why do we do it? Well, because we don't want to grow up. As a SOCIETY. We can't curb our hunter gatherer natures. Well, look around. We're going to have to.

I made a mistake, I did. That horrid Swan woman.

I made it because, basically, I'm a decent person. I DID make mistakes. I admit that. But those MISTAKES actually PROVE a lot of my theoretical arguments about the 'love' thing.

When most people take about 'being in love' they don't actually mean love in the sense of charity, humanitarianism and the Universal Brotherhood of Man.

They mean Emotional Intimacy.

Now for that you need a much deeper trust than with Sexual Intimacy. This is where the traditionalist theory goes so wrong. It takes a long, long time to build up that sort of trust.

Let me explain what Emotional Intimacy is.

In the normal world our interaractions are governed by rules of courtesy. We now where we stand. It's comforting. The workplace, the pub- even the blogosphere. It's npt about feelings, it's about rules. Like chess or backgammon. I say A, you can say B, C or D. If you say B, I say E or F.

We now where we are. It's based on intelligence and conceptualisation. Strategy.

Even 'going on the pull' follows those rules. Conversation is generic and impersonal. The RULES dictate what we say, we just need to know the rules.

To mopve away from those rules, to let them go, to allow real feelings to develop and TRUST to interaction based on your own personal connection with someone that takes a LOT of trust.

Traditional theory on Monogamy overestimates the level of trust needed for sexual intimacy and significantly UNDERESTIMATES the trust needed for Emotional Intimacy. You can't combine the two. It's like combining a game of chess with combat on the battlewfield; one is just a LOT, LOT more intimidating.

Now- I guess with Carly I gave her the green light to attempt to establish such Intimacy. But I suspected she'd fail, hence I warned her. Because Carly lacks the patience, lacks the gentleness to establish Emotional Intimacy.

Within two months she'd betrayed my trust to a degree which would PERMANENTLY rule out emotional intimacy.

Of course I wasn't 'In Love' with her. I'd have to trust her first. But I gave her two chance to earn my trust and she failed both.

Firstly, she had to keep any connection between us a secret. In that sense the 'relationship' was what they call a 'Barium meal' in espionage circles. In short, I was testing to see if she was a potential leak. Could I trust her to ACTUALLY share Emotional Intimacy with her?

Especially on the Internet this is doubly important. After all, this is a public forum. I don't want the world reading MY Emotions unless I feel comfortable publishing them. See the post below. I don't mind telling the world how in love I am with Little Honey because she's EARNED that pride I have in my love for her.

But when you behave like Ubermouth does, how could a man be PROUD to love that?

And that was the point. The way she behaves I'd be ASHAMED to love her and therefore, having a choice WHO to fall in love with, I wouldn't fall in love with someone like that.

So that was the first betrayal; shaming me in public.

The second betryal of trust was abuse of possessing my telephone number and other methods of contact. I had made clear, I don't like being called unless I ask to be called; she wouldn't listen.

In fact she behaved like a stalker even before she actually became a REAL stalker.

I never wanted any unpleasantness. But I tried to point out there was no point in her ringing because we'd NEVER actually be intimate at am emotional level becasuse she couldn't be trusted.

Worse, I didn't even trust her to TALK to.

Because to trust someone enough to even talk to, you need to be certain there can be no arguments. And I didn't trust her not to get emotional and shout.

As things stood, things were pretty much quits. She'd 'had her heart broken' and I'd been traumtised. So really, it swhould just have been left at that. But no, then we had the stalking and the character assasination.

Now, I should have had the support here of my fellow Blogpower member, Jeremy Hartley/ James Higham.

But he had his own agenda.

This is partly because he's a lunatic who believes that almost everything I believe in is a plot supported by 'Them' (The Illuminati/Reptilian Aliens). He's a Fundamentalist Protestant whackjob who thinks homosexuality is 'deviant' and that Free Love is Satanism and that Karl Marx was paid by the Illuminati to deceive the world.

So the two of them teamed up against me, her stalking me and him using his blog to support her and set out to destroy me and everything I stand for.

But also there was another reason. He said so himself.

The fact I had a lot of young female readers who commented on my blog agreeing with me. With my FREE LOVE, MARXIST views.

And he didn't have that. So he was jealous.

It tore him up inside.

Thing is- there's something that will tear him up even more.

As I say, it took me six months to create a world changing blog with a CULT FOLLOWING and an ADORING FAN BASE.

Because I CAN.

You've NEVER created that, Hartley and you never will.

Ever occurred to you I could do it again?

I can just say 'This is the last post ever on Crushed by Ingsoc'.

And set up a new blog.

And within six months that blog would be as big as Crushed by Ingsoc was before the lies of Jeremy Hartley and Carly Swan.

Hell, I could found my own blogging organisation.

I could found my own online POLITICAL PARTY.

Because, you see, I have one advantage that Jeremy Hartley doesn't.

People like me :)

Genuinely.

We've had the dress rehearsal, now it's time for the real thing. I'm thirty three now. And this time I'm a hell of a lot wiser. I now have the EXPERIENCE I didn't have last time.

I WILL make the world a better place.

Oh, and one last thing...

I have the LOVE of a very, VERY good woman.

Arrive Derche :)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PS, Heartfelt thanks to Oestrebunny, Crashie, Heart of Darkness, Eve, jmb, Phishez, Ms Smack, The Tin Drummer, X-Dell, Eric, Gledwood, Princess Pointful, Jenny, Newday Rising, Sweetcheeks, Kizzie, Helen, David Anthony, Moggs Tigerpaw, Klitorika and many others who supported and cared for this blog and wanted to help make this world a better place.

We WILL.

Crushed has died.

Crushed has risen.

Crushed will come gain.

PS Final Editorial Note.

I have purged this blog of some of the unneccesary duplication labelling the same point over recent years.

This is so that google search engines can showcase this blog at it's best and some of the truly great work this blog did can continue to live on.

However, the guilty do not get to go free. The posts analysing Carly Swan's psychosis and publishing her harrassment and stalking mails remain as do the posts which tell the truth about Jeremy Hartley/James Higham.

This blog now stands in it's final form, outlining a message to humanity. This blog is to be taken AS A WHOLE, IN CONTEXT.

And thus what it had to say on Christianity, on Marxism, on Darwin, on Nietzsche, on the future, on freedom, Free Love, it all stands.

Every last word.

But for this message to stand, so too must the HISTORY OF PERSECUTION this blogger faced and the true nature of the culprits.

For a true understanding of this blog, it's archives from 2007 to 2009 need to be studied properly.

And there is no better place to start than HERE.

Lovely, Lovely Little Honey

2011-10-31T02:37:00.000-07:00

I am so, so head over heals about you Little Honey X

I don't think I have ever wanted to plough a furrow so deep...

Truth is Beauty

2011-10-08T08:25:00.000-07:00

This post is partly for Little Honey but also for my- er-critics.

In every connection I have ever had with a woman I have sought to teach them what Love really is.

And yes, I'll admit, I deliberately seek out women I think need to be shown what Love is because I don't think they've ever really had any. Never had it given to them properly and not sure how to give what they've never received.

In fact, I don't think most PEOPLE have ever been loved properly. I think the real problem with the world is that there just isn't enough TLC going around.

That's why Jeremy Hartley is such a prick. He doesn't know what Love is, no matter how muchhe writes about it. People like him are tied to empty formulae. They feel IN Love, but don't know how to LOVE.

So yes, I told a few porky pies in my day to women. Led them on a bit. Like Carly. But for a good reason.

To try and teach them what Love was. To give them REAL Love so they'd know it for what it is so they could pass it on and give it themselves.

And sometimes, I was banging my head against a brick wall, as with Carly. She wouldn't listen, just go on and on about her feelings.

Love is a verb as well as a noun. As a noun, it means God. Or it means charity. It does not, as a noun, have any other meaning. Contrary to popular belief. Obsession is not Love.

As a verb, it means to pamper. To mollycoddle. To spoil rotten. To PET.

That is what it means.

It certainly has fuck all to do with sex. And therefore nothing to do with sexual fidelity which has to be the most bizarre idea anyone ever had, until you reflect it served a purpose in an iron age society where you needed to know whose children were whose.

So yes, I told a few porky pies to Carly. Why? So she could learn to love people properly. So with her NEXT love after me, she'd treat HIM right. Pamper him. Mollycoddle him. Spoil him rotten.

And not just him, but her 'enemies'. Pamper Ms Smack. Phish.

In other words, I lied to Carly to try and trach her to stop being such a fucking BITCH to people.

I love you, Chrystal. But I hope to God I don't make you feel like a woman because if I do, I'm not doing it right. I hope you feel like a little girl, spoiled rotten and protected by an over protective father.

Because that's how I want you to feel.

Because no you don't make me feel like a man. You make me feel like a spoiled little boy protected by his doting Mother.

Which is what it's supposed to feel like.

Free Love is about extending that outside a circle of two till the whole thing becomes a network of pampering and mollycoddling and CARING.

With all of loving eachother parentally. Yes, at heart there is still special connections between people who genuinely love eachother specifically. But the bigger picture, the mass mollycoddling if you like, that's what the whole thing is all about.

That's Socialism, Honey. If it is to mean anything at all.

It's about understanding that vulnerability is beauty and knowing that only the ugly can stand up and fight for themselves.

I love people. Always have. Which is why I want to pamper and mollycoddle the lot of them.

Because that's what Love MEANS.

PS. Hartley, I hear you're destitute. Good. I hope you die in a cardboard box with dogs pissing on you. It's what you deserve.

Reaching Level Thirty Three of the Game

2011-09-18T07:13:00.000-07:00

Funny how things pan out.

You know, Faith is one of those things, you have it or you don't. But you can only have it if you know from experience it just pans out that way.

The Laws of Karma cannot be evaded. They are as basic as the Laws of Thermodymanics: the Universe WILL right itself. If you just sit back and go with the flow, it WILL right itself. It defeated Hitler, you just have to trust it. Work WITH the grain, not against it.

If you are SURE, one hundred percent SURE, that you are indeed divinely appointed by the Universe to speak as her representative, if you truly KNOW that you have been shown by God herself what is the path to the enlightenment of the species, then you are almost certainly correct and you just need to have faith that your God will not forsake you.

She most certainly did not.

Crushed has died.

Crushed has risen.

Crushed will come again.

Ok, Mary Magdelen, you ready? :) XXX

These things are sent to try us, you know.

We have to learn to suffer fools gladly :) Kind of a learning curve. Jesus had to learh it. Guess I had to.

How to suffer fools gladly.

True Love

2011-07-19T09:23:00.000-07:00

I saw the light in 2006.

That was when I first understood purity.

Love, it is a beautiful thing. It is God, it is harmony. To be enlightened is to know how to love with purity.

But what is purity?

Purity is hard to conceive of for the dirty mind. The mind bound by the strictures of Judaised, Pharasaical sham Christianity. The mind that has not yet comprehended the purity of God's love. Because purity is hidden behind it's opposite. It is hard to understand purity because it is NOT virginity. It is NOT chastity. These are what it is NOT. But it has an opposite.

It's opposite is PASSION. Vile, vile, passion. But the opposite of 'passion' is NOT dispassion. Passion is the IMpurity, but that does not make dispassion it's opposite. It's opposite isinstead an ANTI-passion.

If we see dispassion as being to anti-passion what amorality is to morality, then passion is to anti-passion what immorality is to morality. Dispassion is not the lack of passion, it is the lack of anti-passion.

You do not conquer immorality by becoming amoral, just so you do not conquer passion by being dispassionate. What we need to understand that being dispassionate is being apure (a word I just made up), just as being passionate is being impure.

Because God asks for you to emote. To feel. He doesn't want dispassion, he wants antipassion. Purity.

And thus it was in 2006, I had a revelation from God. It took about eight hours actually, but it was pure religious ecstasy all the way. During it, I received my beautiful vision of Utopia, but I also received something else.

I do believe that it was a genuine vision from God I experienced. I believe that for those eight hours, it was God directing my thoughts, God leading me. It was not words, it was images. and emotion. LOVE. I felt God's Love.

But it was the part of the experience that related to love between a man and a woman that made me feel most exalted. Because suddenly I found myself IN LOVE with one of the hardest of the books of the Bible. But I saw it now for what it was; a hidden treasure in a cesspit of Iron Age twaddle (The Old Testament). There, amongst all the tosh about slaughtering Canaanites and waving sticks in front of sheep and people meeting in front of wells and suchlike was a truly beautiful tale.

The Book of Hosea

.

What a truly beautiful tale of a man's love for a woman! And what an example.

God tells Hosea he must marry a promiscuous woman, as a simple of God's love for his people. And Hosea does. And he loves her, faithless and fickle as she is. And the implication is, he raises children who are not his own. Because he loves her. As God loves us, fickle and faithless though we are.

During my revelation, the beauty of this image filled my mind. Hosea's love for his joy loving pleasure loving wife. His fidelity to her, his sticking by her, his love of her. In a society where men saw sex as dirty, he forgave her. Better than that, there was nothing to forgive. He married her so she could do it to him. He WANTED her to do it to him.And he never once chastised her for it.

He must have loved her so much. And loved her FOR what she did because it gave him the chance to prove his love for her all the more.

Was this not, I asked myself, TRULY the ideal of the Christian Clergy?

And I asked myself, should this not have been what the Catholic clergy did? Not refuse to marry, but follow the way of Hosea?

I cannot help but feel that THIS should have been the example Catholic priests should have lived by. They should have married, but to women who were anybody's and everybody's and the priest should have been faithful to her. Catholic priests should not have been sexless automatons, they should have been Hoseas.

After all, greater love hath no man for his fellow man than that he will share his wife with all his brother men and yet not ask to share theirs.

In doing so, the clergy would truly have earned the right to be moral guides to others. Because they would be truly pure. Not virginal. Not chaste. But pure. Prepared to love a woman not with passion (impurity) or dispassion (apurity), but antipassion (purity). No jealousy, no possession, just love.

Whilst she enjoyed her sexuality purely in the innocence of Eden.

And yes, I did then conceive of an idea which you can call a religous cult, if you like. But I saw it as one within the Catholic faith. Not conrary to it.

The idea of a 'Hosea Marriage'.

The whole point of a Hosea Marriage is that the man swears to be faithful and true- there is no divorce in Catholicism don't forget. He promises to love her and no other. And be faithful. And most crucially to raise all HER children. Regardless of whether or not they are his.

She, on the other hand, swears NOT to be faithful. As part of her vows. She PROMISES to be promiscuous. Guarantees it. She swears infidelity. She swears too that this should be public, that his 'humilation' shall be plain for all to see. She in effect swears to respect him by disrespecting him, if you like.

Because yes, it's something you'd want the world to know. 'I love her, not in spite of this, but BECAUSE of this. Love is unconditional. This is PURE love, not vile passion'.

To me, this is the TRUE Romantic Ideal and I thank God for showing it to me. Because it was through seeing that vision back in 2006, I learned to have contempt for vile, vile passion.

Because it is not sex that is a sin, it is passion, vile passion. And if I did not see that clearly enough in 2006, I was certainly to see it in 2007 when God sent me a demon in human form, possessed by vile passion.

Why did God show me this vision? So I would know Love. So I would understand it and live my life by love and see the difference between purity and vile, VILE passion.

And because, I believe, God wants me to enter into a 'Hosea Marriage' and encourage other men to do the same. Because it is the ultimate turning of the other cheek; it is, in truth, what it is all about.

Setting an example to your brothers and sisters of how to truly LOVE eachother. Not hide behind passion and pretend that impurity can ever be love.

And since then, 2006, I have simply been looking for a PURE woman to have this arrangement with.

By pure, I don't mean virginal or chaste. Quite the reverse. But a woman who is truly pure. So when people say 'How can you love her when she does what she does, I can point to WHY.

Her PURITY. Her antipassion. And that's why I'm attracted to the women I am. Truly virtuous. Pure. I want to be able to say 'I love her not because she loves me, but because she is pure'.

Because I could never love an impure woman. I love my God too much for that.

Because I believe that, during those eight hours in 2006, I saw and felt what God wanted me to see and feel. And that will stay with me for the rest of my life.

I want to fight the rest of my life for what I saw and felt during those eight hours. And to love a woman the way Hosea was PRIVELEGED enough to love his faithless and fickle wife, in a state of true purity.

And to guide the rest of humanity to the rest of the vision I experienced.

Chrystal, I love you and you are pure. Of that I have no doubt. No stain of sin or passion lies upon you. I wish I knew where or how you and I fit together in the grand scheme of things, but truly I do not know.

Because- if you only love them that love you, where is the reward in that?

The whole point is to love a woman unconditionally who loves others more than she loves you.

On True Liberalism- And a Diversion on Catholicism

2011-07-11T08:23:00.000-07:00

:)

There is a difference, Little Honey, in strong Liberalism and Weak Liberalism.

The right love to use the old canard 'you claim to be liberal but you don't tolerate us' and so many weak liberals fall for it.

It depends on what you tolerate. And tolerance doesn't extend to tolerating the intolerant.

For example, tolerating Free Speech does not include tolerating the right to speak aggressively or confrontationally. No one has that right; it has nothing to do with Free Speech.

There are a lot of right wing bloggers who use the 'liberal' canard to justify scumbags like Justin Assange and his Wikileaks. and we're about to see a similar defence of the indefensible by right wing nastiness hiding under the liberal banner.

You may or may not know that the News of the World- a nasty little rag that many years ago at least had some pretence of being an honourable, if Populist and hence moronic affair but in recent years became little more then Der Sturmer in it's ethics- has closed down in a cloud of shame. Again, dirty tricks by dirty people. E-mail hacking, cracking people's cades, phone tapping. Thousands of people.

And already you find some on the right saying this sort of thing ain't so bad. It should be tolerated. Freedom of Information, eh?

This is the sort of trick the right play. Using liberties the LEFT earned them to suit themselves. They challenge the liberal left to deny it's own logic.

Another one is 'Why must I be politically correct? Surely I can say what I like?'

Well, theoretically yes. But if the world's black communities have pretty m,uch expressed the fact they don't want to be called 'n*gger', it's kind of not very nice to call them thatis it?'

What the right expect is that they would should treat that as an equally valid point of view.

And again, some right wing bloggers would say 'Why can't I call homosexuals deviant? surely it's a valid point of view?'

And that's the point. Because it isn't. Not every point of view is valid. What comes next? Accepting the point of view that the moon is made of cheese?

You see, the point of LISTENING to all views is so we come to the right one. But ultimately, the right view is only one view. It may not actually turn out to be any of the ones ANYONE has.

It's like Evolution and Intelligent Design. I don't have to give an Intelligent Design supporter a fair hearing. Why? Because the human body contains so many evolved flaws as to make the idea of a designer ludicrous. Pipes that travel huge distances for no other reason than they got stretched the wrong way as our bodies evolved.

Now, when we come to the Catholic Church...

with the Catholic Church, i simply look at facts. John Heenan wrote that the faith was built on three principles;

1. That there is a God.
2. That Jesus Christ was his son.
3. That the Roman Church is the Church he founded and no other is.

I accept point one and three. To accept point two would be- credulous. So I avoid it. I see him as something, God's son in a spritual sense perhaps, but I'm not going to defend the story of the virgin birth since it was made up by his disciples and just clearly isn't true.

That he was certainly a great thinker, I agree. And I think the Catholic Church was what he had in mind; it had a purpose. He meant to found, over time, a world kingdom founded on his teachings. It would have been Communist, obviously. I'm not sure he anticipated how long it would take. I think the plan was pretty much on course until Clement V sold out to Philip IV and massacred the Templars. From then on, it was all down hill really.

The fact is, I believe Christ taught things to his disciples that they kept private; the long term goal. But the disciples all knew. And the inner circle always knew; take over the Roman Empire, Christianise the world then turn on the secular forces you have used to support you and eliminate them.

There is a legend that says original letters of Christ exist in the Vatican, laying out his scheme for how the Church should be run. I believe that is one legend that is true.

I do think that there is a sense- always has been- in which the age old idea that Catholic Cardinals hold secrets which only they know. In that sense the whole Da Vinci Code mythos has a certain resonsance.

And that truth is that- if there really is a 'Them' (:))- then that's who they are; the followers of Jesus.

Martin Luther, for all his rantings was never in the position a Pope has been. There have been good Popes and bad Popes. But each one of them knew a man who knew a man who knew a man and not so many of those 'knew a man's and you come back to Jesus himself.

It's worth remembering that, next time you Benedict XVI on the TV. He's not that many degrees of seperation away from god's real life mates. About fifty degrees, most likely.

The Church sold out in the end, or got emasculated, or ended up getting mired down in pointless wars with the Godbothers who tried to steal Christianity from the true Christians (I mean Protestants here) and it failed. But that failure, that corruption I put at a different point to the Church's enemies.

Because I admire, revere and LOVE medieval Catholicism and all it was. I love Thomas Aquinas and Dante, the whole ethos of the medieval Church in it's zenith, before the decline.

You forget, Little Honey, this was before the Inquisition came. This point, between the year 1100 and the year 1300 was the moral heyday of humanity. An age of enlightenment.

Did you know the Church even debated life on other planets in those times?

In those days the Church was the champion of the downtrodden against the power of Kings. It protected the least of human beings in a way they're still not protected today. The Church, Honey. It guaranteed a home for all in it's abbeys. It wasn't just a Church, or a Philosophy. It was a welfare state and the best we've ever seen.

The Medieval Church, Honey,was Socialism in action. And it worked. A communist, meritocratic society living in the mist of a world which was so much less than the one we now have.

Don't believe what Anti-Catholic histories tell you, because those 'winners' became the modern right. That is who they are.

Don't forget that. Catholicism stands opposed to Capitalism, always has. Whereas Protestantism- Capitalism IS Protestantism.

The truth about the Medieval period is that it was a thriving period of thought and development, a time when Europe was so successful it was teeming with people who then spread out across the globe. Never in the history of humanity has a system of thought acheived so much from such humble beginings.

Catholicism has always been about the idea of the Universal Brotherhood of Man.

Liberals and Marxists- and yes, Feminists too, Little Honey, are the heirs of medieval Catholicism. And hence the true heirs of the mission Jesus Christ actually entrusted his disciples with.

What distinguishes Catholicism from other creeds is that it is traditional only in the sense that Love is eternal. You can be liberal and be Catholic, in fact, if you're not at heart a liberal you're not at heart a Catholic.

You want proof? You show me a country where Catholics, as a demographic, tend to vote for the right. They don't. The modern Church has tried to convince itself it didn't like Marxism but no, it didn't like Soviet Atheism. And many in the Church have found Marxism fits in nicely with Catholicism.

We call this synthesis 'Liberation Theology'.

But should this surprise you? That Marxism exists and flourishes within the Church of Rome?

We accepted Darwin in 1908, long before any other faith. A Catholic priest first proposed the big bang. A Catholic monk discovered genetics.

Catholics aren't fundamentalist idiots, Honey. We're not like any other religion because really, we're not a religion. Catholicism was the world's first ideology and it was a very, very good one.

And hence, I am proud to say I stand in the tradition of all it was and stood for- and it's best still stands for.

And I'm not going to stand there in defiance of historical fact and political reality and pretend that Protestant Christianity is an equally valid intellectual proposition.

Because it isn't.

That's not me being a bigot, it's just that if being a liberal means going so far as to say that the Swaziland national football team is EQUALLY as good as Brazil's football team, then that would mean liberalism was stupid.

Tolerating all points of view doesn't mean they're accepting them all as being of equal merit. It's just if we don't hear the idiots out, they cry foul and say we're trying to suppress them.

I mean, my view on Catholicism here can be challenged. I'd love to debate the points with a Fundy Protestant, I would. I'd win, but it would be fun :)

Being a liberal means, in my view, we allow right wing loons the right to speak but we just point out that they're talking out of their arses.

You seem to have got that point in the US. You allow Sarah Palin to speak, but everyone points out that everything she ever says is little above the thinking of most five year olds.

Don't let intolerant people get away with convincing you you have to show them tolerance. They see it as our weakness and they will exploit it. That's what conservatives do, wind liberals up and then cry foul saying 'But liberals aren't SUPPOSED to bite. Only WE can bite'.

They call us 'woolly liberals'. 'Milk and Water'. 'Bleeding hearts'.

That's what they call us. They see us as weak. So weak that even though we outnumber them, we're too weak to challenge the fact that their views exercise a totally disproportionate effect based on their actual numbers.

Because liberals are too nice to fight. That's what they rely on, Little Honey.

Because really, conservatives, Protestants, Capitalists, call them what you like- they're bullies. They subscribe to a political set of ideals based on bullying. Not all the individuals are always bullies, but they believe IN bullying.

That's the point, Honey. They believe in bullying and they see us liberals as weak because we don't believe in bullying.

And we don't.

But we DO believe in stopping bullying.

Do you see the difference?

'Them'

2011-07-01T06:29:00.000-07:00

Five Million Jews went to their deaths in Europe in the Nineteen Forties because a group of madmen convinced themselves of the following;

That Jews were corrupting Western civilisation with Liberalism, Marxism, Modern art, homosexuality, sexual tolerance, feminism and Democracy.

The Jews were 'Them'.

A lot of Nazis were repressed homosexuals, of course. The Nazi movement was based on turning repressed sexuality into excessive patriotism and obsession with the family as a unit for birthing healthy German soldiers.

Nazism wasn't really a system of thought; it was simply a paranoid reaction to the forces of change and cultural enlightenment. And it blamed everything it feared on people it didn't like.

Nazism is the cry of rage of the man who believes that the louder he shouts the more it will disguise the fact that he can't get laid and he's gay anyway.

So he blames those facts on the Jews.

Or 'Them'.

Forty percent of Germans voted for this lunacy not seeing it for what it was.

One would like to think people are a bit more enlightened now.

I guess my view is this. When you see someone running round blaming imaginary entities for the forces of change and throwing round derogatory terms like 'sociopath' at anyone who dares to stand up for what they believe 'Them' are behind, then I think 'It's those that point the finger and shout the loudest'.

And I just really want to say to these sorts of deluded crackpots;

'Why don't you come to terms with your own repressed sexuality and stop blaming 'Them'?'

They don't exist, but your sexuality does. And the rest of the world can see that and the louder you shout about 'Them' and feminism and Marxism, it doesn't change anything.

You're fighting the tide because, like the Nazis, you're dressing up ingrained prejudices, hang ups and idle gossip as serious thinking. And it isn't.

The Nazis genuinely believed when they exterminated the Jews that THEY were the good guys exterminating the most Evil people on the face of Earth.

The Nazis believed in 'Them'. The Jews were 'Them'. But in fact there was no 'Them' until the Nazis became the mythical Evil they themselves had made up.

All you need to remember, really, is this.

When you see someone advocating these sorts of views, pointing the finger at imaginary 'Them', calling everyone else a sociopath, banging on about the family and marriage and hating all progressive forces like feminism, Marxism, liberalism, etc.

And especially if this person goes so far to do what the Nazis did- even start seeing modern art and music as part of the plot...

It's just the ramblings of a sexual and social inadequete. That sort of drivel always is. It's just when more than one of these loons get together there's a problem.

The Cult Message

2011-06-15T07:15:00.000-07:00

Here is what I tried to teach Carly.

First, you must tackle hatred.

God feels no hatred. Hatred is the first of all sins, the sin of the Devil. His resentment at not being God. Like all hate, it's root is love. The Devil hates that which he can never be. God hates not the Devil, as God hates not the Damned.

God just feels indifferent to them. They have exhausted her Love. God does not hate.

When you hate, you feel an emotion God does not feel. You feel a thwarted love God does not know. Hatred is the emotion of losing and knowing you deserve to lose because you are wrong.

And the Devil asks us to join him sometimes by asking us to feel that emotion, sometimes, even when we're right. So we'll know how he feels.

But hatred is not love's opposite, it is what the Devil seeks as love's goal. The true opposite of love- is indifference.

Every second of hate we feel, is just missiles used by us on the love beyond the hate the love whose excess fuels that hate.

We can easily learn to stop hating.

By learning to redirect. By turning away from the fight against ourselves. Stop hating black people, instead maybe love the white people a bit more who you hate black people so much because out of your supposed love of white people that white people don't see. Stop hating gay people, maybe love the ladies a bit more?

No one hates unless they love. Messed up as that is, hatred is the sign of a loving heart. Juswt one that is bound to the Devil. Because to repent hatred, you have to stop feeling it. And trust me, die hating a single thing in this universe, you die Damned.

By hating, you curse yourself.

Second, you must tackle anger.

There's little point in it. Exhibiting it can never lead anywhere. It has purpose on a battlefield, perhaps, but we're not on a battlefield. Therefore, it's dangerous.

It's a classic example, of course, of where women get away with being quite nasty to men. There's a moral loophole they get away with exploiting. Winding men up to a point where in the wild a man would have lashed out. But men are supposed to be like the proverbial guards at Buckingham Palace. I don't want to see women hit, of course I don't. But I don't want to see men hit either.

And I've heard many examples of women hitting men and people saying 'Oh he deserved it. He wound her up'.

The fact is- anger is a no-no. We live in a society where we have police officers and we have courts of law. It is their function to deal with disputes. But otherwise, we have to get on. Therefore we CANNOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES display anger.

Third, of course, is jealousy. That's easy enough. The easiest of all to over-ride.

But, in a nutshell, it's actually quite easy really. You just need to understand the principles. Your own emotions are not actually real, they're merely subjective. You can go in behind the workings and once you understand the wiring, you can simply start overwriting the programming. Introduce balancing systems so that you can use one emotion to drown out another.

The simplest systems to learn involve simple responses to stimuli. If you always have several thought processes going on in your head, you can easily 'turn one up' so as to drown out external stimuli. Avoid hearing what you think might upset you. Learn what to respond to and what not to.

You need to start thinking from a wider perspective. The emotion you actually feel doesn't matter. It' the emotion demanded of you by circumstances that matters. So- you need to learn to act.

Like any method acting, you get the emotions from within yourself. So it's not a question of repressing your emotions; you still need them. But they need to be your servants, not your masters. Your emotions are to be what others WISH them to be. You can display compassion, because you know compassion- and usually you will be displaying it at the right time, so that needn't worry you.

but nobody likes to be disliked, so you're not allowed to dislike people. But you know what liking someone is like so you can use that emotion to act believably. Basically- you force yourself to FEEL 'like'. That's the way method acting works. Emotionally, you get into the part you're playing.

Which is; likes everybody. Never raise their voice. Feels no anger, hatred or jealousy.

It's simple method acting. Eventually, you won't know the difference yourself. The difference between the act and reality disappears. You'll have PROGRAMMED yourself to be perpetually NICE. But it won't be robotic. Because you're using emotions you feel sometimes and understand. You're just programming yourself to exhibit the NICE emotions regardless.

Fake? Well, not really because that suggests that there is something real which this mimicks. This is not the case. It's simply that now your emotions are somewhat articial, always. There is no longer ANY natural emotion.

There can't be. Because you're not any longer spontaneous. Every emotion you feel gets sent up to the cental processor to be evaluated to see if it's suitable to display. So even what you REALLY feel has been sculpted and amended.

So nothing you say is ever SINCERE, it's all CALCULATED. What it is, is polite.

So the emotions are real enough, they're just now strategically produced, moderated, fitted to the environment. They are what the environment wants.

So- how does this effect 'love'?

Well, the point of all this is to be harmonious. Put bluntly, it means that it doesn't matter who you FEEL you love, you have to treat all people equally. You will love those who WANT you to love them and you will do so if this co-incides with the consensus view of others. It doesn't really matter what you genuinely feel on this topic, except insofar as someone has to make the first move.

Since this is women's role- to select men, it's essentially the function of men to give them what they want. To ask whether you love a woman is to overstep your function in all this. It's whether you make her feel good that matters.

The way to see it is quite simple. Imagine it's your job. Imagine you are paid to prostitute yourself emotionally and physically to women. What are you being paid in?

Sex. Pats on the head. Cuddles. Love. You'll feel good. You will feel love for her, if you get it right. Because she'll pet you and pamper you back.

So really, it's a simple proposition. Don't get confused by 'falling in love', that doesn't work. Over ride that and think what you're doing. Think what you want and what you have to do to get it. Be PROFESSIONAL about it.

And this isn't done by displaying your feelings. After all, no point giving your pearls to swine. No point in 'being in love' with someone who doesn't love you back. And as for whether they ACTUALLY love you, well, you can only judge by actions. After all, you don't REALLY care WHY they're patting your head, you don't care if their feelings are 'fake' or not.

And that- frankly- is how you make 'love' work. You need to start seeing the other person is actually paying you in sex, in caresses, in pats on the head,m in cuddles, in nice words- which could be 'real' or 'fake' you don't care either way- for YOUR successful performance in making THEM feel loved.

The whole thing is an act. In a sense. In that for it to really hit the spot for both of you, both of you need to use ART and SKILL. Not spontaneity. The whole thing is contrived from start to finish. You're not showing 'genuine feelings', you're doing better.

What you give her is what she'd get if she was paying you five hundred pounds a night to make her FEEL loved. And what you expect back- in lieu of that five hundred pounds your acting performance justifies- is an equal performance BACK from her. You want HER to make YOU feel as if YOU'D paid five hundred pounds for her to make YOU feel loved.

For it to work it HAS to be slightly contrived. It has to be choreographed, linguistically 'touched up'. But does that make it fake?

No. Just because the dancer has become so good that it can no longer be told where dance ends and dancer begins doesn't make it less real. Just that we're programming the environment to get the emotions and hence we can control their production. Because of this- they no longer truly matter. We no longer do things because we feel emotions, we feel emotions because we do things.

Emotions cease to be causes of things, only the effects of things. Products, not components.

Purity.

There is an important point Carly failed to grasp.

To achieve this level of detachment takes real concentration but also strategic thinking. For example- can you remember what you 'know' and don't know?

This is a simple point of mine. I only know what you tell me. I don't 'know' what other people have said to me about you. Because you don't, presumably, want me to. If you did, you'd tell me. So I only 'know' your version of events. Even when I know your version can't be right. It is still- when talking to you- the only version I know.

It's about avoiding conflict. And that is done by trying as far as possible to have no independent subjective thoughts of your own. Objectives ones, yes. You can make a decision on voting, for example.

But if something involves a decision made on emotion, don't bother. Just go with the majority and force yourself to like it. You need, as I say, to know who you're voting for. You actually have to put a cross in a box. But you don't NEED to make a choice ever on things like 'being in love' or 'wanting to spend your life with someone'. Just follow the path of least resistance.

Right, ok. So how does this affect 'being in love'?

Look, if you've got this far, you're pretty much in control of your emotions. You can only feel what you choose to feel. That's the point.

As I say, to ask at this point what your emotions ever REALLY are is slightly pointless, because they never impact on the outward appearances. You have complete control to DEPLOY what emotions you CHOOSE to deploy when you choose to deploy them.

What to others is one process, is to you, two separated processes. In one process, you receive emotions. But you then register them- save the experience in your databanks so as you can empathise with others when you can SEE that's what THEY are feeling. You 'downlaod the app', if you like, to use as a tool.

Then, you release an equal and opposite reaction, a COUNTER emotion, if you like.

And that's where you get your buzz. In drowing anger with mercy. Because you then you get to feel just and merciful. In drowing jealousy with generous submissiveness. Because then you get to feel selfless and forgiving. In drowning hatred with tolerance. Because then you get to feel all loving and wise.

And yes, oh goddam yes.

In drowning 'being in love' with self-denial of it. In rejecting it.

Self denial in all such things creates a more profound emotion; the emotion of self denial. And feeling it grip you, like a cold, icy breeze- it ennervates. You have total power over yourself. You are unbreakable. Free. You are ABOVE emotions, you are the OVERMAN.

Because that, you see, is what sorts out the men from the boys. When you truly can switch your emotions on and off like a tap, then you have become the future. You are the successor to man, no longer man. Beyond human.

You are the Overman of Nietzsche.

So- heartbreak in love is the adolescence you must go through. You must learn to triumph over the heartbreak and YOURSELF gain control of that response system. And the way you do that is by keeping deliberately falling in love and setting the heartbreak up yourself until one day, you and you alone control whether or not you feel that emotion. No one else can touch the supply. You can't feel heartbreak- you just switch the emotion off.

And when you can do that, you can switch them all off. Anger. Hatred. Jealousy. Political incorrectness. Using the 'C' word. The lot.

And if we can all do that, then it's my guess no one will ever even shout at anyone, let alone hit them. People just won't ever FEEL like it.

We'll only ever feel what we feel like feeling :)

Because if you can choose what to feel all the time- then why not choose to always be NICE and behave as if you really did- emotionally- love EVERYONE?

I wanted to teach Carly that, but sadly, she just wasn't a very good pupil.

So I stopped wasting my time on her.

That's really all there ever was to it. She didn't want to learn how to rise above her own emotions and achieve a TRUE strength- as opposed to the fake blusterings of someone weak where it matters.

Denial of one's own emotions, triumphing over them, standing cold, hard and firm when a whirlpool of defeated emotion swirls around inside you, that sense of utter calm, total peace, it's the calm to be found in the eye of the storm.

You are the Overman. The master, not the servant of your feelings.

And such a step puts you as far above a human being who cannot control their feelings, as Man is above the Chimpanzee.

What I sought to teach Carly was how HIGHER beings love. She was too much of a beast to learn.

And Hartley?

Read his blog. See how he thinks. He isn't interested in people becoming enlightened.

Hartley was never interested in defending women- I have never once seen him come to aid a women in need of aid.

He came to the aid of Carly, because beasts aid beasts. Because there are some who choose to live and love like beasts and they don't like being confronted with true ethics.

What I have written here is a blueprint to show each and every one of you to live and love like decent people.

Hartley sympathised with Carly Swan because she is a beast. That's all there is to it. It really ISN'T more complicated than that. He admires her bestiality and wants bestiality like hers preserved.

Anyway, before I go, I thought I'd leave a discussion point for next time.

Because I thought I'd start the next post with a bang and, in moving on from the past, present to you my REAL views on love.

Ok- think about this point and discuss;

Is not Sado-Masochism the ultimate expression of the struggle between Good and Evil? Is not Love inevitably proved through Masochist pleasure IN pain?

Nourishing Obscurity: Judgement of Jeremy Hartley

2011-04-21T05:37:00.001-07:00

Ok, to link the last post back to Jeremy Hartley and his part in this.

I'm not a vindictive person. I'm not. But here's how it stands.

Myself and Carly Swan/Ubermouth had what some call a 'cyber relationship' which means, not an actual relationship at all. During the process of this I was put through more abuse, pain and suffering than any woman has ever put me through. As a result of which I begged her to just leave me alone. No hard feelings, just leave me alone.

But no, she stalked me online, harrassed me with e-mails, overlooking the fact that SHE was the one who had traumatised ME, not the other way around.

Not content with having basically reduced me to a state of shellshock and thoroughly traumatised me to the degree where I pretty much NEVER wanted to have ANYTHING to do with ANY woman again, unless it be purely for casual sex, THAT'S how horrible an experience she was- she then set out online to carry out a malicious campaign online against the most important thing in my life- my blog.

I didn't want to take it further in 2007. I just wanted to forget the whole nasty experience and get on with blogging like it had never happened. I'd never FORGET it, just as a woman doesn't forget being raped. But I was prepared to forgive, move on, blog on.

As long as I never, EVER heard from Carly Swan offline, she never commented on my blog and never tried to speak TO me in other people's comments sections.

I felt no malice. I just didn't want to hear from her ever again. I just wanted to be able to come online and visit blogs without being frightened I'd bump into her.

Because she felt she'd been wronged. And was being vindictive. But I was the victim, not her.

And in a sense, yes, it goes back to Hartley's fucked up, abuse justifying, rape justifying, bully protecting system of values.

Contrary to what Carly and Hartley like to claim, I'm not a bastard. Not that it should have mattered, but I wouldn't- long term- consider any form of sexual relationship with a woman unless what is called 'swinging' was part of it.

This isn't because I'm some sex crazed deviant, as they like to claim. It's actually about emotions. I've learned from experience. It's not about me wanting to cheat, it's about two other things.

Firstly, I haven't the will power to say 'no' if it's offered. And it is. Because I'm a compulsive flirt. So- I WILL 'cheat'. Can't help it. When I do, I don't want to get hurt.

Secondly, as I learned when I was younger, your girlfriend 'cheating' only hurts because you've built up an expectation she won't.

When I had a girlfriend who told me, straight up, in the first week 'I fucked a guest at the hotel today', funnily enough, it didn't hurt. It actually got me hot. And actually, I realised how STUPID thinking it would hurt was.

So no- I don't want a woman to be 'faithful' to me because then I'd get used to it and then it would hurt if she wasn't. By her not being faithful, right in front of me, it acts as an antidote to the poison.

The other thing is- relationships end. I don't want to be hurt when they do. It's not a question of fighting them ending- that would hurt too. The way round being hurt is to live each day as if it's the last. As if you're in constant expectation of it ending.

What I'm not going to do is 'fight for the relationship'. Not ever. Because I might lose. And that will hurt.

So- when you talk of emotional investment- no, I've never got that much emotionally invested in you. I might love you with all my heart but I remain- at all times geared and ready to lose you. To give you up. To surrender.

If you leave? I'll be ok. Next day, I'll have forgotten.

And part of the reason for that...

Ok, someone- Bunny actually- once asked why you'd cheat on someone you genuinely loved.

Actually, there's MORE reason to cheat there. And in more than the one night stand sense. I don't want to get hurt. Therefore, being in love could hurt me. If I spread it so I'm not giving you everything, I'm never dependent on you. I'm literally SPREADING the love, using someone else to divert emotions. The more people I do this with, the less I FEEL being in love with you. And the less I care about losing you.

And if I do lose you, someone else just clicks right into the vacancy. As if you were never there.

So yes- if I REALLY loved a woman, a good sign would be that I wasn't just accidently having sex with other people when drunk, but that I was actually carrying on backup romantic relationships as an emotional insurance policy.

A back handed compliment, I guess. The proof I love you, is that I have a shadow for you. And a shadow for the shadow. The more I love you, the more OTHER women there need to be to emotionally insure me against losing you and to protect me from getting in too deep.

Bunny? I loved her so much I wouldn't DREAM of having had a romantic thing with her without having AT LEAST four backups at any one time to cushion me against my own feelings for her.

Now- that's basically how I see it. That's just experience. And I have a fair bit of experience of women. I don't think they in themselves are the problem, I just think it's the social set up.

I think the way I do things is the sensible way and it's the way I advocate it to anyone who'll listen. Because, let's be honest, all you really want is someone to hold you as you sleep who isn't going to hurt me.

Carly never held me as I slept. But she hurt me far more than any human being has ever hurt me. Jeremy Hartley would come in at number two, Baht At at number three and Claire my ex who killed my baby at number four. Wolfie- a blogger called Alex Bath- a very, VERY nasty guy would probably come in at number five. So four out of the five people who ever hurt me are internet blogging bullies.

Because I don't REALLY know what 'hurting' means to these people, but to me it's quite simple. To hurt me, you have to do one of the following;

1. Cause me ACTUAL physical pain, you know, by punching me, slapping me, stabbing me, etc.

2. Shout at me in such a manner as to cause fear and distress.

3. Say something nasty about me or to me.

4. Touching of a sexual nature, or inappropriate physical nature without having asked first if you can touch me in such a way.

There isn't really any other way you can hurt me. Nothing else you do to me can be HURTFUL. I can't actually say you've done me an injury unless you did one of the above. Lied about me? Yes, but that comes under number 3.

You see- it's Carly's LIES- backed up by Jeremy Hartley- that have led to MY LIFE being ruined.

Because Carly herself couldn't face the facts. She- when trying to downplay her behaviour- said I 'overblew a lot of passionate fighting'.

You see, that shows you HER perspective. It isn't mine.

My perspective is that I came home every day from work, looking forward to writing my blog. I made a cup of tea. Then Carly would ring.

But once the precedent had been set, there was no going back. Because I forgave and forgot that first time. I allowed myself to become a victim.

You can NEVER, EVER let anyone shout at you. Not ever. Never let anyone call you the 'C' word. Never let anyone get away with calling back after you've hung up on them.

I should have known this, I'm not an idiot, but I let Carly believe that she could traumatise me and it was nothing. Just 'passionate fighting'. I was too tolerant, I LET myself become a victim of bullying.

I never let men get away with it, but I've allowed myself to become a victim of women this way before.

I let her get away with it, that was the problem. I shouldn't have let her think it was aceptable. The very first time she ever shouted at me, ever swore at me, I should have made it clear I would never speak to her again without a grovelling and sincere apology and if it ever happened again, I would go to the police.

Because once I'd let her get away with it, it started to become the norm. It was just 'passionate fighting' to her.

No, it was abuse.

And she couldn't see it, didn't think she was doing anything wrong.

I think she got off the phone every night thinking 'It's all ok'. Whereas I got off the phone shellshocked and in tears.

She genuinely couldn't see my dilemma. Avoiding her phone calls because she was so scary, yet feeling obliged to talk to her in case avoiding her phone calls led to her cyberbullying me.

I don't think she could see that just by TALKING to me, she was hurting me.

Because the answers to her questions didn't make sense, I knew that.

For example the answer to her question 'Do you want a relationship with me?' was- in reality- 'I don't care as long as the phone calls stop and you don't talk to me'.

The answer to the question 'Have your feelings changed?' was 'The only emotion I feel about you is abject terror'.

The answer to the question 'Is there someone else?' was 'I wish there was. Then I'd have a good reason to be rid of you. It's not that there's someone else, it's that you're horrible. I WANT there to be someone else. ANYONE else'.

It was the TRUTH that she didn't like. Truth she couldn't take.

And nor was the truth truth that Hartley could take. the truth actually offended him.

Because the TRUTH is- a bit like his lies- only the total opposite.

And perhaps I should just have come out in 2007 and said what I am about to say in the next post.

All I will say first is this.

Jeremy Hartley does not KNOW God. Jeremy Hartley does not FEEL her, does not KNOW her, has never one moment in his entire life felt her love. I KNOW that.

How do I know that?

If I told you I'd been to your home town and you asked me to describe it and I got it all wrong, you'd know I hadn't been there wouldn't you?

Jeremy Hartley thinks because he goes to church, believes in marriage, quotes scripture and follows it to the letter of law and SAYS he believes that Jesus Christ was literally the son of God and Heaven and Hell exist, that means he actually believes in God.

Saying you believe a thing doesn't mean you do. You might even think you do, but DO you?

I don't think many of these bible thumping types do. It's self delusion. Otherwise they'd be far more critical of the belief system, analyse it- sometimes say 'This bit HAS to be total rubbish'.

Bible Christianity is, in my view- like radical Islam- exactly what Marx said it is- opium for the masses. It's just a crutch. Psychological heroin. It's not actually a loving relationship with God.

I KNOW Jeremy Hartley doesn't know god by reading his blog. He couldn't portray Carly as a victim if he did; he'd know she was- and is-possessed by Evil.

And he uses Carly, knowing she doesn't know God or even believe in her. He knows Baht At and Wolfie live their lives in Godless void.

Because that's what life without God is. And Hartley, for all his pretence in believing in God, KNOWS God not. Never has, never will.

I know that from having read his own words about how he sees love, his 'love' with Anya. Just one line says it all 'it was a volatile relationship'.

That's it. That's all I need to know to tell me that here is a man who does NOT know or believe in God.

As if I didn't already know it from his homophobia, his right wing views, his sexism, his bigotry- his pharasaical nastiness.

Because the- excuse my french- dumb fuck hasn't managed to find the one bloody sentence in the bible that actually matters and use that as the basis for his thinking.

God is love.

And ergo, love is God.

Meaning- quite literally, God is real. Love is the actual, real presence of God within you. It's not imaginary, it's real. It actually is the PRESENCE of the universal consciousness and the EMOTION the universal consciousness feels actually entering YOU. It exists, it's there, it existed before you, it's universal. IF you choose to open up to it.

If you don't, that God shaped hole will be filled by something else, a substitute. The hole needs to be filled, after all. And you'll fill instead with your own selfish feelings and elevate them and expand them till they create pseudo-loves that feel stronger.

And you'll THINK it's love, but it's not. It's just you know no better. And that has a word.

Passion.

But passion is not love. Because it isn't GOD.

And that is WHY passion is evil. Because it's a subsitute. It causes people to live lives and do things God doesn't WANT.

Because- God WANTS Free Love and Communism.

The cult belief Jeremy Hartley accuses me of pushing is one that is- in fact- just a truth he's frightened of.

But I'm not trying to indoctrinate you, I don't HAVE to. At the end of the day, I write this blog, I guess, for people who strive to be enlightened or- already being enlightened- want to DO something about it.

Because I don't need to convince you God wants Free Love and Communism- you can ask her yourself.

And that's what Hartley is frightened of, I think. I KNOW that if you ask her, she'll tell you.

He's FRIGHTENED of my 'new age, cult, charles Manson views because he's frightened they are TRUE and he is frightened he exists outside of God's love.

In other words, he lives in Hell in this life. For there is no other.

Because I admit one thing. and I admitted it To carly in 2007.

Love Carly? Of course I loved Carly. As I love you, you're all God's children. God loves you, it is you who to choose to damn yourselves, if you can't feel that. That is the point, God turns her back on no one; that's YOUR choice.

I admit, that's all I wanted to teach Carly. What I wanted her to learn. But she was too proud, too arrogant, to learn. Thought she knew it all. That she'd had relationships, been in love- she knew how to love.

No, that wasn't what I meant. I didn't mean 'feelings', didn't mean 'relationships', I meant LOVE.

I meant opening her hear to God and allowing God to flow through her, washing away the passions so she emerged- pure.

Because that's what purity means. Marriage- marriage was tolerated by the clergy as the only way to prevent fights amongst people who felt passions but hadn't found God. Learned to love eachother poroperly through loving God.

People who love God don't need Marriage and don't need property.

You see- I see loving someone as a way of worshipping God. I see sex with someone as two people celebrating God's gift of life to us. My conscience tells me we should make love to eachother and that religion, when it says otherwise, is WRONG.

I also know that you can know if something comes from God or from passion by simple judgement. Ask yourself- does this feeling seem like something God would have put in me?

And I don't believe the Devil is real. I believe- if you like- that you are the Devil. So am I. We all are. The Devil is the bit of you that doesn't want to become ONE with God and mankind. Passion. That's what Evil is. Passion.

Feelings that come- not from God- but within you. The animal you would be if God's love hadn't reached out to you and raised you up.

And yes- I'll admit- I wanted to rescue Carly from that. I don't apologise for it. I want to rescue everyone from it.

And I admit, no, I never wanted to marry her or 'be with her', any more- or less- than I do any other of you.

It was- if you like- simply a way of trying to teach her God's Love for her and getting her to fight instead for what GOD wants.

Which I wouldn't have to 'indoctinate her' in- she'd find out for herself.

Look, do you really want to know what my 'cult' is?

My 'crazed, deranged set of beliefs' that I devote my life to pushing on to anyone who'll listen?

Ok, stay with me. We've finished with Hartley now.

Now you get to compare what I'm saying to what he is saying.

But before I go, why don't I give my critics some fuel?

I've never been angry in my life about anything. Never hated anyone, never BEEN hated.

Yes, society says I'm a bad boy. I fought the law and the law won.

I spread the love drug (ecstasy) around.

What my critics don't tell you, is I didn't make a profit on it. I did it because I believe in Ecstasy. I believe when you take it, you commune with God.

I actually used it myself for religous reasons. Because going to raves was- to me- like going to church. It was religion to me- along with Mass.

want to hear more?

I like group sex and partner swapping. And yes, I do it for religous reasons. Yes, I think group sex and partner swapping is a way we show we love god and our species. that we can enjoy the gift of sex without getting possessive.

Because I believe God gave us sex as a beautiful gift of love. Group love, not possessive love.

I believe this and I've fought the law on it, as I say.

But I say I do all this and believe it to be part of what Marxist Revolution is all about and Catholicism as handed down to us by Jesus Christ is all about.

This is what my life is all about, what I live for and will ultimately- God willing- either die for, or be given the chance by you to serve you in bringing about.

I believe that my belief system reprsents the truest and purest form of TRUE Christianity, in all it's true Gnostic glory, the essence of what Catholic truth is all about. I believe my belief system to be the true heir to Rousssea, to Marx, to Lenin, to Nietzsche.

And I believe more. I believe all other belief systems to be mere supsersition. My personal religion is not superstition. It is religion and science synthesised.

I believe that my belief in God is such that Richard Dawkins could not fault my faith. I do not believe in supsersition, or vengeful Gods with tablets of stone who turn pillars into salt. My God is real. My God- Love- can be proved to exist and be proved to BE the universe.

I do not believe I am Jesus. Nor do I believe I am God. But I believe as firmly as Jesus did that I AM right.

Which is arrogance. Or it is correct. I most certainly could be wrong. Insanity is a minority of one.

So how about we start again?

I'm bored of proving what a dick Hartley is, because you know he is anyway. You and I both know that his problem is...

....yeah, yeah, we know. Let's leave him alone now, eh? I've run my course on being angry with him. We're quits. It's for God to deal with him now and she will. A watched kettle never boils.

What I need to do is to convince you my philosophy is correct. Then you can see the wood from the trees, you'll KNOW what the truth about me was- and is- and hopefully, we can set up some kind of movement :)

Don't worry, I'm not going to brainwash you....

Why don't I start by offering you my credentials?

No, not as human being, as what I'm putting myself forward as. As a writer, as a philosopher and- as then you can judge if what I'm putting forward is in fact what we need is a religous and political system for the third Millenium?

Which- ambitious as it is- is my goal.

I don't want to found a civilisation that lasts a thousand years, don't worry :)

I just want to be the creator of it's culture :)

So- let me be start by showing you how you can connect to God. Because you can, anyone can. if you forget a lot of bollocks you've been taught.

Don't worry, I'm going to post it all out in the open and you can try it for yourself. See if you find God.

I'm saying you will. I'm saying, if you follow my instructions, you'll FEEl god's love. And you'll also feel inside her heart.

And you'll find enlightenment.

And then- I believe- you'll come join with me in my way of thinking and...I'll explain later :)

Kisses

Especially to My Little Honey. Mail me.

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

2011-03-30T08:35:00.000-07:00

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...

Nourishing Obscurity Part Three: Jeremy Hartley's 'Them' Theory

2011-03-03T05:50:00.000-08:00

Conspiracy theories are as old as the hills. Scapegoats have been around as long as crises have arisen which need someone to blame.

Nero blamed the Christians for setting fire to Rome.

But modern conspiracy theory is a rich tapestry. First let's look at our gallery of villains.

1. Jews.

The Jews have been a suspect group since the Middle Ages. This was when Christendom became awake to this sizeable minority wandering through Europe, strangers within, apparently unrepentant that they crucified Christ. No one could believe that they didn't know what they'd done, so the common belief was that they had been driven out of the Holy Land in punishment for their crime and would wander till Doomsday in penance for their sin. They were thus seen as a cursed race, born with the mark of Cain upon them. The Gypsies carried a similar curse, it being believed they were Egyptians who had refused to give shelter to Mary and Joseph as they hid from Herod in Egypt. Christians believed both these groups were secretly preparing for the Anti-Christ who would be born amongst the Jews.

Treated as a cursed people, no one would marry them. Or employ them. However, they had a use. They learned to fill niches Christians saw as sinful. Prostitution was one. Usury was another. In time, what began as a necessity, became a way of life. European Jews themselves began to cherish their status as a tribe apart. And embrace Materialism as a way of existing. They became a self fulflling prophecy.

And once the old religous fears of Jews as the cradle race of the Anti-Christ subsided, once the rights of Man became open to all, still they remained, a group who had preserved their identity against the cultural melting pot which had blended together the many peoples of Europe into Christendom. Somehow, the fear remained; the Jew was not one of us and he made his wealth in spite of us and against our ethics.

Belief in a secret council of world Jewry lived on. With all the wealth of the world at it's disposal. And when the enlightenment succeeded in the nineteenth century, it was noticed by many that this new order seemed very good for the Jews. They were the ones bankrolling it, profitting one end and at the other, exacerbating tensions so the working classes would rise up. What did these Jews seek, if not to overthrow the Kings and nobility of the Goyim and became Kings and nobles over the Goyim themselves?

2. The Templars

The REAL Templars were a holy order of knights who were in some ways an early version of the Jesuits, founded in origin to protect the crusader kingdoms. They became a powerful force in Medieval Europe, buildding up huge reserves of wealth and setting up a fairly primitive international banking system. In other words, you could take your gold to the Temple in London and get a note of credit enabling you to pick up the SAME amount of gold in Constantinople. So, by combining a sort of medieval Thomas Cook with a sort of UN taskforce role, these guys became a big power in medieval economics.

However, a French King called Philip the Fair agreed to let the Pope move to Avignon which was a bit safer for him than Rome at the time, in effect making the Pope a French Client. In return, Philip wanted the Pope to declare France not to be subject to the Emperor and allow Philip to arrest all the Templars on trumped up charged of heresy.

The charges brought at the trials which led to large numbers of Templars being burnt at the stake lived on, in spite of the fact that Philip the Fair generally made them up. The legend of Templars gathering by moonlight to worship Baphomet lived on. And as time went on, the Templars became a sort of symbol of secret societies up to no good. Due to a confusion in Wolfram Von Eschenbach's Graal legend, they were linked in with the mythical Holy Grail and vaguely extended back in time to be seen as part of ancient hidden mysteries.

It was perhaps only natural, therefore, that some bright spark would allege that they never truly died...

3. Freemasons

Who knows what the Masons are really all about? They like to think there's something special about them. That there is some inner secret of Masonry. Conspiracy theorists would say; see above. They're the Templars at it again. The truth is a little less exciting, really. The Masons have certainly added to their own mystique but reality is more likely that they emerged, literally, from Free Masonic guilds- the arts of the Master Mason in origin merely being 'Alchemical' knowledge one kept quiet about because it was at one time seen as suspect. By the eighteenth century this fraternity attracted a lot of Rationalist thinkers who protected their free discussions with a bit of arcane mumbjo jumbo.

It's certainly a rich and powerful gang to be a member of. But are they a continuation of the Knights Templar?

They are if you're Jeremy Hartley.

4. Rosicrucians

During the early seventeenth century, a number of pamphlets began to appear which purported to be written by members of a secret society called the Rosicrucians. Most of these pamphlets were of a scientific nature, but as these were times when religous wars dominated Europe and it wasn't a great time to think anything at all without being burned by either side as a heretic, writting anonymously as part of a made up secret society was a cunning ploy. There were no Rosicrucians then or now, but legend at the time pictured these as a secret group of Alchemists supplying gold to European princes to pursue hidden agendas. It stands to reason they live in 'Themland'.

5. Jesuits

Since to Protestants the Catholic Church is one great big conspiracy to hide the true teachings of Christ, it stands to reason the Jesuits are up to something.

6. The Illuminati

There actually WAS a secret society of sorts founded in 1786 in Bavaria devoted to enlightenment ideals amd a United Europe amongst other things. It didn't last very long but the fact that it believed in a United Europe, secularism, social equality, rationalism- as well as the fact a Rotschschild was a founder member have led many to assume this society lives on and is somehow connected to the Freemasons. Generally, it's seen as being the same as the Masonic 33rd degree. In myth, it is seen as being identical also to Jacobin thinking. Illuminati teaching is behind all Communistic projects.

These were the main protagonists in traditional conspiracy lore as it evolved during the nineteenth century. But we mustn't forget that just as old phobias (witches, Lucifer, etc) dropped out, new villains came in...

Villains whose objectives seemed happily to coincide with what the tin foil hat brigade NEEDED to believe.

7. Darwin

Darwin rationalises out of existence the need for a creator to have endowed Man with reason. Darwin makes the soul no longer a necessity. The danger in Darwin is not so much what he says, but what is logically possible now he's dropped his bombshell. The status quo now has nothing sacred to it.

8. Marx

Well, he's Jewish. That's a BIG giveaway. I really don't need to go into why he's so OBVIOUSLY part of the conspiracy. The Illuminati paid him, you see? And no, this allegation doesn't come from Hartley.

It dates back to when Communist Manifesto came out!

9. Nietzsche

Poor old Nietzsche. Gets a bad press from everyone, it seems. Well, you won't be surprised to find him high up on the conspiracy theorist hate list. The arch conspiracy theorist, Mr A Hitler, took him off but usually he's to be found there. After all, he DID write overwhelmingly about Man becoming God...

Blasphemy masquerading as philosophy. Whatever will those Illuminati think of next?

10. Theosophy

The late nineteenth century produced a curious movement whose beliefs laid them wide open to becoming the target of the tin foil hatters. I refer, of course to Helen Petrovna Blavatsky and the Theosophy Society.

What is Theosophy? Well, it's not so bad an idea, really. Kind of a product of that whole Spiritualist/seance thing, mixed with a lot of Buddhism and a very large nod to Darwin's theory of Evolution. It was kind of a new religion in some ways.

Blavatsky was likely a terrible old fraud, but she claimed that there is a kind of psychic book called the Akashic Records which one can read psychically and if you do, you find out how man evolved through several root races to become modern man- the fifth of the seven root races. So it creates a new mythology which has some links to-er- nineteenth century paleontology. And of course, it brings in the best of all religion by saying that humanity has been led by many 'ascended masters' who are, in many ways, like the 'Overmen' of Nietzsche. Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ, Manu, they were all ascended Masters.

Is it a load of bollocks? Depends what you mean. The Akashic Records and the egg laying Lemurians, very likely. The belief in a coming 'New Messiah' (known as the Maitreya) maybe a little dangerous. But a lot of the ethos of Theosophy as a movement lives on.

Go to any Occult shop in Glastonbury or Stroud, you'll see what I mean. The modern New Age culture owes a lot to the Theosophy movement. In truth, most western Buddhists think they practice the Zen tradition but in reality, the sort of Buddhism practised in the west generally followed the trail already laid by Theosophy.

So- where do they fit in?

Well, they claim St Germain as an Ascended Master and also lay claim the Rosicrucian movement was part of them... Many of their members supported liberal, feminist or socialist causes. And the fact is, they were trailblazers. In 'undermining' a lot of traditional Western insularism and attempting to create a multifaith Faith.

If you really don't like the overall ethos of modern left-liberalism and the culture which ultimately triumphed in the sixties, blame the Theosophists. They were flower children dabbling in Eastern mysticism about eighty years before it became really fashionable.

11. Aleister Crowley

The founder of modern witchcraft. He actually believed in it himself. Of course, many see him as a modern Anti-Christ. Because- let's face it, he was a Satanist who dabbled in 'Black Magic'. Of course, one might say since Satan isn't real and Magic doesn't work, does that really matter? He wasn't into child sacrifice or anything.

The evidence is that having 'given himself to the dark side' he was able to- er- indulge what was then SEEN as a dark side. In other words, he found it easier to tell people he worshipped Satan than that he was bisexual.

Ok, any other things that might be pertinent?

Well, firstly we need to know a few other myths that have built up over the years. There is, in many, a grain of truth. But nevertheless, if one really tries one can add two and two up to make five.

1. Many of the founding fathers of the US were Freemasons.

2. Cecil Rhodes, symbol of the British Empire, did indeed lay out a master plan to set up a secret society aiming at reuniting the British Empire with the United States and setting up a United Earth under Anglo-Saxon spuremacy. This is fact. It is what the Rhodean scholarship was set up for.

Some argue this secret society was in fact set up and it runs the US today, through the Council of Foreign relations.

3. The Nazis had neo-pagan leanings. Some allege they had occult connections too, linking up with Madame Blavatsky and even alleging the Nazis had a secret base in Antarctica from which they sent flying saucers to Mars. Others say they simply rediscovered this base which dated back to an alien civilisation.

4. There is indeed a relatively covert, but real, group of world movers and shakers known as the Bilderburg group. They have met regularly since the Second World War. Basically, all the leading politicians, bankers, media tycoons and industrialists consist of a kind of hidden government that meet reguklarly in relative secret. They do exist, yes.

Is the Bilderburg group another name for the Illuminati? Erm.

No.

5. The United Nations exists. So does the European Union. Both are, one might argue, logical and progressive creations. Not to the Conspiracy Theorists. These are all part of the agenda.

6. Aliens. Are these the Grays or are they lizards from the Pleiades? It varies. And, of course, we then find the Aliens have been in it all along. Even founded the Illuminati.

Confused? Any Questions? The Motive? Very good point. One might have thought they've been taking rather a long time over this. And it's hard to see what they're looking to acheive.

You see, one can raise the NORMAL objections, you know, the Occam's Razor ones. Such as, if Government ministers can't make a joke in bad taste without the e-mail being leaked, where are all the Illuminiati scoops?

Over all the years we've had no defectors, no betrayals and- more crucially- no humungous cock ups.

Hartley witters away and says 'Yes, but look at all the circumstantial evidence!'

What this amounts to is- for the most part- a collection of co-incidences, garbled truths and testimonies from charlatans seeking to make a name for themselves.

But in another way- it's deeper. In many ways, it can be classed as a kind of collective psychosis. Why do I say this?

Ok, the boundary line between real genius and paranoid schizophrenia is quite narrow. In point of fact, many great scientists were- co-incidentally- closely related to paranoid schizophrenics. In some cases they themselves were quite borderline.

Because the hallmark of genius is the ability to spot patterns and make bold rational leaps forward on the basis of patterns you spotted. Crossing the line is when- the pattern is in your head. When you really have lost touch with the strictures of logical rationalisition.

Grassy Knollington country.

But it's fine line. Take Mendeleev. At the time, many scientists scoffed at ideas there was a PATTERN in the atomic weights of elements. Attempts to prove the concept had not been overly successful. Then along came Mendeleev and demonstrated a pattern. Thing was, it involved changing a number of atomic weights and valencies, in defiance of what were deemed accepted facts. Mendeleev, however, was a bold man. Where the facts contradicted his theory, the facts were wrong. Simple.

Now that's a bold thing to say. But, as it panned out, true in this case. And where they were right, the facts simply led to a DEEPER pattern within his theory- the Rare Earths, Noble Gases, Isotopic Elements.

But it's a fine line. The Conspiracy Theorist KIND OF does a Mendeleev, only he's severely lost touch with the empirical process. The theory HAS to be right in contradiction of facts.

But what does our modern conspiracy theorist seek answers to? The conspiracy theory- as we have seen- is two hundred years old, at least. It grows over time. But whereas in the 1820s, it's adherants needed to explain why people were turning against their 'legitimate' monarchs and no longer accepting everything religion told them, whereas in the 1930s they needed to explain Modernism, Bolshevism, Feminism and racial tension, what do they need to explain today? Apart from all this?

Globalisation is increasingly rendering nation states meaningless. Our cities are multicultural melting pots. English, British, Asian, Polish, German, Italian- it doesn't mean very much any more. Except to the old and the poor. And a few extremists. Fact is, France is no longer far away. Indians aren't exotic. Patriotism has no positive face any more, it is just a tribal badge of anger. We love the England football team but as to quite who they represent, well. People who live here, I guess. England means something for sport but it's no use as a political concept.

We live in one world, with one set of problems. Sure, there's regional variation. Majorly so. But Libya today is less foreign a country than France was in 1939.

It's not so much today's generation want to live in a centralised world; we don't. But the nation state of sixty million is kind of the odd man out now in government; too big to deliver for regional needs, too small to be an efficent economy, or bear defence burden. A major downside of being 'British' is the strain of living in a country that- push come to shove- is the only power in Europe capable of fighting a proper war. We have to tolerate violence because we need to breed soldiers. As a result, Britain is a violent country which glorifies violence in a way, say, Sweden doesn't have to. Because we're watching the Swedes arses for them.

Many people of my generation can understand the emotional appeal of 'Let's get of Europe, we fought the Nazis, we don't have anything in common with those garlic munching surrender monkeys' and yeah, when you're 'British', you have a lot of HISTORY to be proud of. But it's history. And now let's- as Brits, people who once set an example to the world, set one now. By being Good Europeans.

And the UN too. Time it started being what it says on the tin. United. Nations. The world is too small for Independence, what we need is Interdependence. A United States of Earth. And no, Britain is too small to be a state in it's own right. Europe is about right.

This is what I call the HEAD argument. Of course I understand the Heart argument. Thing is- it's irresponsible. In a world where we have nuclear weapons. And starvation and civil wars in Africa.

Every logical indicator points the same way. But again, the conspiracy theorist can't accept this. Having no arguments to support his case, he instead falls back on 'Ah, but it's all an Illuminati Bilderburger plot!'

After all, that REALLY knocks down the case for a United Europe!

What people like Hartley can't QUITE come to terms with is- we just don't feel so BRITISH any more. Oh, I kind of thought I did when I was younger. But I think young people do. As a kind of tribal thing. But I don't think we REALLY see Johnny Foreigner as- well, Johnny Foreigner. Not any more.

I guess the REAL issue people like Hartley wrestle with is the pereceived 'disappearance' of British culture. Or Western culture. Or Christian culture, as they see it. 'They're all over here and we're not over there' 'We have to allow their mosques and treat them with respect, do they show respect for Christianity in their countries?' yaddie, yaddie, yaddie.

It's no GREAT mystery, really. I read an interesting piece once on 'Whatever happened to New England culture?' making the point that once upon a time, most regions of the US had distinctive regional cultures. Remains of them linger on as a matter of regional identity but New England seems- now- relatively cultureless. The author made the point that what had ACTUALLY happened was that New England culture had become the 'Establishment' culture. That it still lived on. It was the backdrop of uniformity the other REGIONS expressed their identity AGAINST.

British culture and Western culture likewise CAN'T disappear. We're not 'under threat'. Whatever comes out of the melting pot in two hundred years would look more familiar to Abe Lincoln and Winston Churchill than it would to- The Ottoman Sultans.

Western culture isn't under threat. It's in the comfortable position of having won. For Islamic fundamentalism to WIN, it would have to become so WESTERN it would be unrecognisable. Christians can afford to turn the other cheek in the face of Muslim hatred- genuinely felt- at a fact that stings them and doesn't sting us because it no longer matters to us. The fact that Christianity lost the crusades when we fought over religion. But the culture that came OUT of Christianity when Christian cultures became more enlightened ended up being the winners. Christianity overtook Islam when Christians gave up Holy Wars.

There is no threat, really, to our way of life from outside. Nor, any longer, is there a way of life as such to defend. People like Hartley cannot understand what it's LIKE to truly FEEL multicultural. The growing sense of consciousness as One Humanity that is sweeping through us needs explaining.

And this is where many Conspiracy Theorists find themselves. The Nineteen Sixties sea change in ideas. One has to remember just how people thought before the sixties. It's a very radical paradigm shift. There are many old codgers who feel like Hartley. But also many younger people who feel alienated by the changes even though they've lived with them all their lives. In most cases it's just a case of grass looking greener on the other side, I think. But also, it being a period of change, some people cling to certainties.

And this is NOT an era of certainty. A good number of people- myself included- think the writing is on the wall for Capitalism and the global revolution isn't far away. Perhaps we're wrong. I doubt it. But what we feel, others feel too. The old order and all it's values most certainly ARE collapsing and to many, that in itself is scary.

People genuinely don't know where they stand. People cry out for some sort of CONSENSUS of opinion. To know what is right and what is wrong. To know what to do to- not just to avoid being arrested and sent to prison but to avoid the condemnation of their peers.

It unsettles people. Hurts them. And the more we're expanding into wider frontiers meeting wider and wider numbers of people the more we get lost, not knowing how near- or how far- we are from our own mores with these people.

I can feel Hartley's frustration sometimes as he rails against a culture he no longer understands. In a different way I- like all of us- feel that sense of discomfort quite often at finding onself in a social circle that is- in terms of received values- a long way from home.

I feel like that when I encounter people like him having- what are in my view- rather fuddy duddy ideas about sex and relationships. What would be a perfectly normal pub conversation to me would no doubt shock him. And vice versa. And this lack of cohesion, this constantly shifting of ground unsettles all of us.

Take this whole Ubermouth business. From my perspective- and to most people I know- I did her no wrong and I'm the victim of her completely inappropriate view of human relationships. But my view and the views of most people I mix with is very much a nineties view. There ARE people she manages to convince that SHE is the victim. Hartley for one.

And here we come to it. What we're really talking about here are the issues.

Underneath all this insanity that dominates Hartley's 'Them' are the same fears and the same anxieties that dominate us all. The big questions. And what are they?

Because Hartley's anxieties, Hartley's fears- they involve us all. True, Hartley's attitudes to them are those of a delayed adolescent. But what are the real issues?

What are the real issues that are so important that Hartley would think it justifiable to engage in cyberbullying someone who disagreed with him?

Well, let's take a look.

And we'll start with the one which affects us all. We think about it more than we think about ANYTHING.

Why ARE Sex and Love so important?

Nourishing Obscurity Part Two: The Philosophical Necessity of Jeremy Hartley's 'Them'

2011-02-25T06:50:00.000-08:00

Philosophically- and ideologically- the world can be divided into two camps.

Naturalists and Rationalists. All opinions anyone has on ANYTHING depend on those positions.

The Powers that be are Rationalists. Have to be. Rationalism is true. Naturalism is- false. The real leaders of men are all Rationalists.

But most of the dupes of the Powers that be are Naturalists. In fact- emotionally- the world at large is still Naturalist. Intellectually, Naturalism is dead and Rationalism holds the field. But most people aren't intellectuals. The values they hold are Naturalist ones.

Why? Because Rationalism is younger than the current cycle. It won- intellectually- in the 1850s. Long ago, perhaps. But the current epoch and the current 'Natural Order' was forged eighty years earlier. The intellectual victory of Rationalism served only to enlighten the ruling order. False as Naturalism is- the world is STILL built on the basis it is true.

Naturalism is a tacit assumption implicit in ALL ancient religions, all philosophies much older than the Anthropocene. Rationalism is shiny and new, without history or tradition. Naturalism is- old wisdom, it FEELS right, the way things are MEANT to be. Rationalism is cold, artificial seeming, often counter-intuitive. Naturalism is the lie that we can just sit around forever and just keep doing the same things for ever and ever and live in a static world.

Rationalism says that is not a choice. Because life is change, adapt or die. You stand still, you get fossilised.

Rationalism scares. Because what it says is that all our traditions count for nothing. Rationalism says we MUST throw them away or we will die. Naturalism says this is a lie and suspects the reason we say this is- to throw traditions away for some nefarious purpose.

There are few Intellectual Naturalists left. Though emotionally, they still hold sway. Rationalists fear putting their heads above the parapet outside their ivory towers. Down the pub, Naturalism remains the winning ideology.

Intellectually, their case is indefensible. Though even many Intellectual Rationalists baulk at accepting emotionally the Rationalist view in full. Many still try find something Naturalist to cling onto, somehow. Something out there that can be 'irreducable'.

The fallacy, of course, that the Naturalist lives in- is that there are such things as 'Natural' and 'Artificial'. No, there's only what we can do and what we can't; only things they way they've always been since records began (not THAT long, really) and things that we recorded as changing. But it's ALL, ALWAYS been change.

Only now we know how it works.

The Intellectual Naturalist has no refuge from this; only to say we're misled. We DON'T know, he says. We have been misled. Life isn't change. Things were made a certain way. Rationalism is a trick. It's a trick to mislead us, to MAKE us change.

And so- whilst Rationalists try understand reality, the last vestiges of Intellectual Naturalism try understand the TRICK Rationalists are deluded by.

Come again?

Ok, well let's just explain simply the essential tenet of Naturalism....

Some religions believe God made us a few thousand years ago. Some think the world- and us- have always been here. These two points might sound very different.

Except that they're not. In practice, they amount to the same. In one version, we start in the Imaginary Golden Age, then go straight to the Bronze Age and the Iron Age (maybe a VERY, VERY short Neolithic. Man was created speaking, and knowing (in principle) how to do things. When booted of Eden he immediately did the obvious. Farmed, made metal tools, had Kings, wives, etc, etc.

In the 'World was here forever' version, we get to our Golden Age in the future, but then go back to our Neolithic. As if there is no history outside the period 10,000 BC to now. As if we have a nuclear disaster that sends us back to the Neolithic, but then we set off again in cycles. For all eternity.

In either version, no human beings ever existed who couldn't talk. The animals and plants that exist ALWAYS existed. Made, for us. There is a definite sense of what is 'Natural' and it is the limits of the imagination of Iron Age writers, mostly.

The Naturalist vision, either way, is narrow. History is short, or it is repetitive. Things were never very different from now, nor could they be.

What is crucial about all Naturalist visions is that just there was no Age of Reptiles- let alone hundreds of millions of years when life got no more exciting than slime moulds- there can be no Space Age. No bright future where humanity lives on many, many worlds in a life of ease where babies are made in laboratories and food grown on ocean floors. This future can exist no more than the Devonian- because the Devonian didn't exist either.

What is it issue here, is the pattern. The Naturalist viewpoint- whether time started a few thousand years ago or goes on eternally in cycles- can only see a pattern based on the last ten thousand years on one little rock. The rest of time and space is the same as that.

Man was not descended from Amoebas, ergo, Man can never BECOME God.

And this is what it's all about. Whether Man can BECOME God. The Naturalist says No and we will go to Hell for suggesting we can. The Rationalist says 'It's just a matter of time. We must strive for it but can someone shut these fucking DICKHEADS up who keep telling us we're going to Hell for trying to BETTER ourselves!'

When was the Naturalist first proved wrong? Well, any historian of science knows the answer; The Steam Engine. You think James Watt invented it? No, he BUILT it. The idea was much older. MUCH older. It goes back, in fact, to Renaissance times. A kind of heretical suggestion whispered around that no one dared try. Why didn't they dare? Because to build it, you'd need help. You couldn't keep such a thing a secret. You had to live somewhere where no one is going to destroy your project before you finish it and charge you with blasphemy.

People got charged with blasphemy for suggesting it. Or treated as insane.

Why?

Because of the suggestion. That a mechanical, artificial MANMADE device could do more work- have MORE horsepower- than a horse. That you could get more work from something human beings made than an animal God made.

Which can't be right. God made the animals we need. Sure, life's hard but only because we lost Eden. We can only aspire to get back there, not BETTER it. We can't make from metal BETTER beasts of burden than the ones God made.

Of course, building a Steam Engine didn't change minds and hearts overnight. The Nineteenth century is the story of mankind slowly waking up and realising that almost everything that Man had previously assumed- in all faiths, in all philosophies- was WRONG.

It is astonishing to think that at the start of the Nineteenth century Cuvier held up the fact that mummified animals from the pyramids were identical with animals today as proof animals had ALWAYS been the same and evolution hadn't happened.

It's the biggest paradigm shift in human history. And it's totally contrary to anything ANY humans knew of or considered. And the knowledge that not only is change not unuusual, it's the norm, but it's speeding up. More knowledge means faster change. It's the fact that from now on, your childhood is a stranger land than the farthest reaches of the globe. That's the new reality.

But the Naturalists still hold the heart strings of the ignorant. Take the fear of genetically modified food. What, after all distinguishes a species we created from one didn't? Nothing. Nothing except the record books. What WE make is as good as- if not better than what 'God' made.

This arrogant belief- the certainty of the Rationalist- is the Hubris the Naturalist viewpoint condemns with it's legends of Babel and Icarus.

Einstein had the courage to say of his theory when it was proven in 1915 that he could not be proved wrong and if he were, then GOD would be wrong because his theory couldn't be.

We say this new departure, this faith in human logic, renders irrelevant any tradition, any sentiment, any lingering fear of God, or Gods.

We say that WE, through our own ingenuity can create whatever we choose to suit whatever desires we choose.

This- is blasphemy.

Of course it is. The Rationalist position is indeed, completely blasphemous according to the standard of any system of thought based on Naturalist thinking.

Because- let's face it- what are we looking forward to? What are we saying is possible?

Well- I guess we say that a thousand years from now women will not give birth and sex will not lead to pregancy. All our children will be grown in laboratories. Because of this, marriage and all the ideals associated with it will have long vanished. There will be no CONCEPT of man and wife, no concept of committed relationships, no concept even of heterosexuality or homosexuality. Only historians will know there was a time when- sex wasn't just like shaking hands.

The Rationalist knows that such a world won't be immoral. Not by it's own standards. The Rationalist also knows such a world will be a world in which human beings stay young longer, experience very little stress, feel little anger, feel no jealousy. It will be a world where human beings can enjoy lives of unabounded pleasure.

The Rationalist knows that the sheer amount of pleasure human beings will be able to enjoy would be unthinkable once. Because society couldn't allow that amount of leisure- and pleasure- it was once branded immoral. The Rationalist knows that times change.

The Naturalist can't take that. Surely- even though these future people don't know it- the fact they engage in promiscuous sex with eachother (homo AND hetero for God's sake!), without knowledge of marriage- means a world where everyone is going to Hell? God's laws don't change.

Since the Rationalist says they do and the Naturalist can't realistically assail the working of the Rationalists (though Google Creationism and you'll say many who try), they need another tack. Discredit the whole system of logic.

In other words, assert that the fundamental principles of Rationalism- logic- are wrong.

The key point here is the premise that man CAN'T know reality, can't find it out himself. Because of the Devil. The Devil misleads Man into thinking the Universe can be fathomed, only it can't. Ergo, logical conclusions can be false. How do you know if they're false? Well, because they FEEL wrong, counter intuitive. Unnatural.

But why does it FEEL counter intuitive and unnatural? The Naturalist says 'Because God makes us feel what is natural. The Rationalist says 'No, you're just responding to you're cultural conditioning. Fear of change. Fear of new ideas'.

It's like a child trying to claim there's a big conspiracy by his parents to pretend they're Santa Claus when they're not. They've been trying to trick him by scurrying around looking like they delivered his presents. But he knows better. Santa is real.

You see- here we kind of enter the mindset of the naturalist. I think it's best summed up by the what I call the 'Light' question. Which runs as follows;

Ok, Ok, God COULD have made the entire universe ten thousand years ago and just made it LOOK like it was much older. Ok. Point taken. But what about the light from the Andromeda Galaxy. It can't actually have travelled two million light years because- two million years haven't happened. So Gid must have set the light heading this way from empty space ten thousand years ago.

It IS a point of view, of course. And this of course, then becomes the Naturalist's innocuous principle. Since Rationalists believe in tolerance, surely they can tolerate his- Naturalist point of view.

Er- no. There's a difference in saying each man is free to sleep with whomever he chooses or each man is entitled to pray to whatever persona he anthopomorphises the universal consciousness as and saying that Creationism as as valid a point of view as Evolution. One is a matter of taste, the other is about logic.

And to believe in a God who makes us so intelligent we get it WRONG has to be the STUPIDEST viewpoint I've ever heard in my life.

So no, I'm not going to tolerate any viewpoint based on such a ridiculous premise. If you are seriously saying that in the interests of tolerance I MUST treat Racism, Nationalism, Sexism, Homophobia, Religious Fundamentalism and conservative thinking generally as points of view that share equal VALIDITY with what we might call a 'Left Liberal framework of progressive secularism'- I'll answer that in simple terms.

'If you want to hold these opinions, you're an eccentric. Fine, keep it to yourself. Try fill the heads of my children with this drivel, I don't have to tolerate you and I quote Trotsky in saying 'If you can't convince a Fascist, acquiant his head with the pavement'.'

When it comes to political issues, we're not dealing with points of view. Absolute fallacy. Politics is the science of creating a society which has clearly defined goals; the ever increasing happiness- both material and spiritual- of an ever increasing proportion of an ever increasing number of human life forms existing across an ever greater proportion of space. Ultimately, there is a best way to acheive these goals. And these methods are scientific. So yes, we can discuss what makes us happy. We can discuss within a framework, discuss the methods, etc, etc. But in the end, what we're discussing is how to get to the right solutions. There IS a correct solution. And finding it is a matter of cold blooded REASON, not sentiment. We plan to CREATE sentiment, we don't let sentiment govern our plans.

The Rationalist- the purely logical one, who doesn't get bogged down by sentiment- can explain the so-called 'left-right' spectrum with ease.

Progress is in some ways a leap into the dark. New ideas can be stark. Scary. Courageous. And they might sometimes be not quite thought through. Either way, you only know by experiment.

So whilst the spectrum might often be flawed in it's presentation (like in the assertion that the LEFT is Socialist when, in reality we're ALL Socialists now, strictly speaking), it contains truth.

The further right you go, the further you get into naturalist territory, territory held by an obstinate refusal to relinquish ideas that have long ago been discredited. The systems may LOOK modern (Fascism, Thatcherism, etc) but the premises they are built on remain Naturalist. As in, contradicted by progressive thinking.

The further left you go, the further you get into uncharted waters. Theories. The Far Left vision is- the blueprint for progress. Only, it's not been tried yet. And sometimes blueprints are flawed in details. Only experiment will prove that. Rationally, the Far Left is right. The Far Left represents the PURE, logical outcome of Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, etc.

The starkness of that is too much, emotionally, for most people. They baulk at the ultimate outcome. But let's not beat about the bush. The arrow of progress leads to a completely collectivist society. A completely secular society. A REPUBLICAN society. A United Earth. Total urban existence. The dissolution of the family and it's replacement with organised communes.

It's the realisition that people will be as FREE and as EQUAL as they ever can be. What Freedom is there other than the Freedom of Action? What Equality is there other than the Equality of Freedom of Action?

It's a society where because each individual is also a legislator (direct democracy in action) each person is- collectively- the master of all. But this collectivisation means that human beings are FREED from INDIVIDUAL responsibility, except for carrying out their allotted tasks. And even here, they will simply have been trained and selected for the tasks they showed most aptitudes for.

So human beings really WILL be free. They won't EVER have to make LIFE decisions as individuals. They will COLLECTIVELY decide on the SYSTEMS that manage that. But in terms of day to day Freedom of Action?

Human beings in such a society will be completely free to be IMMORAL all day every day, by the standards of the Naturalists.

In such a society, what is there to stop ALL human beings just working to gain recognition and otherwise just living for sex and drugs?

Because- that's actually where the arrow is leading. A society where it isn't any longer in any sense wrong for all human beings to devote their NON WORKING hours to rampant hedonism.

The central Rationalist point. 'Each man can determine best his own route to happiness'.

That's the reality of the left right spectrum. Rationalists one end, Naturalists another and most people trying to sit on the fence.

The great dread of the Naturalists has been- for two hundred years- a sense they can see that. See what the Rationalist dream is.

We say we can do that and STILL guarantee the ever increasing happiness of an ever increasing proportion of an ever increasing number.

The Naturalists don't WANT us to be right!

And yet they can't refute our working.

They can't. They've been trying for two hundred years.

And the solution they come up with?

THEM.

Let's not pretend Hartley came up with 'Them', he didn't. He's not a man capable of original thought. But we'll take a look in the next post at the sort of basic premises 'Them' theory involves.

For your homework, please read 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. It's the central text of 'Them' theory.

But if you're forgetting the point of this series, I'll explain it again.

This is Kate Middleton. She's marrying Prince William. Now that fact doesn't interest me in the slightest. But I WOULD like to see her naked sucking Lexington Steele's cock.

I don't apologise for thinking that every time I see her. Gal's got a great body. Wasted as a Royal. Girl that pretty SHOULD be doing porn.

Thing is- I don't think there's any SHAME in porn. One day, I do believe porn STARS will be just that. STARS. I mean, they already KIND of are. Just not seen as respectable.

But I'd be quite happy to REVERE porn stars as Royalty. More than I'm happy revering ROYALTY as Royalty.

Hartley no doubt thinks the fact I think this is sick. He knows I think in this vein, hence his persecution of me.

And he thinks 'They' made me this way. That me and this viewpoint of mine are all to do with 'Them'.

So we're looking at the psychology of why his hatred of me and my views led him to orchestrate a campaign of cyberbullying against me as a blogger.

And we can only do that by understanding the man. These last two posts have studied Hartley the man and the reason he needs to believe in 'Them' (my paymasters, apparently).

Next, we look at 'Them'.

Nourishing Obscurity Part One: Psychoanalysis of Jeremy Hartley

2011-02-18T05:45:00.000-08:00

I've decided that there is a very sensible way to move on from all this. I don't want to be as nasty to Jeremy Hartley as he has been to me. Apparently, the strange little man believes inductees of my cult are following him around waiting to beat him up.

What I've decided to do, is psycho-analyse the man so the blogosphere can understand him. In doing so, perhaps we shall receive some enlightenment in to the human condition.

The central belief in Jeremy Hartley's world is that there is a group of people called 'Them'. 'Them' are as real to him as the air we breathe. Hartley didn't invent 'Them', 'Them' are the product of centuries of conspiracy theory lunacy. I'm hoping in this series not just to study Hartley but human paranoia, social inadequecy and angst generally.

In understanding Jeremy Hartley, we need to understand not just who he is, but how he sees himself. Part of the clue is in his pseudonyms. The central protagonist of his long and tedious Dan Brown rip-off novel (which can be purchased on Amazon but not in any bookshop) is called Hugh Jenson. You spot the picture, JH, HJ, JH. It takes a particular kind of egotist to be unable to escape their own initials when creating a pseudonym. Like it's a kind of clever crossword puzzle. A private joke. Generally it's something only Agatha Christie villains do. I can't see MI6 recommending it as a cunning plan.

James is chosen to sound 'English'. Americans are Jim. Or Jimmy. Higham, likewise, sounds kind of twee. A country village in the home counties, perhaps. And of course, Ian Fleming fans will know higham House as the place where Fleming wrote many JAMES Bond novels. So we have the persona he seeks to see himself as. For Queen and Country.

Of course, he's not ENGLISH. British, perhaps. Australians are KIND of Brits. British culture, descended many of them from Brits. But English is a very definite kind of thing. I wouldn't claim to be English. I'm not. I'm British in that I possess a British passport. Not that I think of myself as British. I'm a European. Of Irish/Swedish ethnicity. Who lives in the UK.

What else do we know of him? His parents didn't really get on, they stayed together for the sake of the children. Him. He claims to have a brother but since this brother is apparently called John Higham then I think we can asume Jeremy is an only child. He was close to his Mother, she tended to mollycoddle him, less close to his father who was distant and unyielding.

He went to Public School and PROBABLY boarded. Was this in the UK? Maybe. Maybe his parents sent him back to the UK to go to school. This wasn't uncommon in the fifties and sixties amongst ex-pats. Here he was bullied. Probably quite badly. At some point he was introduced to homosexual experiences and these affected him negatively.

His angsts and his sense of loneliness translated themselves, as so often with these young boys brutalised by such an upbringing, into achievements on the Rugby field. Rugby became a pleasure for him and he has always maintained an admiration for this sort of lame Machismo. A huge desire to prove to himself he wasn't gay by being involved in violent sports.

And so he reached adulthood, still a lost, confused, lonely little boy. Wanting to be loved. Desperate for it. And the only role models he had were his parents who stayed together in a loveless marriage out of duty then packed him off to boarding school to cry himself to sleep in cold dorms after older boys had buggered him senseless.

His adult life is a mystery. The reality is he gained his 'English Professorship' by teaching at an english School. He's not a Professor of English the way you or I would see it. It wasn't a tenure awarded by a University. We're talking about 'Professor' of English as a language. The idea he's ACTUALLY a Professor is lie and if he called himself Professor Hartley, he could be arrested for fraud. In point of fact, I doubt he's THAT well read. Because I see little evidence he's familiar with much literature. I doubt he's read the Faerie Queene, for example.

I doubt he graduated from Oxford University, either. He claims he did but I very much doubt it. I heard a rumour the Uni he went to was Victoria State University.

He was a headmaster for eighteen months in the mid nineties at a small private school called Blackheath Preparatory School. This period of his life marks the height of his acheivement and it didn't last long. What, one wonders did he do with the rest of it?

Well, he was married twice. In spite of all the waffling he does on the topic, we don't ever hear WHY. A lot of crap about duty and WN1 and WN2 (his codes for his wives) but one doesn't hear much about why this guru on marital constancy fucked up twice in something he's such an expert on. Apparently, he claims in private he cheated on the first (which would make him a hypocrite), but actually I THINK she cheated on HIM and he couldn't take it. That seems more feasible to me. Clearly, this obsesses him because his own failings on this front have turned him into a kind of monogamy zealot. Were there children?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But does anyone truly believe we'd not have heard of them and how great a Dad he is had he any? Unless he has no contact with them. Either way, he has no business peaching to anyone about family life because, frankly, he's never been involved in the only bit of it that MEANS anything and if he is he did such a bad job he can't use it as a topic to bore people with.

You might say I can't preach on that front. Actually, I can. Being an adopted uncle may not be the same as being a father. But I've learned more in the last two years about how to nurture a new life than Hartley will ever know. And if there's one thing I've done in life I'm proud of (aside from this blog) it's the relationship I've built up with my little niece.

What one can deduce is that Hartley believes the fact that both his marriages failed was not his fault. Perhaps his misogynist views on feminism can be seen to have their roots here. In a world where women knew their place, his marriages would have worked.

It is likely Hartley is a poor lover, physically. It is not a case of him not being able to make a woman cum, though likely he can't. It is more likely the case he lacks sensuality. He hasn't studied female sexuality and therefore he blames women for having it. Erogenous zones might as well be war zones for all he knows.

As a charmer of the opposite sex, he is crass. Most women who know him in real life think he's sleazy. I would guess this is because he THINKS sex is dirty. Therefore, he can't deliver lines which have sexual intent without entering drooling pervert mode.

And yet here is a man who clearly prefers female company to male company. Inept as he is as a lover, he just hasn't ever really figured out how to be a 'man's man' either. Hence his clinging to machismo. He hasn't ever really mastered how to BOND with other males. Hence his lack of real friends. He sometimes refers on his blog to a 'mate' and one might think this was a mate he'd had his whole life. This is not the case. The 'mate' is also his bloghost and Hartley only met him two years ago. It's not, in fact, a true friendship at all. They are blogfriends who live down the road from eachother and, truth be told, the other guy just happens to be the ONLY person Hartley actually has in his real life.

In truth, Hartley remains- sexually and emotionally- a perpetual adolescent in mindset.

What about his life aside from his (unsuccessful) stint at Blackheath? Well, we know he had some sort of lecturing position in Tatarstan. He claims he had to leave because the Russian government expelled all foreign lecturers. This news story kind of missed me. As with so many things, there's clearly more to it.

Whilst in Russia, he engaged in a relationship with a woman in her twenties, likely he was able to provide her luxuries in exchange for sex. I'm not saying it's wrong, what I am saying is it doesn't fit in with the image he seeks to portray. He's done it online too, of course. Behave in a sexually inappropriate manner with women significantly younger than him in age.

Before 1995, it's hard to say. But I guess we can safely say one thing; he has nothing to show for it.

Most signficiantly, he carries with him hard the sense of having wasted his life many of his generation live with. I see it in my Dad, only less marked.

My Dad often comes up with the sorts of bigoted, left-hating, pro-marriage and the family anti-freedom, right wing Tory Capitalist bollocks. Though he doesn't have any of the loony 'THEM' views. Maybe because my Dad actually has something to show for esposing these views. By the standards of Capitalist society, he succeeded. Born in council house, ran his own business, still married to his first and ONLY wife, two children, one of them earning over a hundred grand a year (not me I'm, afraid), mortgage paid, yeah according to bourgeuois values, a success.

So he can get over the fact he missed the boat and KNOWS he did, deep down. As does Hartley. Only Hartley didn't get on any other ones.

The boat in question was 1966. To about 1973. To be around and to have been young then and not got on that boat must be a real bummer. Sure, many got browbeaten back into society's ways. Became yuppies. They ended up doing the whole Capitalism/Family thing in the end. But at least they gave something different a try. They grew their hair long, they dressed funny, they slept around, they got high, they protested against Vietnam, they tried squatting on a bit of land being at one with nature and all that. They gave Peace and Love a shot. And they kept hope alive that one day things might be better.

If you were there at the time and you didn't even give it a shot, how can you live with yourself? All you can do is get bitter about the people who DID give it a try.

And the ones today who STILL want to.

Hartley is stuck realising that the during the greatest FREEDOM party history has ever seen, he was being a party pooper. And he missed out on a lot of fun as a result. He's stuck realising that for everyone who lived through it, it was the best time of their life. It was the Age of Legend of our time. Our heroes were the rebels of the sixties. We look to people of his generation with awe and say 'And what did YOU do in Hippy times?'

And his answer is 'Nothing. I was too timid to give it a try. The sex and the drugs. And the protesting. But I didn't want to, anyway'.

And he really HAS to fool himself on that one. He REALLY wants us to believe him. But you know what, I don't. I don't actually believe it.

So this is what lies behind him- and his failure. His whole outlook is built on trying to explain his FAILURE of a life and his FAILURE as a human being. And finding someone to blame.

It wasn't him, so it must be THEM.

The next posts in this series will look at WHY there needs to be a 'Them' and what role they play in the lives of those who believe in their existence. We will look at the REAL dynamics people like Hartley NEED a 'Them' to explain.

Merry Xmas

2010-12-29T07:41:00.000-08:00

Just thought I'd post three seasonal Xmas tracks. Each of them greats.

The first is obvious. Without a shadow of a doubt the greatest Xmas hit ever. Because of the sentiments. You don't have to be a religious person to get this, this is what Xmas is all about.

'War is over if you want it, war is over, now'.

Every year it's the same. One becomes aware of Xmas in late November with the lights going up and the shops playing Xmas hits and incentives to spend money in a festival of consumer gluttony. But it takes a while really for one to remember what it's all about.

Until one hears it somewhere and one remembers...

And one goes home and puts it on. The greatest Xmas single there is.

'So a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year, let's hope it's a good one without any fear'.

Beats 'Come all ye faithful' any day.

It has me dancing round in circles, dancing like Winona Ryder dances in the snow in Edward Scissorhands. Every line in it, perfect, beautiful, simple yet magical.

It just shouts out that you got to have faith that THIS year things can change. All we have to do is want it. War IS over if WE want it to be.

As I was saying to my Mum the other day, it's kind of like 'All we are saying is Give Peace a Chance' was again, one of Lennon's great messages, so simple and yet so powerful.

Give Peace a Chance.

But this took that sentiment and made it into an immortal hymn of Peace and Love.

The second choice comes from the same conversation with my Mum. She opined that the other great Xmas track was the well known Slade track. I was surprised by her choice, never having viewed her as a rock fan but I had to agree with her, it is perhaps the best thing they ever did, barring some other track the name of which escapes me. To be fair, I don't know very much about Slade. What I will say is that they certainly had one of the best drummers in the history of music ever. Faultless sense of rhythmn.

The last choice is kind of unusual. Unusual in that it is the notorious 'Walking in the Air' song from 'The Snowman'.

When I was a boy, this animation was hailed as the greatest Xmas animation of it's time. It became legendary. Highly critically acclaimed for it's crisp pencil lines, it's pathos and it's poise, the centrepiece was this sequence providing the only vocals in the entire work.

After about a decade, the animation lost it's novelty and started to acquire a symbolism as belonging to mawkish Xmas sentimality. Screened every year, it's entry in the Xmas canon led to it losing it's shine and it ceased to be on the list of things people would wax lyrical about. People had seen it too many times, it had become passe.

But I heard this playing the day before Xmas Eve in the pub. And I reflected just how POWERFUL the sentiments in it were.

It's about Love, I think. It may ostensibly be about walking in the air. Because that's what they're doing. But in some ways, it can also be taken separately, metaphorically. This soing is, I think, about what being in requited love feels like. Like walking in the air. It's not just the lyrics that seem to speak of this, but the music itself.

That ponderous, wintery melody. Serene and yet racing up to the sky.

What is love if not walking in the air with someone during a cold winter's night?

Dedicated to my Grandmother; Dedicating my Life to God's Work

2010-12-20T05:33:00.000-08:00

The last four years have undoubtedly been the hardest of my life.

It is now over four years since I discovered my life's purpose and started on the journey, full of hope and optimism. I knew everything and yet I knew nothing. I knew that everything that happened in my life up till that point had simply been the prelude, the learning, the crucible out of which my life and it's purpose had been forged.

There was a certain sense of contentment, of hope and optimism. When you know what your life's meaning is, everything seems clear. And you think it's all going to be so easy.

You think you're strong enough to shoulder the responsibility. You have faith in your own abilities. There is a sense of determination, that now it is time to put away childish things and do the work of men. Now is your time to serve your fellow man and devote your life to humanity, to changing the world for the better.

The clarity of my vision, the certainty that I was doing what God wanted, I was alive with Faith, Hope and Love. Truth would shine through me, I could make the world a better place, I WOULD make the world a better place.

There are times over the last four years that burden has weighed down on me. Times indeed, I thought of just putting an end to it all, giving in, throwing in the towel. Surrendering. Just put a kitchen knife through my throat and have done.

I had no knowledge of the pitfalls of such a task. It's one thing deciding you're going to devote the rest of your life to Good, to fighting the good fight to change the world for the better by showing people the way to be good people and themselves strive to change the world into a better world, it's yet another to actually walk the walk.

I had no conception of how I was going to tackle unrelenting hatred and hostility and endure it for the cause my life was now devoted to. And I still don't.

Ultimately, thought to a certain degree the end justifies the means, there still have to be certain guidelines. Otherwise you can't achieve the ends because the means you have pursued obliterate the ends. And this sort of war is perhaps the hardest of wars because in such a war you can lose by 'winning'.

Even in fighting evil, there is a limit to how much 'necessary evil' one can commit to combat evil. Much like the 'Don't bomb civilian targets' rule. One loses the moral highround in life if, in one's desire to make the world a better place, one allows the forces of darkness to goad you into fighting by their rules. Unlike you, they don't have one hand tied behind their backs. They can do what you can't.

One can mouth platitudes about 'right being on your side making you stronger' but that doesn't help when it turns out to be reality.

Rules; I don't have to tell you the whole truth and I can choose my words carefully to make them suggest the opposite of the reality they convey if you listen closely, but I can't speak outright falsehood. That gives those who outright tell lies an advantage.

I may strike to immobilise or even kill if I'm under threat but I may not otherwise engage in violence. By the same token, I'm not permitted to engage in slanging matches or even display anger. This gives those who have no such scruples an advantage.

There are so many other little nuances, so many moral minefields. And so often over these last four years I have been all too human sometimes. At times, I've been disgusted with my own failings. But it's the fact that so often those failings didn't disgust me I should be more disgusted about.

I think this gradually got me down. I felt myself becoming impure. And this was no illusion, I DID indeed become soiled, dirtied, sullied, corrupted. The haze of impurity clouded my vision, the stench of emotion infected my brain. I stumbled frequently from the path.

I still don't know what I could have done differently. I found myself caught between a rock and a hard place.

I'd be being disinegenuous if I pretended not to have asked for this. I was asking for it all my life, seeking for God, seeking for her to guide me, saying 'Please God, give me a job to do God, I want to work for you. Show me what you want me to do!'

Seek and ye shall find. I did. And you can't take it back. When you finally see Truth, see what is Right you can't go back. It's done. You see the enormity of the whole thing and you have no choice. Job's got to be done or you'll die trying. Only now you realise you're in no way up to the job you asked for.

I'm not up to this job, I realise that. I'm not. How the hell I thought I could be up to such a task I don't know. But that's the arrogance of youth, self belief. And now I carry this burden and most days I feel totally alone, cut off, wanting someone else to help me carry this fucking cross. I want to scream out 'I didn't ask for this cross'. Only I did. I did. I spent my whole life looking for this cross because I wanted the glory that came with it. And now I find myself carrying it and I have no choice. I want to let go but there isn't any turning back. I took on this responsibility and now I must die a martyr in agonising pain if that is what it takes.

I took it up of my own Free Will, seduced by it. The seductiveness has long gone and now I'm just left with the duty. I haven't truly laughed in about three years. I feel that the weight of the world is on my shoulders. It is joyless, thankless, it is frightening. But it won't leave me alone.

There isn't any longer any life outside this; this is duty. Cold, hard iron duty. Human lives, human happiness are in the balance. The future of humanity.

I can try and convince myself that if I give up, it will be all right, someone else somewhere will take on the task. But I know that that is simply me trying to make myself feel good. I know I couldn't live with myself any more than I could live with myself if I didn't pull a drowing man out of a river.

I know there can never be joy again. Never be innocent happy pleasure again. Just me and this burden, this task. A life of thankless struggle. Alone. Because I carry this burden alone. And when it comes down to it, I'll always be alone. The only person I'll ever be able to trust or rely on, is me. And yet I'm responsible for every other human being alive. Because no one else cares THAT much. Sure, they'll care enough to help in the good times. If I push the bandwagon, they'll be happy to jump on. But when I fall under the wheels, they won't be there to help me back up out of the mud.

So I carry this burden alone.

What is this burden I keep talking about, you say?

As I say, knowing right from wrong. Good from Evil. Of knowing what God wants for humanity and seeing how we can overthrow the dark forces of tyranny and establish Christ's Kingdom on Earth. Socialist Utopia :)

You see, it HAPPENED to me in Autumn 2006. Not a Eureka moment, a Eureka day. And my life has never been the same since. I can never forget the night that through reason AND revelation I became permitted to see into the HEART of God. See her, feel her. See Truth. See Good and Evil. See what might be, for good or ill. Comprehend truth and falsehood in religion. See political ethics from political deceit.

I had sought that moment all my life. To find TRUE Catholicism, see the centrepiece of the message that inspired Jesus Christ, to KNOW what it is that Good men must devote their lives to.

As they laid my grandmother into the grave on Wednesday, all this came back to me. How much water under the bridge, how much suffering. Was I capable of being that person again? When, when did things go wrong? When did I lose sight of God and become what I was fighting? And could I stop being that which I was fighting?

I lost faith. I lost faith in God. I forgot that isn't me doing this. I don't have this task because I'm strong. I don't have it because I have leadership qualities. I don't have it because I am the cleverest human being alive. I don't have it because I'm the NICEST and most caring human being alive. Because none of those things are in any sense true.

I have it because I asked. Because I spent my entire life trying to find out the underlying reality beneath human history, human nature and the human experence. Because I spent my entire life wanting to find out what Good and Evil were and how best to bring about the best future for us and what that was. Because I devoted all my mental energy and resources to find the answers. In other words; I applied for the job, a job no one else wanted or would be crazy enough to want.

And I'm not up to it. Up to it in the sense that I know what is required from the job and that fact makes me as much qualified for it as anyone can be but the thing is, no one can actually do this job. It's an impossible task only an idiot would apply for and I was that idiot.

Would I take it back if I could? No. No because I don't have any confidence in anyone else to do it. Fact is, I've lived my life with this and have known the job four years. I don't trust anyone else to care about getting the job done like I do. I don't trust anyone else to worry about it like I do. That's the thing. This isn't like any other job; it's not a job you do for money, it's a job you do because it HAS to be done and someone has to do it and it looks like it ended up being you.

Perhaps I'm the worst possible person in the world to be doing this job. I have no heroic qualities at all, no leadership skills and I'm devoid of stamina, decisiveness or indeed any sort of qualities that might be useful here.

Because I guess you 'apply' for this sort of job for all the wrong reasons. Perhaps the only sort of people actually suited to do this sort of thing right wouldn't go looking for it.

I went looking for it, I guess, because my grandmother always told me to. She wanted this for me. Always did. Always wanted me to be a priest, felt I was right for it. A couple of hundred years ago, perhaps. Things have changed though now.

And so I went looking. Looking for the new frontier. And I found it.

So many people came up to me at the funeral and said 'Your Gran had such high hopes for you. Really believed you were going to do something amazing with your life one day. She really believed in you'.

She did. Her it was brought me here. I took this up in essence because my grandmother always believed that it was for me to join that elite company of men who fight for what is Good. And I felt that the Catholic clergy were, but are no longer the vanguard of that struggle. I sought to comprehend that struggle and try take up a key position in that struggle because it was what she wanted.

Standing over that grave I felt as if she'd decided I no longer needed her strength any more. And I was afraid, so afraid. Who''ll watch my back now, I thought? But yet I felt- silly as it sounds- that her strength had passed into me. And she had mountains of that.

She was my mentor, she was my friend. I stood over that grave and knew for the first time that I no longer have any bond to that level. It was my OLDEST friendship and I had taken it for granted because it was never NOT there. She watched over me all the time and because of that I had that protection over me, enveloped in her maternal care for her favorite grandson. No one alive now has that sort of connection to me. I am orphaned.

There isn't anything left for her to teach me now. And it got me thinking. I felt suddenly responsible, responsible in as way I've not felt before. Not just about humanity, but about my friends. I think I've found it so easy to be little Lord Fauntleroy and be looked after by others. But is it not really MY job to be responsible for THEM? That's what my Gran always was. Responsible for everyone around her till her last breath on Earth.

What's at stake is so important. That's the thing. I knew that back in 2006, certainly in 2007. This is a war we're in. It's coming.

I don't think anyone with any prescience doubts that the existing order is collapsing and what we face is no less than a global civil war. Not a war between nations, but within all nations. There may be many differing factions and complications but ultimately, it will really will be a war of Good versus Evil, in the final reckoning.

There is the chance that out of this a better world can come. One world. A United Earth. Without war, without poverty, without Capitalism. A world built on social justice, on universal brotherly love.

We can make all things new. We can sweep away the shackles of the past and look to the future, a world built on logic and reason, not competetion and tradition.

But the right side needs to win. And the battle lines are being drawn.

On the one hand will be the Capitalist system; the bankers, the stockbrokers, the industrialists, the mainstream media. They have the Police and the army and they will have behind them, idelogically the full weight of certain groups. Most of the bourgeouisie, certainly those over thirty who are too set in their ways to see the immorality of their ways. They want to keep 'their' property and 'their' families. The entirity of the brainwashed public school educated classes, the respectable suburban middle classes, they will fight to the death for Evil, most of them, held in place by Protestant 'Christianity', an oxymoron if ever there was one, by belief in 'the decency of family values' and other justifications of the greed is good philosophy that their lives are based on.

The White, Middle Class, Heterosexual, Protestant Male. On average, they will, when it comes to it, fight for Evil. And many Females in this bracket will too, traitors though they are to their gender.

But many of the offspring of these people are already rejecting Fascism. Many of their children are already choosing that when it comes, they will fight for Good.

The values that will drive the lackeys of the forces of Evil will be conservative ones; bourgeouis ones, Protestant ones. Anti-feminist, homophobic, nationalistic, racist, militaristic. Think the Tea Party, the BNP, UKIP, Zionism, Mary Whitehouse, Ian Paisley, Sarah Palin, this is the whole ethos of Sin the forces for Good are up against.

Islamic fundamentalism? It's a dark force, yes, but it isn't the real evil. It's just a reaction to it. A bad reaction, but a reaction nonetheless.

The forces for Good are the best in Catholicism- it's TRUE form, Liberation Theology. It is Marxism, multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights, internationalism. It is the people of Earth united.

And this blog was always about that; about getting people to understand which side they must choose in this battle and WHY.

And it is because of this;

For you to truly be a good person, you must renounce ownership of property and determine that you own NOTHING. You must decide to own nothing. Not now, not ever. That doesn't mean you can't earn money, be rewarded for your efforts and use that money. Using things you have earned isn't wrong. Spending what you have earned isn't wrong.; it is OWNERSHIP that is Evil.

Since we live in a society where you have no choice but to 'own' things if you want to use them, then you must see yourself not as the 'owner', but the custodian of all you 'own' until such time as everyone else can be made to see that 'ownership' is theft.

For you to truly be a good person, you must renounce ownership of PEOPLE. You are NEVER going to have a 'wife' or a 'husband' or a 'boyfriend' or a 'girlfriend'. Sure,you will have friends and comrades. And sure, enjoy sex. But you will never acquire any special rights over another. And nor will 'your' children ever be YOURS. You don't own them. Your flesh and blood they may be, but you are their GUARDIANS. You don't own them. Love them, yes. Own them, no. You are their guardians. Until such time as we can persuade ALL people to understand that ALL of us should accept guardianship responsibility over ALL children.

I want to live in a world where everyone is this moral. If we all adopt these morals, we can all live together. But to enable us to do so, we need a revolution, that is clear.

So that we can establish proper arrangements for the custody of the Earth and it's people so we can abolish marriage and property and live in peace.

So yes, this struggle is a moral one. And a political one. And a social one. And a cultural one.

But it is also very much a religous one.

I'm not advocating violence. Anyone who knows me knows I abhor violence, even boxing and rugby football, I abhor even the raising of one's voice by one human being to another. But in this struggle, what needs to be done may sometimes need to be done. Passive resistance must be the way we strive to achieve change but will it be so that the omelette cannot be made without breaking a few eggs?

There will be times when the greater good needs to be weighed up.

As I tried to do, with this blog. And I will say it again 'Better a woman like Carly Swan should have her heart broken, better indeed that the pain she feel from having her heart broken be so great she take her own life than that I lose the moral highground irrevocably by condoning the way she conducts herself online and in private conversation'.

Sometimes it will indeed be the moral thing to do to meet violence with violence. I fear that sometimes there may be no alternative.

I will concede, this is war.

But what ultimately will lead to the victory of OUR side, the side this blog is on, will be our superior morals.

We will turn the other cheek and then run at them so hard with our cheeks that they'll break their fists on our cheeks.

This blog is back and it's coming back to do what it was always about. To show you, all of you, that there are only two sides in this war and to get YOU to get off the fence and come join the right side.

Which is in fact the LEFT one :)

Forget about a 'career' under Capitalism. Forget possessions. Forget owning your own home. Forget finding Love.

Make this your life's work, along with me. It's the only thing that really matters.

Thankyou Gran for all you gave to me, for the strength, determination and love you bequethed to me.

I will not let you down.

I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned through my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do;
and I ask Blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me
to the Lord our God.

A Bereavement and a Helping Angel

2010-12-02T05:46:00.000-08:00

Two things have happened this week to me.

One is that my grandmother passed away on Tuesday morning. My grandmother was probably my closest relative, emotionally.

She said to me many times 'I have thought about you every day since the day you were born. I'm always with you in spirit wherever you go. And when I'm gone, I'll watch over you'.

I used to smile cynically at that. But today is the second day in my life that points one and two aren't true any more. She's not here with me any more wherever I go, in spirit. Because she is gone and while it would be nice to believe she's watching over me still, that's just a fairy story for adults who refuse to grow up.

I miss her. On the way home last night I was on the point of going to visit her. Until I realised, I can't. Not ever again.

My last words to her were good ones. The last thing I did for her was wheel her back to her room two weeks ago so she could use the toilet. She was chatty, we'd 'put the world to rights' as we always did.

In many ways my grandmother was a powerful influence on my ideals and principles. If 'Crushed by Ingsoc' was ever inspired by anyone, my grandmother would have a good claim to be that person. It was my grandmother inspired me to devote my life to fighting for good against evil, it was my grandmother who inspired me in my Liberation Theology Catholic ideals.

We didn't agree on everything- she was from a different generation. But she generally agreed with me in spirit, if not the technicalities.

She was a strong woman, in her own way a great woman, a symbol of the dogged determination- and love- to be found in her people, my people, the Irish people.

I will write a fuller obituary for her in time, probably largely a rehash of the funeral oration I'm working on for her now.

But this blog is going to continue. I owe it to my grandmother to fight on for what is right, to be what she wanted me to be. She wanted me to be a priest and I always told her 'I am, in spirit. I serve God and the Catholic faith. I simply believe the best way to serve God and the Catholic faith is by going back to basics, the real meaning of Catholicism- and that is Free Love and Marxist Revolution. I serve that cause as passionately as any Jesuit serves the Pope'.

The second thing is, indeed, a miracle. I am no longer alone, a lonely victim of abuse.

I am well aware that many of my dearly beloved readers drifted away in the belief I had gone stark staring mad. But they cannot have known the torments I was put through by Carly Swan/Ubermouth. No one can who has not suffered the malice of this demon in human flesh.

I do not need say any more about her. She is going to achieve the fame she truly deserves.

I have been contacted by a responsible- and ethical- blogger who has researched much under the surface of blogging. There are many, many victims of Carly Swan/Ubermouth, aside from me.

I know what I want. I tried forgiving her, tried getting on with my life, tried getting on with blogging but it's no good. For me, it was like the Jodie Foster film, The Accused.

I know what women rape victims feel like, like Jodie Foster's character felt. Because yes, I'm a manwhore, but that doesn't mean I deserved to be abused. I didn't. Nobody does.

I want justice so I can move on. So when I go to job interviews and I get asked 'We googled you online and these tirades by this 'Ubermouth' came up', I can explain it to them. I want to be able to blog again, knowing that Ubermouth has been dealt with.

In short, I want her either to be gaoled, so it can be seen society does not tolerate her behaviour, or I want her committed to a mental institution. And either way, I want a JUDGE to impose an order banning her from using the internet FOR LIFE.

I think I'm not alone in wanting that. I want it done, and I want it to be a matter of public record.

I have sent all the harassment mails Ubermouth ever sent me from her e-mail address, ubermouth@gmail.com, to the organisers of a public campaign to deal with this cyber criminal. And anyone else who has ever received e-mails from her should do the same.

The headquarters of this campaign- organised by a group called Cyberpolice- is here. There is a questionnaire for Ubermouth victims, a forum where Ubermouth victims can compare their experiences, it's basically an online crisis centre for victims combined with a place to gather evidence against a new type of social predator, one just as dangerous as rapists or paedophiles, the internet stalker.

Please, if you're a victim, come forward. It's not organised by me. The organisers want to hear your story, want to help. They, like you, want this woman to receive justice. Maybe it can be a test case to set a precedent.

The internet needs to be made safe from people like this.

This campaign has it's own logo, a logo of freedom from abuse, a logo that says WE WILL NOT TOLERATE CYBERBULLYING.

I have been sent one, to use myself, to show I am a victim of Ubermouth Abuse and to show myself as a victim, I'm going to display my badge of abuse.

It's free for all Ubermouth Victims.

Please come forward. Go visit the Cyber Police at http://ubermouth.co.uk. Tell your story, in public or in private.

There is also a social networking site here just for victims of Ubermouth. So that's two places online for Ubervictims. Apparently, there's also a Twitter forum about her.

I won't be back now till the New Year, but I promise to be back.

Till then, a big Thankyou to my new friend at the Cyber Police. Thankyou for doing your research and coming to the aid of the REAL victim.

VICTIMS OF ABUSE FROM UBERMOUTH DO NOT BE SILENT

Update: There is now a Facebook group for Ubervictims entitled 'Remove Ubermouth From the Internet'. Please support it.

'Cliff's Notes" for Other Christians...

2010-10-29T04:09:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the main points presented in my last post were either intentionally missed or misunderstood, so let's do as the debate-hosting website owner purports is happening to us as a society, and "dumb down" my last post for greater mass appeal;)

(A debate, by the way, in which I did not even attempt to directly participate, posting only here and Crushie's blog in response.)

This post is then the Cliff's Notes version for everyone else: The attention-deficient, the lazy, the stupid, or just those so rigid/concrete in their thought processes, they are unwilling (or incapable) of conceding to any valid points made from any other perspective but their own.

First, it was important to note that biological predisposition was virtually ignored in the original discussion.

Secondly and most importantly, it should be noted that my last post was actually partially in agreement with Janina Davison Forder - social learning theory is a proven and valid argument.

However, a vital component of 'social learning theory' was missing, as it so often is when reported - behavior is conditioned response; therefore, it will only continue when consistently reinforced - by the person the child emulates, by their peers, or both.

There are only five responses we can give to a particular behavior, and we are giving one of these responses, whether we realize it or not - positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment, or ignorance/neglect of a behavior.

The consistent response you choose can make a world of difference with regard to the behavior you see out of your child, over time. This explains why ALL children do not emulate (or continue to emulate) what they see.

It's actually not always as simple as punishment or reward - consider the "temper tantrum." The proven appropriate and effective response to a temper tantrum to make it go away is actually consistent ignorance/neglect - because any attention given it, positive or negative, is still reinforcement of the behavior.

Each situation is different, however. Some behaviors, like aggression, will only increase if ignored/neglected.

The final point ignored was whether "media violence theory" itself is a societal moral problem, developing as a scapegoat to avoid accountability for our own behaviors and attitudes as their parents, educators, and peers.

Is the media simply reflecting in an artistic manner the already-existing attitudes, behaviors, and experience in our society and culture?For example, the website host and "borrower" of Janina's words himself posts pictures of attractive women daily at his site, according to his preference.

No, the pictures are not pornographic, but the message is still loud and clear: Women, subordinate to men, are objects made primarily for men to ogle at based on their physical appearance, desired only sexually.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's go with that antiquated Judeo-Christian philosophy that the man is the head of the household. How did that become translated into women's only value being physical attractiveness and the production of children?

Why did God even give women a voice or brain at all - simply to be your "yes" girl?

If you read the same bible I did, I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about women and their physical attractiveness OR their sexuality. It was clear that Jesus loved women and valued their thoughts, ideas, feelings, and faith.

In fact, weren't women actually rewarded as such, for being the first to see Jesus at his resurrection?:)

Jesus stopped allowing hypocritical men to blame women for sexual sin 2000 years ago, preventing the stoning death of a prostitute by standing in front of her, asking those without sin to cast the first stone.

Amazing that despite Christ's actions, we still essentially 'stone' only women for sexual 'impropriety,' isn't it?

Perhaps if men stopped objectifying and valuing women based solely on physical attractiveness and sexuality, women won't value themselves merely for physical attractiveness and sexuality?

Lastly, my point is, and always has been, that there is much more to morality than sex OR violence - morality is also ethics, character and integrity.

Jesus actually preferred the company of known "sinners" and they became his disciples. Why?

Because they were open-minded to his message and were willing to examine and improve themselves first.

In contrast, the Pharisees were overly rigid in their way of thinking and refused to self-examine, already considering themselves morally superior, despite being secretly duplicitous and vainglorious hypocrites.

As far as morality, Jesus did not appear overly concerned with sex, marriage etc.

In fact, Jesus' largest concern morally appeared to be against the Pharisees' greed, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy.

What a shame, then, that Christ's 'Big 3' sins have actually become synonymous with today's Christians.

For factual information and actual studies on media violence from the world's leading social theorists, please see the links in the below posts.

For what Jesus actually said and verification of his biggest concerns with morality, read your own bible?

Social Learning Theory - Sticking To the Facts Thus Far

2010-10-27T07:21:00.001-07:00

(Final edit complete, video added)

The Bandura Experiments on Aggression...and Bobo the Clown:)

Of late, there has been some discussion elsewhere regarding children killing other children, whether violent media is responsible, etc.

In college in the early 1990's, I was lucky enough to have studied Social Psychology under a visiting professor from the University of Texas (foremost authority in the U.S. on Social Psychology) and a protege of Dr. Albert Bandura, who is largely considered to be the father of Social Learning Theory.

Though Dr. Bandura has been rightfully criticized for completely ignoring the medical model theory of personality (biological predisposition) and aggression, he does present a compelling argument for 'social learning/modeling' providing the largest component of our personality development.

However, his original theories have often been vastly misinterpreted when reported to us by the media themselves.

For example, the most glaringly apparent portion of the study ignored is the fact that not only was this behavior learned from admired others, but the aggressive behavior was rewarded or "positively reinforced" by those around them on a regular basis - conditioned response.

Dr. M went further in 1994 to state that studies were being done (released later that year by Gunter) to reveal that exposure to violence desensitizes humans to aggression in 100% of the cases; however, an increase in actual aggressive or violent behavior appeared only in those already prone to violence or aggression.

Additionally, Dr. James Hoyt and others have hypothesized that since we, as a society, often do not want to take a look at our own behavior and attitudes, tend to point the finger of blame elsewhere first - the idea that 'media violence theory' developed as a 'scapegoat justification' for our children's behavior, instead of media being merely a reflection of already-existing problems within our own families, society, and culture.

In other words, no one is denying the media has a profound influence on us, that we do socially learn from media - what is currently in question is whether we get to blame media (solely) for actions we choose to take.

Since that time, studies and statistics have been released on both sides of this issue, and what is clear is that there are other variables at play that have not yet been considered - which is imperative when following the rules of scientific method when performing a study - always rule out your variables, and if the result differs from your original hypothesis?

Perhaps instead of hiding the aspects of the study's outcome that don't support your stance, it's time to change your hypothesis instead:)

And therein lies the problem with social science being an actual "science,"and why we will most likely never have a definitive answer on this issue - the difficulty for humans to remain objective and unbiased when studying other humans.

Along these lines of "social learning theory," my roommate, Chris, myself and our teenage children were discussing the regional practice of making children take an "Abstinence" course in school.

As Chris and I are both "liberal christians," we felt this was actually a subtle way of pushing the boundaries between separation of church and state, the foundation upon which our country was based.

Chris has a 17-year-old daughter and I have a 16-year-old daughter. We both answered questions about sex as was age-appropriate, but we have neither encouraged nor disccouraged sex, approaching it as a real possibility and powerful temptation. We have presented the pros and cons, encouraging them to be responsible when they make choices - to the point of making condoms available and offering to take them for birth control.

I am happy and proud to report that they are both still virgins, as they both are, quite simply, not ready:)

In part, believe it or not, with the help of a Reality T.V. called "Teen Mom," of which we are all big fans. Watching the reality of teen pregnancy, the various choices the characters make and their consequences, has been a huge lesson for both of them.

Additionally, watching this style of reality T.V. is proof that the media can also have a positive effect on our children's choices, but again - individual responses may differ.

I know that the biggest disillusionment for me with my parents came when I discovered that my parents weren't at all who they purported to be or believed themselves to be, and in fact, they themselves were not able to avoid temptation and make responsible choices at our age.

Instead, we have tried to be very honest with our children and very honest with ourselves, realizing that though we don't encourage certain behaviors, if we forbid the fruit that we couldn't resist ourselves, it only makes it that much sweeter.

Lastly, along these lines, I was never prouder of my daughter than her response to her abstinence teacher, who was pressuring her every day to "sign the committment form" to wait until marriage.

My daughter, very politely (admittedly by the teacher) replied, "With all due respect, Mrs. ____, you tell me that guys will tell me this is what's best for me, that I'd do this if I really loved them. Then YOU come along and pressure me for what YOU think is best, because YOU 'really care about me,' without even really knowing me or presenting me other options."

"So in both cases, not ready is not ready - and pressuring me either way is not going to persuade me. I appreciate your concern but I'd rather check into all my options, not just one, before making any decision, thank you."

Brava, Bubby - Yes, observe us, the media, your peers, the studies - weigh all your options, consider the consequences, and learn from our mistakes as well as our successes - then make the best (informed) choices for all involved, always taking personal responsibility for those choices - I couldn't ask for more of you than that:)

Chrystal Smith

...and now, for another retro rewind blog moment:)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg - immoral fantasy or an artist's reflection on already-existing behaviors and attitudes in our society?

Welcome to the Jungle, Baby...:)

(Though this post is posted on my personal blog, comments are only open here, on Crushie's...:)

The Only Thing You Have Succeeded in Accomplishing This Morning

2010-10-24T04:24:00.001-07:00

(*post edited, comments open, link corrected)

...with your post addressed to (and trying to influence) my landlord/roommate (The Bengal) on Carly Swan/Ubermouth's self-admitted new blog, is securing in his mind that, WOW - you are the rageful, vindictive psycho.

Just FYI, Carly - he has responded to you in the comments section below this morning - here and on my old blog - the only two places he's going to respond (just in case another story is spun that he commented elsewhere).

You should also know that The Bengal is the Director of Operations for a major U.S. corporation based here in Cincinnati.

Therefore, he is not easily suggestible like one of your blithering-idiot, net-nutter friends, prone to entertain hysterical witch-hunt, mouth-foaming nonsense, especially without proof.

Have you READ your own post (if still there, unedited)?

Where are you getting those truly psychotic accusations? lol

Ah, I see - you're regurgitating Shelly's stories again:)

Wait a minute, I'm confused - didn't your very first post on that blog debunk those psychotic stories from Shelly?

Didn't you agree with me in that post that she made up stories when rejected to save face (about me, Liliana Lovell, Lisa Marie Presley)?

Didn't you blame Shelly for 'manipulating' you into calling CPS with those stories?

And wasn't I cleared of all charges by CPS within 2 hours after you did so?

You know what this new post proves, don't you?

Exactly what I said about why you called:)

That she didn't manipulate you into calling...you used her AND her psychotic stories.

You didn't care if they were true, and in fact, you ADMITTED they weren't true in that very first post on your new blog.

THANK YOU, for proving my point for me, better than I ever could:)

And what is very clear to Bengal, is that even IF any of these things were true, all that proves is that you have been digging around in and stalking my real life.

Do you hear ME spewing any stories about goings on in YOUR real life?

No.

Because I don't know you in real life other than what you've done to mine, and I don't WANT to know.

Now - my last post cleared you of being the author of that email, which I could've just walked away from and didn't have to do - something you would NEVER do - thus proving myself an honest person who does the right thing.

The Bengal commented under that post that not only did the emails exist, but he suspected himself that you had written them, following up with a beautiful and unexpected commentary about what he sees in real life.

So since I cleared you of the charge with my last post, what's the problem NOW, Carly?

The Bengal's glowing comment about me yesterday?

Aw, I don't think I've ever seen anyone write such an articulate and heartfelt comment like that about you...anytime, anywhere.

So...jealous and vindictive much?

And guess what else, Carly?

Despite everything you have put us through?

Though we didn't start out romantically (just flirting and mutual support)...

...it's been over one year now, and STILL...?

Now...for the LAST time...

Comments open on this one...

The Results Are In, And?:)

2010-10-23T12:54:00.000-07:00

(Final edit complete)

Whoa, slow down there, Supersleuth, before hurt yourself. You can chill and stop embarrassing yourself now, on the "A-ha!" moments that only make sense to the voices in your head, in your second post today.

On that note, just a quick aside giggle, according to her latest on her new blog, Carly Swan/Ubermouth apparently does not grasp the concept that a person could be a former nurse and unemployed, now living off the dividends of her family's business and estate?

Surprising that this concept eludes her, considering the fact that she herself earns her income this way, plus a government disability check.

More relevant to this post, however, let me again reiterate that the point of my initial post was asking the audience to decide whether these events were coincidence or overly coincidental, adding later (now posted for a THIRD TIME) the only suspicion I have expressly stated:

"Because the suspicion is simply that the information was obtained through email and used, NOT that she necessarily authored them herself. "

My roommate will be commenting below immediately, who is the gentleman who forwarded the emails to me to begin with, so he can verify that they do indeed exist, and several people have viewed them on Blogger for their insights as well.

I'm sure you'll say it's me, Joe, Jeffrey Dahmer, the moon, etc. and I don't really care, he's commenting anyway.

Like a thief who assumes everybody steals from you, Carly, you really have to stop projecting your behavior onto other people and assuming their motivations for doing things are the same as yours.

In fact, unlike you, I try (often failing) to do what Jesus would do - which coincidentally is often also asking myself what you, the Antichrist, would do in this situation, and doing the exact opposite!

So without further adieu, the results are back from Mark, and though we cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt it is not Carly, it does appear not to be from Carly OR from Joe, or in fact anyone within this blogging arena - it appears to be a known roommate scam artist.

Having said that, I STILL MAINTAIN THE ABOVE SUSPICION.

Lastly, a last letter to Carly, JLee, Ballerinagurl, Lee and Fight Club....all residual sarcasm aside.

I could've very easily just walked away, here, never telling the results, but the fact is, unlike you peas in the same nasty little pod, I don't pretend to be an honest person, I actually AM an honest person who tries to do the right thing...

...which is why I tried to extricate myself from you all, long ago. You are a hornet's nest I stepped in I can't get out of, as the hornets keep following me wherever I go.

After receiving the results, I felt as though to walk away without revealing the truth was a bit like planting cocaine on a known drug dealer, just to put him in prison - which was just as dishonest and illegal as the perpetrator, in my opinion.

The facts are, Carly, we all know I could prove that you DID call CPS on me, which I have 100% proof of, and for which I can and WILL prosecute you for when in this country.

You didn't do it because Shelly manipulated you, you didn't care if it was true...you just wanted to hurt me, scare me and shut me up so you could feel powerful.

In fact, to all of the names listed above, you have all been a party to doing the same sorts of things to myself and several other people.

You "40+ Mean Girls" (and the men you manipulate by flashing your tits or stroking their egos) have created sites specifically set up to bait and group-cyberbully. You have written fake emails in my misspelled name.

You have altered emails before forwarding them or cherry picked them, hacked my account with a keylogger, and lied about my contact with you (as well as who blocked whom, when and why)...

You impersonated my blog with my right-clicked picture and commented everywhere to terrorize people in my name. You left nasty comments behind me everywhere I tried to comment regardless of my subject matter.

You left phone calls and anonymous comments at the places where I worked making ridiculous accusations, and you called CPS on me with horrific accusations about my daughter- and many of these people SAW you do or at least watched you cheer on being done to me.

I have never done the same to any of you, in retaliation or otherwise - NEVER.

Even now, if the same happened to you, I'd step in and stop it, because NOBODY deserves that...nobody.

And the fact that you cheer these things on as "cool" is testament to YOUR character, or the lack thereof.

And I didn't believe that JLee was jealous of me because I thought I was prettier, a better body, more talented, or any of the things that you said. It's not about that and never has been, at least from my perspective - I'm sorry you're reducing the problem to some shallow beauty contest.

No, JLee and Ballerinagurl enlisted those trolls to 'Tonya Harding' me because I was miraculously getting the attention they felt falsely entitled to, particularly male attention, which I was getting because I was GENUINE rather than phony, it was my absolute sincerity...and people could sense it.

No, maybe I don't have any of those things you listed, but I have something the lot of you put together will never have - CHARACTER.
For all your online-only relationships, your cyber-enhanced versions of yourselves...

For all your plastic surgery and photoshop; your awards, taking sole credit for other people's ideas and works...

For all your lies, your false accusations, your sabotage and your backstabbing...

You will NEVER have character - you can only imitate it, fake it - just like you fake everything else.

And the fact that you have now separated your nasty from your nice on a separate blog, keeping your regular blog pristine and positive, only proves it.

"For what doth it profit a man to gain the whole world, but forfeit his soul?"

And the most interesting thing is, the longer you two are together, the better it actually looks for me:)

Because why would "Doris Day" want to be caught dead NEAR the "Queen of Mean" long-term, unless underneath it all she was just as nasty as you are (which I happen to know for a fact she is)?

You - a bitter, lonely, friendless-in-real-life, overweight woman ,spitting venom daily from some new location, referring to even herself as the Queen of Mean, still living with her mum, clinging onto the weaker-personalitied JLee for comfort.

JLee - the opportunistic, shallow, sabotaging beauty queen, obsessed with her appearance and transforming it many times over, desperate to feel famous in any forum. A chronic user, manipulating others to fight her battles for her (so she can sit back and look uninvolved and sweet) and promote her, and who can't win anything on her own merit or with her own original ideas. Above all else, she cannot tolerate any friends even remotely close to her being attractive, for fear they might take attention off herself.

The worst I have done was call you out on things you had done, privately, then publicly AFTER I was attacked, in self-defense - FROM MY OWN BLOG OR HERE - but whatever I did to you, I did not deserve any of those things to be done to me.

As you've admitted, I HAVE given apologies anytime I've been wrong, but being as I am NOT convinced my email has not been compromised to gain access to this information, I have no more apologies to give you and - I owe you nothing anyway.

In fact, whether you admit it or not, blame whomever and justify the unjustifiable, I have never received an apology for your behavior at anytime, which ALL of us have seen at one time or another, - in fact the lot of you imagine yourselves lily white innocent and justified in doing the above things, which are unjustifiable.

But it's YOUR soul ...and I generally try to worry about my own.:)

Chrystal Smith

P.S - No, Carly, there's NOT going to be any (using your words) "Battle of the Blogger Babes 2010"...

Just because I'm good at it doesn't mean I enjoy it.

I don't enjoy fighting and attempting to cause people pain, like you so clearly do - it's actually a sad statement about humanity.

Your sheer delight in doing so is testament to your poor character.

The comment from the Bengal is below...

Your Questions Answered...

2010-10-23T04:25:00.000-07:00

Apparently those weren't her last words after all, because there's more word-twist fodder found at "Twocrazybitches.wordpress.com" AKA Ubermouth, so I guess I need to make a much-needed clarification.

Dohkay, Carly, oh you caught me, you sly minx. You are clearly a master of logic and a supersleuth!

So...because the emailer said their father was from a different area than yours really was, that makes me the liar.

(Because, of course, nobody misrepresents themselves in email on the internet, noooo).

The emailer also said that they were 29 years old, a former nurse, now unemployed, who made a living from her mum's fabric business, and we've discovered so far that they wrote from a yahoo email with a completely different name.

Does that make me the liar then too?

It's kind of like you writing on that new site of yours, now admittedly under a new nomme de plume of "Two Crazy Bitches?"

Or that power-of-suggestion snow job you do every day at your regular site of your appearance, with the big lips and the skinny-girl "artist-rendition" profile, rather than your actual heavy weight and appearance?

As to your other question, per the email you posted at your new site...

Ubermouth -mail: Exactly! And she claimed ‘I’ sent photos of myself too,don’t forget! Who’d do that and list all those irrelevant details?

My Answer: Um - okay, this is a no brainer - YOU would - and DID post "all those irrelevant details" in the mock email you posted at your regular site, ubermouthreturns.blogspot.com site last Sunday, starting the ball rolling on this issue, yes? :)

And I already said the blurry photos were of a blonde, but clearly two different people, which is what made him suspicious to begin with.

Really, your deductive reasoning skills are simply stupefying, as are your reading comprehension skills.

Because here's a direct copy and paste from below of my point, which you clearly missed...

"Because the suspicion is simply that the information was obtained through email and used, NOT that she necessarily authored them herself. "

While you're reading the below unaltered post (or having Higham read it to you and draw diagrams), check out the section regarding the possibility of you being framed, as well as what I intend to do with the email trace results when they come back.

In other words, NO, Carly...it was Professor Plum in the library with a lead pipe.

But thank you for playing your own personal game of Clue with the other 40+ Mean-Girl friends.

As for your other transparent post on your regular blog, appropriately titled "Pimpin' JLee" (if not edited)....

Congratulations to JLee of her TEAMWORK Emmy!

Wait, is that for her job on a graphic artist team at a small Texas local news station?

(Because the national network Emmy's were held over a month ago in Hollywood).

I always knew her advanced photoshop skills and Tonya-Harding-style ambition would get her what she always wanted!

Pity those "ugly people" on her team were "cut out of the photo," as you stated (if not edited).

I guess those "ugly people" must've been shoved and locked in the same backstage closet as her original nose, along with all those wrinkles she had when I first met her.

(The ones the anons made fun of her on Blogger when, which is HOW I met her, defending her over it - but that was back when she tried to enlist me as her pimp and I caught on to that game and blocked her from my email too:).

Anything goes to misrepresent yourselves and be in the spotlight, right, ladies?

Yeah, she's Doris Day all right. (Just watch for the smile in your face, but strictnine in your coffee later).

I can just hear the acceptance speech now...

"I'd like to thank all the little people who did PR for me, whose ideas and work I took credit for, against one of whom I enlisted some net trolls to kneecap for me, as well as smear campaign."

Thanks for helping further prove my points, about both of you.

Oh and by the way, would your 'anonymous friend' happen to be from oh, say, Utah?

Say Hi to Ballerinagurl for me!

You three "mean girls" are varying peas in the same pod.

Have fun with the witch hunt - DO try not to do any hysterical mouth-foaming this time around. It's such a mess to clean up.

You oughtta start calling that site "Three Crazy Bitches" and you'd be on to something. (Well, I guess there IS an opening since Shelly left).

Hugs and Kisses!

My Little Honey Says it all Better Than I Can xxx :)

2010-10-22T09:58:00.000-07:00

I’ve not got much to add to what Little Honey has already written.
Bar this.

Hidden in all the bollocks at Carly’s latest internet crime- sorry,
blog- is a little insight in to her vile nature.

It’s in the snapshot’s she provides into her relationship with this
Dave character- either a figment of her imagination or a guy called
Dave Petterson – either way, the snapshot showed her nature.

It’s just the image. Of how she sees relationships. The ‘passion’, the
‘feelings’, the sweating, the pantings, the grunting, the- yuk, yuk,
yuk. Urgh!

URRRRGGGGGHHHH!

You’re just a vile specimen of a human being, Carly. All grunty and
sweaty and ‘passionate’.
Yes, I found your anger and your jealousy and your hatreds vile. But
ultimately, they’re linked to the vile nature of your horrid, sweaty
emotions.

And that’s what you don’t get. It’s just not NICE, all that
sweatiness, all that panting, all that ‘passion’. And nor was your
hatred of others. And I just wanted you to leave me alone and take
your sweat and your passions and inflict them on someone else.

Hidden in all Carly’s bullshit is the sick nature of how she sees human relationships.
Is she to blame?

I don’t know. What I do know is that the key difference between NICE
people and horrid people is nice people don’t connect sex with love.
That’s the secret of what makes them nice. And that’s why I believe in
Free Love. Because I know from experience that the people I know who
disconnect the two are nice.

It’s not rocket science. The reason most human beings end up warped is
that during puberty they develop intense sexual desires. In itself,
this isn’t problematic. But it is if they associate this with feelings
of love, or do so to high a degree. Sexual feelings are of their
nature intense.
Put bluntly, to achieve true sexual involvement, involves high octane,
high adrenalin pleasure seeking. To try and connect that to and force
it down the same emotional paths as- affection- result in intense
’passions’. It makes the sex dangerous on the one hand because it
gets too emotional and it makes the love lose it’s innocence. That’s
not to say you can’t have sex with someone you love. But by definition
it will be a hell of a lot tamer than truly fulfilling sex. Or should
be. Kind of like a sort of heave petting.

If you try force those feelings together, they become dangerous.
Impure. Such human beings experience emotions of a volatile nature and
it opens them up to feelings of anger. Or jealousy. Or hatred.

I think a lot of rave veterans, like me, like most of my friends, have
grown up not connecting the two. It’s what keeps us as nice people.
We’re just- NICER- people. Because ultimately, we don’t connect high
octane activity with emotions. They’re sensations, there’s a
difference.
So me, I don’t deny I really enjoy sex. For two reasons. The first is
eroticism, which has fuck all to do with affection. Sex for
fulfilment. Sex used for adrenalin, testosterone. Sex used for getting
one’s rocks off.

The equivalent of what is- to you- ‘Passion’. But for me that’s just
sensation. Enjoyed like Cocaine. A rush.

That’s just about hedonism. It’s all about sensation. One doesn’t
attach emotion to it, how can one? It’s all about adrenalin,
testosterone and sexual thrills.

I think most of my generation- certainly most of my friends- have
learned to totally disassociate this from love and affection. The
result of this is the people we are.
Essentially, we’re like neutered dogs, domesticated, de-passioned. We
respond to stimulation but otherwise we’re...

Well, my Dad calls us the ‘Dunno generation’. Says our response to
everything is ‘Dunno’ or ‘Not fussed’.

But it does make us better people. Take my friends. As you will know,
Carly, my two best friends had a child together. They’ve split up now,
but still ‘live together’ at weekends. Nothing’s changed, not really.
They’re still friends but then, they always were. Friends who had sex.

But- when you love someone, it isn’t sex as in sexual fulfilment sex-
you get that elsewhere. It’s more- chipmunk sex :)

I never really grew out of soft toys, not really. When I was about
sixteen I started taking the dogs to bed instead. And no, there was
nothing sordid about it before you ask. They slept next to me on the
pillows. And yes, I used to cuddle them.

And that’s what LOVE means, I think, to me. Not ‘passion’. Not sweaty,
grunty ‘feelings’, none of the nasty screaming down the phone
emotional unpleasantness you go for. Urgh!
When I want fulfilling, exciting sex, I go to a swing party, Carly.
Have a threesome, or a foursome or something. Do S&M. Get whipped by a
dominatrix in a leather thong.
That’s eroticism. Not to be confused with LOVE. But you need it in
your love and in fact, best kept seperate from affection otherwise it
congeals and becomes a vile passion. Like the sort of thing you go
for. Sick shit in other words.

Your own words show Carly, that Love and Sex for you are one. You keep
interchanging the two. You don’t write about how you wanted to cuddle
me, or sing little loving songs to me, or poke my nose or any of that.
Just ‘passion’.

As I say, URRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
Yuk. Yuk. Yuk.

My view on Sex and Love is that this Monogamy shite perverts BOTH Sex AND Love.

No, Carly, you're right, you couldn't excite me sexually because you
ain't kinky enough. I LOVE my sex kinky. Not passionate, no. But I
love the whole group sex, partner swapping, total hedonism, abandoned
pleasure aspects of it. Sex as art, sex as psychosexual liberation,
sex and drugs, party party party.

And no. For all your gobbiness, it's all mouth and you don't know how to PARTAY.

But LOVE?

If she place too much erotic demands on LOVE, it stops being about
what it should be.

Do you really think, Carly, me and Little Honey get all 'passionate'
when we chat? Do you really think that's all it's about?

Wanking?

No. I answer the phone 'Honey'!' all happy in my little baby voice and
she laughs and says 'Oh you silly man' and we giggle a bit and we
cooch and coo and- it's not erotic, it's CUDDLY.

I don't want Chrystal for 'passion', I want her to be to me what my
soft toys were when I was a kid, what the dogs were, someone to cuddle
and be gooey with.

It isn't sexual between us. I mean, I don't think we repulse eachother
and I think we really would enjoy sex together as part of full
intimacy but just as part of what would be- for us- the most important
bit. That we'd be holding eachother close. Tenderly. And saying 'I uv
oo' 'No I uv oo more' 'No I uv oo more'.

You and all the nasty bastard men you roped in to help bully me on
your behalf are too degraded to understand stuff like that.

And it's because I don't want MY CHILDREN or my Little Niece growing
up as morally and spiritually degraded as people like you and Higham
and the like, that I believe in Free Love.

I set this blog up to promote such a world. A world where there is no Racism, no Sexism, no Homophobia. No nation states, no passions, no families, no religous strife, no private property. A world where we have moved beyond that.

A world of tall buildings of glass and concrete and steel with everything in plenty so want is not known. There is hardly any crime because there is NO cause for crime. That which there is is dealt with humanely. All feel involved, all have a purpose, each does his bit. And the combined efforts of man drive forth- the colonisation of our galaxy.

And afterwards? When not working the people just- party.Pure, unashamed PLEASURE.

They earned it after all.

No governments, not the way we know them. Everyone is a legislator in this world. It's part of everyone's responsibility.

And Love? Love is not sex in this world, it's cuddling, being close, being gooey. Tender. There are no passions in my Utopia. They've all been- eradicated.

A peacable, free, pacific world where each man has more control over his own destiny than he's ever had.

And besides that beautiful vision of Optimistic faith in humanity, I'm sorry to say your 'feelings' were just pretty goddam SQUALID.

And that's the truth. Why is that so hard for you to face?

Anyway, I think my Little Honey has made my points much better than I could. And I promised Honey I'd keep it short.

I'll leave you with a clip of someone my Honey kind of reminds me of. I feel about her much the way I used to feel about this little character when I was younger.

So- WATCH OUT YOU MEAN OL' PUDDY TAT!!!!

Cwithtal?

Oo my honey. And I uv oo :)

PS

Carly, one last thing.

Will you stop trying to present this as something other than it is?

I only felt hatred for you because of what you and James did to my BLOG.

Because you used my hatred to destroy the thing I had invested all my hopes and dreams in.

This blog was my life. The only thing in it I truly cared about. It was to be my life's work, my epitath, the thing I'd be remembered by posterity for.

I give all the emotions I had to it, took time off work to try and combat the damage you and James were doing, made myself ill staying up all night trying to promote it, visit blogs, build it up, get awards, be friends with everyone. I thought about nothing else for two years other than how to combat you going round trying to turn readers against me and destroy every bit of marketing I did.

This blog was my last chance to ever make anything of my life, Carly. You took it.

That was why I hated you.

No other reason.

If you'd just left me alone the day I become 174th UK political blogger, you and I would never have spoken again and I'd be a very successful blogger and very, very happy man. A man whose dreams had come true.

You destroyed my hopes and dreams of fulfillment and happiness. That's even WORSE than killing someone, Carly.

MY Final Words: Email Trace:)

2010-10-22T02:00:00.001-07:00

(Final Edit Complete).

This one's less entertaining and more informational (and I don't have a lot of time to post OR edit the post today), so please bear with us:)

We have sent the emails off for a path trace, which will prove difficult and take some time, especially considering they initially came through a third party site with the email addresses "blind."

So my new roommate (whom I've coined "The Bengal" when commenting on my old blog for privacy purposes) and I had a discussion about what to do when the trace comes back, either way.

If we even CAN get the path definitively traced, what to do with the results?

The problem is, of course, how to show YOU, the reader, the proof.

Because even if we can prove 100% that it's the person all 3 of us believe it to be, we could post the results, but it's really still just our word against hers when presenting it here, isn't it?

I mean, she could say we altered the results before posting or fabricated them completely, couldn't she?

And who's to say that her email wasn't compromised, someone trying to pin these things on her? (Having that happen to me before with a keylogger, I can definitely feel that)

Even if the trace comes back without a shadow of a doubt from her IP address, if someone else was in the home, who's to say it wasn't THAT person?

While awaiting the results, what I do know, however, is that Joe is NOT a hacker.

In fact, having spoken to him nearly every day for over a year now, I have found Carly's accusations to be projection of her own behavior onto him (as she does most people that 'abandon' her), as well as combining complete fabrication with severe word and situation twists.

Let's face it, I knew her for a total of 3 weeks, but the first red flag should have been in that first week, when she accused me of flirting with her online boyfriend (Higham) simply for leaving a thank you comment on his blog for well wishes, as I had on the blogs of everyone who'd wished me well that day.

She told me never to go back there, don't even look at it - and no I'm NOT kidding.

She told me Higham was embarrassed and told her to tell me so but he was too nice to tell me so himself. She told me I must never email him or talk to him and if I did, that was the end of our friendship.

I wanted to apologize to him and she forbade me from doing so, she said.

I thought this was bizarre, but figured that if all the online experiences she'd told me she had were true, she was still skittish, so I complied and figured over time, she'd see she could trust me.

The next red flag was her freaking out the second week, out of literally nowhere, accusing myself and Mark of conspiring against her (calling us every nasty name in the book), demanding we turn over our personal emails to one another to her to prove our loyalty, when neither one of us had said a bad word about her.

We at first chalked it up to somehow hitting a trauma tripwire unaware from her past experiences on Blogger, but sealing the deal that she was just psychotic in general was her later calming down, calling me, and trying to enlist me to help her dig at people on Blogger who admittedly hadn't said a word to or about her in a year and threatening me when I didn't want to do it, just in CASE I told anyone.

I have NEVER seen that sort of behavior out of Joe.

He enjoys digging back at her, yes, and with the exception of writing a comment 3 months ago under a post about cyberbullies that irked him (clearly itself a dig at him without using his name), he typically no longer tries to comment much of anywhere and does not contact her.

The crime he is most guilty of, is taking the bait and reacting to the bullying, under blog or above, every single time, and unfortunately, previously retaliating "in kind" by stooping to the same low levels they did.

Plus the fact that since we can't extradite and prosecute the person in question anyway, all publishing that information would accomplish would be MORE retaliation from that person.

If it's NOT the person in question, does that prove that my email was not compromised?

Not necessarily.

Because the suspicion is simply that the information was obtained through email and used, NOT that she necessarily authored them herself.

Now considering I CAN prove it was Ubermouth that called CPS on myself (and I was cleared of all charges, thank you very much), the calls on "Batman" to the police and CPS this weekend, as well as Ubermouth's choice of subject matter in her October 17th post, which was posted 3 days after The Bengal rejected an 'unemployed former female nurse from the U.K., living with her mum with a dead father from this country, willing to pay upfront' seemed a bit overly coincidental to us.

And let's say it's not from her normal IP address. Does that mean it's not her?

Again, not necessarily.

So what to do?

Well, after reading her posts, my roommate/The Bengal said he doesn't NEED proof - he's convinced it's her, it's too similar, too coincidental.

As for "Batman?"

Well, it doesn't make sense that his soon-to-be ex-wife, who left himself and 4 children, called the police/CPS to get them back considering...she doesn't want them, which is why she left?

She wrote an email complaining about his messy house, when drunk, just because she was drunk, which she admits and apologized for.

However, the woman swears to God and on those children she did NOT call the authorities, and he says he knows her well enough by now to know when she's lying and when she's not.

So what to do with the results?

Here's what we've decided.

As they both have said (combined, paraphrased), "The woman is clearly an attention whore and bully, saying and doing anything to get noticed and a reaction and you're giving her exactly what she wants. No matter what she does or how she escalates it and tries to scare you, even in your real life, the best reaction is to completely ignore her and prosecute her when in this country for her crimes."

Additionally, though I no longer fear her retaliation (what else can she do to me? lol), I fear retaliation on my friends.

So when the results come back, we will say nothing publicly either way, for fear of more retaliation on my real-life friends for supporting me; however, we WILL let the information filter privately:)

No - this wasn't a publicity stunt and I'm not making this up, believe that or not.

But how can I prove that to YOU, if you're not here?

And despite my sense of humor in initially presenting it to you (which I've learned to do so that people will even read), this is NOT a joke, and it's NOT funny.

Cyberbullying and cyberstalking is NOT entertainment.

It's actually quite frightening, and it's not as simple as turning off your computer.

In fact, the WORST harassment seems to happen when they can't SEE you, the bullying escalates to get you back online so they can see you again

Stalkers can be both male or female, make no mistake - with female stalkers suspected of being under-reported (men often believing they should be 'strong enough' to handle it alone).

So if you aren't that person or don't know that person on a regular basis in real life, you really don't know...best to stay out of it.

Otherwise, I'm going on with my previous plan to white flag it and quit blogging.

Essentially, we're going to go on with our lives and stop letting her/them control us with "will I or won't I" kind of threats.

Once again, Ubermouth and JLee/Fight Club - say whatever you like to whomever you like online, but again, please... just leave my real life alone.

Thanks for reading and safe blogging,

Chrys

Retro Rewind Video for Crushed...

Navy Pilots - "The Best of the Best" - The Pensacola Blue Angels

"Dreams"....Van Halen

You may have your blog back now, baby. Roger that? xxx;)

Oh, But Wait...Apparently There's MORE Today! UBERBONUS!

2010-10-21T06:38:00.001-07:00

(Links containing proof added below, paragraphed in red. Also see link added to yesterday's post, 2 posts down, paragraphed in red.)

After I wrote the below response to her first post today, there's yet another post from her (if not taken down or edited) at her new site, softening her tone and playing the vulnerable victim.

Did I not predict this false-victim routine in the post below, ladies and gentlemen?

And again, rather than answering direct questions or providing one shred of evidence to support to her ever-changing story, she simply attempts to distract the audience with more finger-pointing, proof-less false accusations and word twists - just done with a less venomous "voice."

(Shelly, take note - damn, am I psychic? ;)

JOKE, ladies and gentlemen!

In this second post, Ubermouth, now admittedly writing from twocrazybitches.wordpress.com, appears to be trying to convince everyone that her actions were only done out of empathy for me and my life history (though she admits she only knew me for two weeks) and fear for me from Crushed.

So does this mean you're NOT the self-titled "Queen of Mean" anymore?

So...Carly, where'd you learn empathy, Osama bin Laden?

May I remind you that YOU ARE WRITING ME FROM A WEBSITE YOU CREATED CALLED "TWO CRAZY BITCHES," which is now your fourth website set up solely for the purpose of attempting to engage others in group cyberbullying of me (as well as Shelly with this one)?

Babe, it's time to put down the crackpipe.

Seriously, stop projecting what YOU do onto other people.

You never asked me to cease contact with you, you never HAD to.

Because after your phone threat (see below), I asked YOU for no contact, not vice versa, eventually having to block you from several email addresses you wrote me from to bypass the previous blocks.

The WRITTEN EVIDENCE of these FACTS would hold up in any court of law.

Additionally, my daughter and her best friend could testify (as could my cell phone records) that you continued to call after you were asked to stop, with absolutely no calls EVER coming from me to you.

If nothing else, what everyone here can see above blog, quite plainly and publicly, is that I have asked you THREE TIMES for NO DIRECT CONTACT.

One time a piece from each of my personal blogs, with the third request being a polite-but-firm request comment on your blog, asking you not to return to my blog with more direct contact.

That single comment from me is the only comment I've left on your blog (other than the Easter peace comment) since we parted ways in May 2009, and I've never attempted to contact you any other way in any form.

However, you cannot seem to control yourself and continue to come back and leave more rambling, accusatory, abusive messages on my site, with no direct contact at all coming from me otherwise.

Enough said, case closed...the rest is in the post below.

Oh, I See....

2010-10-21T02:53:00.000-07:00

...over there at twocrazybitches.wordpress.com, a site admittedly set up by Ubermouth (if the post is still up with its original content)...

So lemme get this straight.

Your idea of logic is, because I read your post addressed to me, on a site partially devoted to me (your fourth), AFTER you left 4 rambling comments on my old blog (and you were asked for no direct contact a THIRD time), I responded to it on my own blog and therefore that makes me the stalker, here.

Dohkay.

And...in what parallel universe does this makes sense to anyone at all?

(Kuckoo.Kuckoo.Kuckoo)

I mean...isn't that your whole schtick?

Write nasty posts, nasty emails, and leave nasty comments behind, set up websites for the purpose of cyberbullying, and even harass the real lives of other people who have 'abandoned' you in some way on Blogger, then call them stalkers if they respond in self-defense?

No wonder the Fight Club trolls (and those that call upon them) hang out regularly on your blog, you're all peas in the same pod.

I withdraw the question, because again, I hate to be Captain Obvious here, but the readers should note that only one of my questions below was answered at that site, and even then, not very well.

Well, no matter...that's her whole M.O, right?

"When backed into a corner and asked to answer a direct question or provide proof, don't - simply drop NEW false-accusation bombs without proof, call names, point fingers and fall into mouth-foaming hysterics, as a distraction. "

Miraculously, this strategy has seemed to work for her for some time.

Also again, I never said she wrote the emails OR called CPS and the police on my friend. I presented what happened this past weekend and asked the audience what they thought, coincidence or overly coincidental?

Otherwise, I really don't care what your little net nutter friends, your ONLY friends, think of me.

Oh, and your response to the misspelling-my-name thing mentioned below?

You really expect people to believe you don't know how to spell Chrys, especially considering you tried to sue me once yourself for the exact same reason?

Speaking of which, wasn't THAT the reason you created the "twocrazybitches" site to begin with, to make fun of Shelly for threatening to sue me, though you tried to do the same thing yourself a little over a year ago?

What a mature, couth, smart, mature and sane thing to do!

Again, psychotwat - just LIKE Shelly - don't throw rocks at other people (using their names, intentionally misspelling their names or leaving their names out entirely) and perhaps people won't throw rocks back.

Now make sure you run and cry false-victim to Daddy Higham, again, Ubbie, like a good little psychotroll.

Thank you. That will be all:)

Now Let's Talk Actual Logic for a Change, Shall We?

2010-10-20T11:42:00.000-07:00

(edited, link added containing proof, see bottom paragraph in red)

First and foremost, the comments are closed because we are actually grownups over here, and I'm not interested in creating a group cyberbullying session like we've all seen encouraged elsewhere.

And I'm not dragging this out forever - just a blanket, rebuttle response to Carly Swan/Ubermouth's mouth-foaming, proofless, witch-hunt accusations at her new blog at twocrazybitches.wordpress.com (if still up and not edited), as well as leaving 4 rambling comments on my blog overnight (despite being asked several times, publicly and privately, never to make direct contact with me again), so that Crushie and I can try to get back to normal life.

I feel that this is all that's necessary because actually, I don't NEED to say much...she's ...actually doing a very good job at hanging herself:)

For those of you incapable of actual logic or critical thinking, easily accepting how things first appear or stories told to you without proof (by someone you don't even know in real life on a regular basis), I can help...

Please just ask yourselves these simple questions...

On her new website at "Twocrazybitches.wordpress.com," she claims that her real problem with me is that Joe has manipulated me against her. If that's her problem, why did she even create a site with that title, clearly directed at ME for being one of the "crazy bitches?"

Why DID she create that site to begin with, considering the fact that Shelly shooting off her mouth again and making threats of lawsuits had nothing to do with her?

Since I had blocked her from all communication in May of 2008 and didn't even speak to Joe until the end of July, how did Joe have anything to do with manipulating my opinion of her?

She claims that Joe is actually trying to rid himself of me,, starting online first, and I should wake up. If true, why did Joe make me coauthor on his blog 3 weeks ago, which everyone knows is precious to him?

Where did she get the idea for a post about a roommate rejecting someone from the U.K. to begin with?

Why did she choose a male roommate, like me?

She claims that she's never called me a stalker or crazy, etc. and not abusive toward me - but what does she call me just posts down? lol

Okay, so now I'm not a stalker and she admits in her post today that I never leave comments (on her site or elsewhere). So if true, then why not post the identity of the "mysterious emailer," and why would he fear harassment from me then?

In fact, I'd like to see one ounce of proof that I EVER harassed anyone. In fact, wasn't that why the impersonation blogs and emails were created of me to begin with, to convince people of that lie about me when people started to catch on?

Lastly, all I did on my site was tell the readers the facts about what happened this past weekend, not what I THOUGHT about the facts, letting the readers decide for themselves. So why did she react with so much mouth-foaming and desperation?

No, Carly...your problem with me is not that I'm too "dunce"....

...your problem with me is that I have a memory like an elephant, I'm a little bit smarter than the average bear, and I'm not as easily manipulated as most on the net, by the power of suggestion, some IT tricks, and some false hysterics.

In fact, you once said so yourself, remember?

(By the way, the word "dunce" in that email from the "mysterious emailer" you posted on your site was a dead giveaway it's a brit and therefore nobody else I know).

In that last phone conversation in May of 2008, where you tried to enlist me to dig at Miss Smack and Crushed for you and I couldn't justify it.

You said, and I quote verbatim... "You're too smart for your own good."...remember?

The conversation where, through gritted teeth, you threatened to "destroy me" if I ever told anyone?

That was the exact moment I realized I was dealing with the abuser rather than the victim - and that like all abusers, made yourself the victim out of the situation regardless.

I see Joe's flaws, beeelieeeve me, lol.

But Joe has never been cruel or abusive to me and if we have a problem with one another, we say so in PRIVATE, though we have disagreed in public to prove no one is controlling anyone else - balance of power. He doesn't scream or yell and we discuss things rationally and if we can't, we take a few days off.

You, on the other hand, are extremely verbally abusive, manipulative, and look at people as means to an end to promote yourself.

You use people to dig at your enemies - just as you asked Mark and myself to do and we could prove in court you did in gmail chat.

You have accused Miss Smack, Phishes, myself, Shelly, Joe and several other people of hacking, but you're the only person in the room we can PROVE tried to hack into Mark's blog the summer of 2009 - either you or someone from your house.

But that's par for the course for you...project and deflect, just like those original hysterical witch hunt accusers, desperately trying to deflect attention off themselves.

How many people have to hang for YOUR crimes, Carly?

Like Shelly, you never seem to understand that at least in my case and Mark's, it was your own abusive, name-calling, psychotic rants and paranoid accusations about us that led to us breaking ties with you, along with you asking us repeatedly to give Joe shit for you (which we assume you did to keep yourself out of legal trouble in the U.K.)...and all of that happened months before I ever spoke to Joe.

In fact, solidifying the deal was me showing up at Higham's the same day I showed up here, asking HIM questions based on your accusations and look at the difference in how each man handled it?

I told both men to feel free to delete the comments if they were uncomfortable with them, but that I needed to ask was publicly to do my best to avoid the "he said/she said" that often happens later.

Joe answered me, honestly. Not always showing the most remorse, but he DID answer me honestly.

Higham, on the other hand, did exactly what I said above. He acted at first that he was fine with my questions (without ever answering them), but deleted them the next day and made up a story that I was on his blog all night as Crushed's cohort, harassing him - though I could prove on a timeclock I was working at my second job - a restaurant that had no computers!

Lucky for me, after Fight Club's run, I now keep copies of everything I say, everywhere, and thus the title and first post of my older blog, with copies of those comments left on Higham's blog, proving not only my innocence, but that the two of you deleted the comments and LIED about them.

That critical moment let me know the character of both of you, that small time window...it proved you and Higham the characterless, remorseless, and false-accusing liars that I now you to be and sealed the decision for me.

Now I've heard the whole story from both of you and experienced your vindictive wrath myself, simply because I distanced myself from you and you were AFRAID I'd tell.

And the simple truth is, any sane, rational and intelligent person can see that your story changes, you never provide any proof, and that even IF your story was true your behavior is not justified

And quite frankly, the motives that you give don't make a lick of sense, most of the time.

Now I realize that Crushed's long posts, beating a dead horse, don't help his case, and we've talked about that; in fact, everyone has seen me encourage him away from that and to move on.

And in fact, he did, he TRIED Carly...but you started the attacks on us again because you WANT him to post about you.

Because if he didn't post about you, you couldn't be the victim anymore, you couldn't have the fight and drama you love to get attention!

I'm sorry you were able to talk, manipulate, and bully your way out of any consequences in your life this far by flipping it around on people, but it all stops here - NO MORE.

The consequences of throwing rocks are, people sometimes start to throw rocks BACK at you, and you don't get to cry innocent victim for it anymore!

The dumb ones are the people that sat right here and watched you do that with dates and times but STILL buy your bullshit, enable, and justify you!

You take us women back CENTURIES with that wolf-crying, damsel-in-distress shit, Carly.

In fact, I'm embarrassed for you, as a woman.

So enough, Carly...just stop. Enough.

Grow up, take responsibility for your actions, be held accountable for them, stop lying and word-twisting, and stop pointing the finger at other people in the hopes that they won't notice that YOU are the guiltiest person of ANY of the things you spew.

P.S...I see you've learned the "name misspelling" trick from Brian, as well as his penchant for not leaving any indication of author identity from the site?

Just FYI for those of you who don't know, there was a famous cyberbullying/stalking case in the U.S, where the perpetrator was acquitted because he intentionally misspelled the victim's real name - you can't prove the intended victim if you misspell there, you see;)

Do Pahdon The Interruption, Dahlin, But....

2010-10-19T10:32:00.000-07:00

I need to leave a little note on your blog for our "special friends," who apparently forgot to take their medication, obviously leaving their helmets and crayons elsewhere again.

Dear Surrey, England, and Portland, Maine...

It appears that you both have been obsessively checking Crushie's blog all weekend in anticipation of...something?

Oh fiddle-dee-dee, whatevah could it be?

*Fans myself, Scarlett O' Hara style*

We had no idea why either, until today, but NOW we're pretty sure.

Well, whatever it is you're looking for, it can't be found here - it's on my old blog, of co-ouhrse.

You know... the one making it public I was trying to throw up the white flag and leave?

That is, until your under-blog stunts escalated this past weekend, proving me right 2 posts down (about the worst harassment to my real life happening when I'm off the net, escalating and bullying me and my friends until I react publicly);)

Yes, ladies and gentlemen known as Fight Club - it's time, once again, to tie up those tourniquets and tap those arms!

That's right, it's come over to my old blog get your reaction/attention fix time!

I believe this is what you were after?

It's my public reaction to your continuous behind-blog bullying, harassment and stalking of our real lives - with my comments open now:)

Now, please don't disappoint us OR your readers - don't forget to complete your pattern and flip it around on us, calling US the stalkers instead.

Because my goodness, how could you get the attention here that escapes you in real life, if you didn't?

Yes, please DO come 'over'...

Because we'll be waiting, as will any local agencies you tried to contact, ready to prosecute YOU for your stalking and harassment of us instead, for your now legally-disproven false accusations:)

But that will never happen - because if you DO come over, you wouldn't be able to convince people you're all big and bad when behind Mummy's computer anymore, from a country that doesn't extradite you solely based on harassment and stalking.

Speaking of which, you come here and it's a done deal - and it's a jail sentence for you, sweetheart.

What WAS the point of that, this weekend, anyway?

Was that supposed to scare The Bengal, Batman, Joe and me?

Because we just found it laughable and pathetic.

Seriously, step back and take a look at yourselves...

... look at what you've done over a blog image, just to try to prevent anyone from finding out what you did.

So...was it worth it?

Hugs and kisses from my Veranda,

~Southern Chrys

The Morality Governing Romantic Love

2010-09-29T02:35:00.000-07:00

God is Love.

So how do we create a society based on loving eachother? How do we acheive it?

We live in world where we don't trust eachother as human beings, where we essentially live in fear of one another. Worse. We're frightened of forming close interpersonal connections because we're frightened that if we do, we'll get hurt.

We need to find a way to live that involves being NICE to eachother. And that's where Love comes in.

Love. Not 'In Love'. Love.

Loving eachother as human beings.

To do that, we need to look at our DUTIES under the social contract. And we need to understand the difference between duty and pleasure.

Work and play.

Let's start with a simple understanding of the social contract. The social contract pretty much says I have to work, somehow. I need to do a certain amount of work to pay my taxes and my rent/mortgage and then pay bills. I also have to provide for any children I have. These things need to be paid for and I must work to pay them.

Any money I have left over to spend, is pleasure. A luxury. I can spend it how I want because I've earned that right, if I've paid for everything else FIRST.

In a real sense, doing enough work to pay my taxes, my bills, my rent/mortgage, provide for any children I have, this 'work' is duty. What's left over is BONUS. I do it because I'm incentivised to earn PLEASURE.

That's the social contract. A certain amount of my work is to make life possible for us all. A certain amount of ALL of our work, combined, goes to ensure we all have roofs over our head, food to eat, our children go to school, the roads are repaired, people are safe, there's a justice system, we get electricty, running water, communications, etc. Call it bills, rent, mortgage, taxation, it's money I don't see. It goes either as PAYE or direct debits on the first of the month leaving me with a figure left over called SPENDING MONEY. Pocket money. Pleasure tokens.

My duty to society- workwise- consists of doing a certain amount of work. Enough work to pay my way. One could argue it's everyone's duty and it is. The fact society cannot organise itself properly to ensure that the DUTY share is divided equally and then allow all an equal chance to earn pleasure tokens over and above that is a flaw of the Capitalist system. But put bluntly we should all have duty to do an equal share of the necessary work and anything over and above that we should be rewarded with pleasure tokens on an equitable scale.

But my duties under the social contract go beyond just doing my share of the work. They include little things like using the toilets provided and not street corners. They include not wondering naked through the streets. They include a huge number of daily activities of co-operation with my fellows, things I must do, ways in which I must do things so that things work properly.

Doing these things must come first. As long as I do my DUTIES, I can enjoy myself and my life.

Things go wrong when people put their pleasures above their duties. When they lose sight of what's what. There is always a temptation to do this. Spend the money you don't have, for example, on pleasure whilst bills accrue. Put pleasure before obligation.

Love is the same. We need to put duty before pleasure.

There are certain duties we have in our interactions towards others which must come first, before we even get to our pleasures.

And let us be clear, it isn't just SEX that is a recreational activity. Romantic Love too, is a recreational activity. A bonus.

Even a marriage is, basically, a bonus. A recreational activity. It can't be allowed to get in the way of people's basic social responsibilities, including the social duties of those within such a situation towards eachother.

Of course Sex and Romance are beautiful things. But they are a recreational activity. Whether it be a twenty person orgy or a two person marriage, same rules apply. It's a recreational activity. And this needs to be borne in mind.

What is quite worrying is that we line in a society where people are not capable of actually living in the understanding that LOVE- real love, not romantic love, is a social duty.

You actually have a DUTY to fulfill certain social obligations in HOW you interact with others before you even get to the EARNED priveleges of getting a bit of romance out of it. And if you do get a bit of romance, you shouldn't be losing sight of the fact you still have those obligations.

Just as I can't be drinking in the pub when I'm meant to be at work because that's putting my pleasure before my job, there are certain minimum standards of interaction HAVE to be observed, period. If you observe them- and only if you observe them- can you then start worrying about sex and romance.

So. DUTY.

Your duty as a human being in interacting are as follows.

You cannot raise your voice to others, attempt to provoke others, display anger or hatred to others, or attempt to cross any boundaries the other party has indicated they do not permit you to cross. You cannot humiliate others, threaten others or attempt to make others feel vulnerable, frightened or scared. You cannot use the fears of the others or fear of what you might do to them if they do not comply to get your way.

You cannot use wording or phraseology designed to wound the other party by exposing a weakness. You cannot use language designed to intimidate. You cannot use wording or phraseology designed to express overt hostility. You cannot badger, push, co-erce or attempt to gain revenge for a perceived wrong done to you.

This is called diplomacy. Being nice. And it is an essential social duty. It must come first and foremost and one can only break it when one has a more serious social duty that must come first.

One can't go breaking it 'for fun'. One can't go around being rude to people, or displaying anger without a very good reason.

The only exception to this I can think of, would be a football match. The reason being, we deliberately go to football matches to RELEASE pent up aggression. One goes to them knowing one is going to hurl abuse at people in claret and blue shirts. They're going to shout abuse at us. It means nothing, really. We've all signed up for it and hence it's a bit of fun, for the most part. In many ways, we go to these events to get it OUT of our system so we can be polite continually for the rest of the time.

But in ordinary life, we need a very good reason for showing someone hostility or behaving in an undiplomatic fashion. And in our recreational life, it really shouldn't happen. There's just no excuse for it.

No we need to get a sense of proportion on this. Relationships- LUXURY. Being nice to people- DUTY.

Since it is our moral duty to ensure we never speak to another human being in anger and our duty to ensure our conduct towards another is never confrontational or likely to cause distress to another, this means we need full control of our emotions at all times. We cannot allow ourselves to get into situations where we might end up causing harm to another, either verbally or physically.

And this code governs our romantic relationships just as it governs any other. My contention is that precisely because people get so emotional they consistently forget their social duties here, they forget their social obligations in ordinary interactions. After all, it's difficult to uphold a moral obligation to a stranger that you can't even uphold to your 'wife'.

We need a system of values that puts perspective on this. And to do that we need to stop thinking that there are any morals which apply to 'Romantic Love' or sex aside from those which apply to Love generally. In other words, the girl who takes a different man home every week is no more or less moral than the married, sexually faithful woman, in principle. They just have different ways of enjoying their HOBBY. But a hobby it is all the same.

Where we can make a moral judgement is in how they carry out the Love to everyone else that is their DUTY.

Romantic Love is generally to an individual or a small number of individuals on the basis of a personal preference. For this very reason, it is not in itself 'moral'. True Love must be allotropic. Given to all equally to the degree they themselves carry out THEIR duty.

True Love- your duty to your species- is essentially a form of social work. Romantic Love and the feelings it generates must not be allowed to get in it's way. More importantly, you cannot be indulging in Romantic Love unless you can guarantee you can fully do your duty to ALL- including the other party or parties in your hobby. And you do not impede their duty, similarly.

In other words, Romantic Love is NOT unconditional. It's the amount of Love you have left over AFTER you have done your duty, Lovewise, to humankind. Just as your beer money is what you have left over AFTER you have paid your bills and rent/mortgage. Romantic Love is a reward you- and everyone else- get for HAVING DONE THEIR DUTY PROPERLY. Or should be.

First principle. You are not there at the beck and call of ONE individual. Each according to their needs. Your duties are, in descending order, to those who need you most in terms of seriousness of problems. You have a duty of care to all and you MUST serve all people with the care a priest serves his congregation. Once you have done that, ministered to the needs of ALL the people in your social circle clinically and ensuring their basic needs from you have been met IN PROPORTION to how much they truly need you (and this needs to be based on the same decisions a social worker would make) then, if you have any left over THEN you can distribute your SURPLUS time and affection on the basis of personal preference.

Second principle. In judging issues, you must remain impartial. Morality is allotropic. Objective. Be as fair as Lucius Junius Brutus. You need to be pretty ascetic here. Do not ever allow yourself to be influenced by the tears of the person with a claim to your affections. That claim has no bearing on right and wrong. In judging their actions, you must judge them as you would a stranger.

Third principle. It is your duty to ensure that on occasions your opinions or interests conflict with others, the issues can be resolved without resort to displays of anger or hostility. If the issue cannot be resolved amicably and without resort to anger, than it must be referred to a court of law or whatever authorities are appropriate to deal with the issue. You must not personally involve yourself in situations where the other party has strong emotional responses towards yourself. Just as it is YOUR duty to counsel and advise others in a state of high emotional excitement, it is likewise impossible for you to deal with someone with high emotional responses in calm and dispassionate manner yourself due to yourself being the object of such emotions. You cannot act as a counsellor to someone for whom you personally are the object of strong emotions and this is a task you must transfer. This is a fundamental principle of social work.

Fourth principle. Your judgements on the actions of anyone must essentially remain allotropic. This allows you to judge an issue on it's own terms. This principle, notice, invalidates the concept of 'fidelity'. You can't judge your girlfriend for sleeping with another man because you can't judge the woman you do not know for sleeping with the man you do not know. You CAN judge your girlfriend for intruding in YOUR privacy because you WOULD judge a total stranger for it. And you CAN judge your girlfriend for verbally abusing another woman because you would judge a stranger for it.

Fifth principle. How you treat people you are close to- even in a Romantic relationship with- should still not depart from your duty to THEM. Your primary duty to them is exactly the same as your duty to anyone else. In fact, you HAVE no other DUTIES towards them. Your duties to all citizens are exactly the same. In other words, there are times when your conduct towards them will go over above duty. You are under no duty to kiss them, caress them, hold them or have sex with them. Nor are they to you. These things are pleasant things. However, you ARE under a duty to ensure you do not display anger, hatred or jealousy. By the same token, you should respect their human rights with the same due diligence you would treat the rights of a total stranger. You may certainly give them love and affection over and above that you would give to a total stranger. Most certainly. If you have surplus affection to spare, why not give it to someone you feel a personal affection for?

What you cannot do is allow that personal affection to build up to a point whereby the 'feelings' you develop could conceivably lead to you being unable to adequetely perform your IMPERSONAL duties to either them or others.

Sixth Principle. Just as you have a duty to everyone else, everyone else has a duty to you. No, no one has a duty to kiss you. Or hug you. Or have sex with you. These things are optional. And in fact, your wife doesn't have a 'duty' to do ANY of her 'marital duties'. STILL optional. But she has the same duties to you that you do to her and both of you have to everyone else. Just as you must treat every other human being, including her, as if you are their priest/social worker, so too she owes you the same.

It is everyone else's duty to treat YOU- as long as you are fulfilling YOUR social duties properly- with politness, diplomacy and respect. You have a RIGHT to expect that you will not be hit, or threatened with violence. You have a right to expect you will be spoken to calmly and politely. You have a right not be a victim of either physical or verbal abuse. You have a right to expect that others will carry out their own social obligations towards you.

Seventh Principle. Yes, there are times when you can display negative emotions and fight. Even kill, if need by. These situations are when the common good demands it and it is your duty. But these situations are usually when there is a widespread consensus between you and other people that the social contract is endangered.

There may well be situations where you personally can display anger at another. But this can only be a situation where their actions consitute a breach of the social contract. They must have physically or verbally abused you, stolen or damaged your property, impinged upon your freedoms, they must in some way have broken the social contract.

So, yes 'Love' is very much part of the social contract. Loving your fellow men and women, your brothers and sisters.

Loving them- as in not displaying anger, jealousy or hatred to them unless they themselves break the social contract- is itself part of the social contract.

Sex and romance are not part of the 'basic pay' of the social contract. They are a BONUS. A privelege earned by those who've done their duty. No morals apply to them other than this;

Those that fulfill their duties to be NICE PEOPLE can have as much as they bloody like with as many people as they bloody like.

Those who don't, can have none.

End of.

It was this principle this blog was set up to push, it is this dynamic this blogger wanted to convert humanity to when he started.

If it leads to rampant promiscuity, it will only do so because people have EARNED that right by being nice. As things stand, the average citizen hasn't earned the sex and romance they already get. Because they don't fulfill their social duties.

Unless you can guarantee you will NEVER display the emotions of anger, hatred and jealousy and unless you can ensure you will never seek to own propery or treat people as property, unless you can commit to SERVING and not HAVING, you don't deserve sex or romance. And if you've got it, you shouldn't have it. You're taking the bonuses without doing your JOB.

DO YOUR JOB, treat everyone with the courtesy of a nun or a priest, a social worker, and morally, you earn the right to engage in sex and romance with as many people as you want seven days a week, fifty two weeks a year and die with 'I made love to ten thousand men' or 'I made love to ten thousand women' on your headstone. Or just have one. Whatever floats your boat.

Because you'll have earned it.

And that needs to be the ethic. Do your duty first, and THEN worry about the bonus.

Unless you can learn to supress your negative emotions and ensure you never display them to others, you don't deserve to enjoy the positive ones. The positive ones are the bonus you are allowed to reward yourself with for not displaying the negative ones.

But it's not a reward you are entitled to give yourself unless you've earned it.

Romantic Love, just like sex, is a bonus that only those who have learned to over-ride their own emotions to serve the common good, should ever be allowed to enjoy.

There is, however, another very important aspect to it.

Sex indeed is no longer necessarily connected with reproduction. But Romance is. Romance is sexual selection at work.

Already, the logical mechanics of how Romance naturally selects in a society that has not yet acheived, but is on the way to acheiving, guaranteed socialised childcare for all children, regardless of circumstances will work.

For most of us, Romance serves a purpose that sex does not. Sex is simply recreational. Romance is about the simple fact we don't reproduce by budding. Therefore, to reproduce ourselves, we have to Ok someone else reproducing. Romance, ultimately, is a selection procedure by which we say 'Yes, I'm happy for you to reproduce and your genes be passed on. In fact, I'm quite happy for MY offspring to have characteristics YOU possess'.

The next post will analyse the logic used in the twenty first century by people of my generation who have rejected marriage and commitment in deciding to breed and who with. They themselves are probably unaware of the way their minds are working, but the fact is, people condition themselves to think in terms of the world they live in. Sexual selection in a marriage and commitment free world actually works surprisingly well.

It relies, of course, on a welfare state. But if we could guarantee full socialised childcare provision for all, we could allow this system free rein. It actually works better, in terms of natural selection.

The next post, as I've said will demonstrate WHY, by showing how Romance works, when it works WELL and does the job it evolved to do.

The post after that will demonstrate WHY we need fully socialised communal creches and nurseries bringing up our children, with professional nursing staff caring for them. Parental Love under such a system will be a welcome addition, certainly but the job of watching over our children and bringing them up to be good citizens will be done by professionals. How this will work needs to be clearly outlined.

How Free Love Will Conquer Evil

2010-09-24T07:01:00.000-07:00

Let us be clear. It is possible, even at this early stage, to reproduce without the need for sex.

And sex need no longer lead to pregnancy.

We already educate our children communally, we can pretty much ensure, or with a few alterations in our system of social care CAN ensure, that it matters not how good or how bad a child's parents are, whether he has one parent, two parents or none.

Not only marriage, but people falling in love and even sex are- not necessary. Not to reproduce. Nor to rear children.

So from a simple systematic point of view, sex and even romantic love serve no social function any more. So it would seem.

That being so, should we eliminate them?

The question is 'Do they cause more harm than good?'

As regards sex, the answer at first might seem to be 'Yes'. Rapists, paedophiles are the most disgusting things we can think of, along with stalkers. Remove sex and we remove them.

No we don't. Their Evil has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with power. The joy of causing terror and pain by crossing a boundary and invading the personal space of another to a degree they are completely under their power. That is what connects these sick deeds. They aren't, in fact, anything to do with sex or love. They simply manifest themselves in that way. The problem here isn't sex, it's psychopathy.

On it's own, therefore, sex isn't a problem. Rave culture proves that. Stick hundreds of people in a room with lots of recreational drugs and encourage them to randomly copulate with total strangers, does anything Evil happen?

No. Quite the reverse. Rave culture gives the lie to the idea there is anything inherantly evil about recreational drugs and casual sexual promiscuity. People enjoy sex. It's a pleasure. No need at all to remove it from our lives. In fact, Rave culture shows the remarkable potential it has for becoming a force for good. Besides, at a basic level, it's a bodily function. And like with food, the more you satisfy people's appetitites, the more contented they are. Ensuring supply meets demand- or ensuring people's basic lusts are fulfilled- is a necessary social goal.

However. Romantic relationships are a problem. A big problem. The number one cause of murders. Manslaughters. Greivous Bodily Harm.

The statistics speak for themselves. People get killed or injured, basically, because of one person's feelings towards another.

One could argue this is only a tiny minority of cases. And perhaps it is. Nevertheless, it is still the number one MOST likely reason you are likely to be murdered. Maybe not YOU personally, maybe your girlfriend is an angel. But someone's isn't.

In my view, these cases simply mark the thin end of the wedge. It is the thick end I'm more interested in. Remove the thick end and the thin end vanishes, but so too do a lot of other things.

What we should be aiming for, as a society, is not just a murder rate of NIL, a rape rate of NIL, a Greivous Bodily Harm rate of NIL, but something more. An insult rate of NIL, a bullying rate of NIL. A society where it is just not acceptable to ever exhibit the emotions of anger or hatred. A society where it is not acceptable to display hostility. A society where all are polite, courteous and friendly to others at all times.

As things stand, that's a pipedream. But what if we could engineer society to acheive that result?

Again, the answers are in statistics. Here's one; married people live, on average, two years longer than people who stay single all their lives. Proof, one might think, marriage adds to the lives of those who marry.

Yes, but single dog owners live seven years longer than single people without one. Cat owners live two years longer. So, in a nutshell, getting married is worth as much as having a cat. Keeping a dog is better.

My guess is this has a lot to do with the wild fluctuations. It's luck of the draw. A lottery. Some people who marry, will get murdered. For some, it will be even more rewarding than having a dog but on the whole, dog ownership guarantees to give you what marriage MIGHT.

And therein lies the answer. Reality is, we want more than just sex. More than just friendship. The dog can't give us sex, but that's the easiest one to get from humans. Friendship is harder, but most of us still have good friends. There's something more we want, which is why we seek out human beings for 'romantic' relationships.

And we'd still seek it even if we didn't need families and have socialised childcare from cradle to adulthood.

We want someone to pet. Cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, well, they're a substitute but only the dog really does it properly. Dog gives and gives and gives. He jumps up with joy, he rolls over for a scratch, he nuzzles his little face in your lap, he licks your hand. All he wants back is what he's giving you.

The dog is a salutory example to us all. An evolutionary success story. Because, for all humans have done, all humans beings think they know, for the complexity of their morals, they're crap at loving eachother. Amongst mammals, the story of the last ten thousand years has been simple. Be useful to man, or become an endangered species.

Cows have a good life, I guess. Good LIVES. But one day, they'll end up going to meet Mr Stun Gun. As will pigs. They exist in huge numbers because we need huge numbers. To eat.

It's the dog who is the success story, by any standard. We, the master species, treat him like our own children. Why? Because he does, instinctively, what our own children don't. He gives us something we crave more than food, food is to live. Dog gives us what we live to search for.

Dogs exist in such numbers just to be loved. Now that's a success story. Being so good at loving that the master species keeps you for free because it is crap at loving itself.

So. This tells us something. We know what we want. Why don't we get it- or why does it not pan out a lot of the time?

Well, because people lose perspective. And that's cultural. Time was when this stuff was about more than just getting a hug. It was about reproducing. For men it was about knowing they hadn't wasted years of their lives feeding another man's children, for women it was about knowing he wasn't going to leave her and her children in the gutter. Society depended on this stuff.

Now it doesn't. Now it's just about having someone to pet. It's hard to get out of thinking like our parents because they found it hard to stop thinking like their grandparents and THEIR parents lived in a very different world.

Let's get some perspective. Legend has it the major 'Gangsta' feud between the Burger Bar boys and the Johnson Crew in Birmingham started over a dispute over who won a game on a Nintendo Gameboy. A computer game.

So- numerous people have DIED over a computer game.

A computer game.

Sorry, did I not say that loud enough? A com-put-er-game. A-bit-of-fun.

So let's get it straight. People shouldn't be getting killed over romantic relationships. They shouldn't be hurt by them. Hell, people shouldn't even be arguing over them.

Here is my view. As things stand, people, in a sense, try too hard. In my view, the vast majority of 'relationships' go on far longer than they should because people try to 'make them work'. They invest too much in them, emotionally.

The problem comes with the commitment. Because now you feel you 'have a relationship'. And you see it something other than a friendship. It loses sight of logic. I must admit, I always assume I DON'T have one. And that assumption is the key.

Expectation management. The way to prevent yourself developing dangerous sentiments is simply to focus on the here and now and stop thinking of the 'relationship' as 'yours'. It exists, but only as a descriptive term for the things you do. It can't be ended by declaration any more than it can by started be one.

If you can get into the habit of doing all the things you want to do with the person you love but without seeing yourself as belonging to them or them to you, things become different. If they want to sleep with James tonight and not you, that's between her and James and most emphatically NOT you and her. Nor does she have to give you notice it's 'ended'. A declaration doesn't end it. Empirical reality does.

Now, if everyone followed this policy, there was no legal marriage in existence and no formal bonds uniting people, not even a commitment, what would that do for human relationships?

Well, firstly I doubt a fraction of the marriages around today would have lasted anywhere near as long without a break. Romantic relationships would become far more precarious. I'm guessing the number which would last over five years without a break would be less than five percent of the ones that do now. Initially, anyway.

It would lead, naturally, to a rise in short term, casual relationships. But, more significantly, it would lead to several other things. First, an acceptance that 'relationships', in this context were potentially transient things. People wouldn't set such store in them. This would lead to a reduction in jealousy. People would soon cease to see cheating as cheating because it would be accepted that people were perpetually 'windowshopping'. Because no one feared losing a PARTICULAR relationship because 'there's plenty of fish in the sea' people would argue less. There would still be tension, initially, but things would improve in time.

For reasons that will become clear.

People would be less keen to settle. An argument wouldn't be seen as a sign there were obstacles to overcome, but as a sign two people weren't suited, long term. There would be less trying to fit round pegs into square holes. Or, more realistically, people would accept more easily that they might be a square peg, but the other feels like a round peg and rather than row, call it a day.

Slowly, the amount of Evil going round, the amount of negative emotions felt would decrease.

In time, people would start to wonder why they needed 'have relationships' at all. What would start to happen would be that people made FRIENDS with the sex of their choice and those friendships would develop a sexual element. Become relationships in reality, but without the rules. Because people WOULD come to love eachother. But they wouldn't be committed. Each day would be a new day.

Now- here's the crucial point. In this scenario, there's only one way I can ensure I sleep with you tonight. Be nice to you TODAY. It doesn't matter how nice I was to you yesterday. If someone is nicer to you TODAY, no use me getting angry. I don't own you. I actually have to be NICER than the competition, not bitch about having competition.

That's the dynamic that makes the difference.

What changes will this bring about?

Well, a side issue is the immediate effect it will have on women. As the last remnants of the double standard disappear, a social transformation will occur.

By the double standard I mean this. That a man of twenty who pulls a different girl every week is admired by his peers- and the opposite sex- whereas a women who does so is despised. That a man who admits to having had a hundred lovers is worshipped, whereas a woman who admitted that would be despised. The fact that a 'slut' is not the same as a 'stud'- though she should be.

When this taboo dissolves, a curious power will transfer to women. A new confidence will appear in the most attractive women as they lose their false virtue. And no more will unattractive, unpleasant women be able to use a false virtue as an excuse for their undesirability.

Whether we will still use the word 'slut' I don't know. But if we do it's meaning will change. It will become a compliment. Female celebrities, pop stars, pin-ups will trumpet their sexual prowess, as men have always done. Only- the most attractive women will put the most attractive men to shame. Men may brag about their hundred or so lovers. A REAL female stud may easily get into her thousands.

Women will take studliness and outdo the men at it. The psychological effect this will have will be astounding. It will be WOMEN who brag about their sexuality and go on the pull. Men as a sex will accept defeat, culturally. Become the passive sex.

I will expand on this further in a later post, but let me state it in simple terms. The aim of fighting Racism is to ensure that one day, the colour of a person's skin becomes simply an aesthetic feature, like eye colour or hair colour and the judgement made on it, is purely aesthetic. It won't be wrong to find one colour more pleasing, aesthetically, but the idea it means more than that will make no sense to ANYONE.

The point of figting homophobia is to ensure that one day homosexual sex acts are seen by eveyone as identical to heterosexual ones, with no distinguishing judgement made between them. Both are considered equally good.

The point of feminism is NOT equivalence between men and women. They're not identical. And the aim of feminism is MORE than just getting equal treatment for women. It is about liberating womankind completely from male systems for controlling them and restoring them to their natural place as the PRIMARY sex. This doesn't mean they'll subjagate men as men did them. Men won't be SUBJECT to them. Women won't need to create laws and discrimination to assert their natural status.

Give women a LEVEL playing field and ignore sex but just recruit the right person for the right job, judge women on the same terms, remove the male control mechanisms and we'd find that probably most leading physicists, philosophers and artists remained male. So would most oil rig workers and construction workers. But we'd have government largely composed of women and most CEOs would be women, most executive officers, our police forces would be run by women, our civil services run by women.

The aim of feminism is the destruction of the false creation, fatherhood, and the elevation of motherhood. All men are women's children. None of us are men's children. The final goal of feminism is, and let's not beat about the bush, matriarchy. Matriarchy is not a mirror image of patriarchy. Patriarchy is based on inventing something called fatherhood and worshipping phalluses and seeing the use of the phallus on another as a gesture of power. Matriarchy is about placing the mother/whore in the centre of society as the central dynamic which drives; a dynamic where sex and love and procreation are about love and peace, not aggression, possession and power.

Matriarchy isn't about women RULING men. But it's about changing the dynamics so that all men become, essentially, free prostitutes for women's needs.

I will expand on this in a later post. Suffice to say for the purposes of this post, one should soon see a social change. The key point, is consent.

Most of the problems involved with sex relate to penetration. The need to create a false equality leads us to treat the thirty year old woman who seduces the fifteen year old boy as as much a criminal as the thirty year old man who seduces the fifteen year old man, whilst not dealing with the fifty five year old man who seduces the twenty one year old girl.

Rape is about penetration. The problem is solved if the general consensus moves to 'Men don't ask, they wait to be asked'. If men essentially get used to adopting an essentially passive position, then the problem is solved. The thirty year old man can't ASK the fifteen year old girl in the first place. The fifty five year old man can't ask the twenty one year old girl, either. If she goes out of her way to ask, well, that's her choice.

But the thirty year old woman asking the fifteen year old boy? I don't see the harm.

One takes away the possibility of men pressurising women for sex and changes it to a simple system; women go to men for sex. It won't be long before men essentially cease being pro-active on this front at all. They'll simply passively acquiese and be available for any woman who pets them nicely.

Of course, this is just SEX we're talking about here. Love is a bit deeper. But let's not lose sight here of higher love. Christian Love. Love of our brothers and sisters. That must come before Romantic Love. And don't worry, Free Love will ensure it does so.

Why? Well, at the moment the idea is that you accept someone for life, with all their faults. You will give them love, regardless.

This doesn't incentivise them to be a good person.

Now ask yourself this; who profits from Free Love? A lack of commitment?

Men with big dicks, I hear you say. Well, sexually, yes. Women will no doubt choose men for SEX on such a basis, to SOME degree.

But look further. What if your aim is actually to get someone to keep coming BACK to your bed?

Ok. Simple point. Right now, if you're my 'girlfriend' and some other woman comes on the scene trying to 'steal' me away from you, how do you react?

Many might confront me, shout at me, be demanding, or WORSE. Go and threaten her off.

If there's no commitment, then things are different. If she's succeeding, it's because she's being extra charning, extra flirty, extra sexual in a way which you have probably ceased to be because you 'have' me.

She'd be doing what you did to get me in the first place and now have stopped doing.

When you were trying to get me in the first place, you'd never have let me see the side of you that's now shouting at her and threatening her off. If I had, you wouldn't have won me.

If, on the other hand, I never let you win me, I force you to be continually NICE to me. And more importantly, nice to the competition too.

The logic of the situation is clear. In this system, there isn't 'someone for everyone'. You can't just go round being nasty and hope you'll find someone who'll love you 'for who you are'. No one ain't NEVER going to love you for who you are- just what you DO and how you DO it.

And this is where the concept of being a virtuous womaniser- or virtuous maneater- comes in.

If you look at most womanisers and maneaters, their success is down to knowing how to behave. How to turn on the charm. Put bluntly, they MAKE PEOPLE FEEL GOOD.

You don't need to be attractive to be a womaniser. Just know how to make a woman feel good. It's partly charm, yes, but it's partly about knowing how to make people feel good about themselves.

You can't be a womaniser just by being 'gentlemanly'. People who can't do it hate womanisers, just as they hate maneaters, not realising that really, these people are heroes and heroines. Their success proves it.

They get results by making people feel good about themselves. By being- nice.

You have to know how to always say whatever it is the other person wants to hear to feel good about themselves.

People who do that, get rewarded for what they're doing. They attract many, many more people than those who don't.

The trick is not to care about relationships, but to focus on a more immediate aim. Just enjoy making people feel good. And study that. Learn to make people feel good for the sake of making them feel good. Because when they feel good, it makes YOU feel good about having made them feel good.

If you think like this, you can never feel jealousy. Your girlfriend shagging someone else is- well, an incentive perhaps to make her feel better than you already are. Of course, if it's something the other guy is better at, well, just stick to what you're good at. Hopefully she'll come to YOU for what YOU do best.

For example- to be blunt- I'm quite happy for my 'girlfriend' to go to other men when all she wants is a ten inch todger. Why? Because I'm three inches short. Why compete in a competition I'll lose? What I can beat him in is knowing how to work her erogenous zones to give her a more- spiritually rewarding, holistic, soft, sensual experience.

I wouldn't dream of arguing with her because how does that make her feel good? Of course, if she wants to feel bad about something completely unrelated to my attempts to make HER feel good- say, my attempts to make OTHERS feel good- well, that isn't making me or anyone else feel good, so she needs to be punished accordingly for making people feel BAD. Not in a vindictive way, just I won't any longer attempt to make her feel good till she stops making people feel bad and makes others feel good. Most especially me.

Put bluntly, I don't make people feel good so they'll turn round and make me feel bad. Or others feel bad.

The knock on effect is simple. People may sexually select- at first- on the basis of looks, or intelligence, or charm.

But who will be those who people keep coming back to? Who will be the ones who find they have more AFFECTION? The ones who have, not most sex necessarily, but a sleeping partner every night, sleeping partners who come back to them night in, night out and if the partners didn't come back, there's plenty ready to take their place?

It's quite simple. Those who simply aim to please without expecting anything. Those who gain simple joy out of pleasing others, be it verbally, sexually, aesthetically, or whatever. Innocent joy.

But it gets better. What eventually will happen will that a direct corrolation will soon become apparent. Since people aren't limited to one at a time, some people- of both sexes- will find that there's ALWAYS a queue. Because people aren't any longer thinking about a lifelong partner. They're just thinking about who's cosy to snuggle up next to TONIGHT.

And they'll generally follow experience and empirical evidence. Nice, passive, placid- dare I say it DOCILE- people of EITHER sex will find that people come back. Because people prefer poodles to rottweilers.

They'll find they can take on several people at the same time. So there won't be 'someone for everyone'. The best people will have several people.

The knock on effect will be that the averagely well behaved will probably be much the same. Except that there will be more love and affection generally, so they'll still be better off.

It will be the more unpleasant, abrasive, confrontational people who'll suffer. Because no one HAS to put up with them. Because by being nice themselves, they can get someone else, even if they have to share.

And it's better to be the tenth choice of someone sweet and docile than the first choice of someone aggressive, emotional and confrontational.

So a small proportion of the population- perhaps as high as a third- will find that AT FIRST Free Love means sex and affection dries up for them completely, or even if it stays much as it is now, will still be low by comparison with what everyone else is getting.

Because- bluntly- no one has to put up with their shit and 'settle'.

They do NOW, because nicer people already have someone. But if the nicest people will take on ALL nice people, and the less nice people do likewise and so on down the line....

Bottom feeders won't settle for EACHOTHER any more, because they can get better by being the twenty ninth preference of better. But over time this relegation to the bottom of the interpersonal pile WILL have an effect on these people.

They'll start to do what they don't do now. Improve.

Oh, maybe they won't GENUINELY be decent folk. And perhaps, in a sense they'll be 'faking'. Suppressing their nasty natures to please others, others to whom it comes more easily.

Who cares, really? Why should we carry on telling people who behave badly they're just as worthy of love as everyone else? If we give it to them for 'being themself', they just STAY as shit people. This means society gets used to a certain degree of unpleasantness.

You see the knock-on effects of this online. Ok, we can't all AGREE with eachother. But we can ensure that we DISagree in a way PLEASING to others. People don't try. They go around 'being themself'. Because they've not had it drilled into them that their personalities need improving. The only way you can do that is by having their personalities in constant competition with other personalities to please others so they can see what a shit job they do of pleasing people.

The problem with committed relationships is exactly that. People are reluctant to be RESPONSIBLE. But, if you are rewarding someone with affection what you are doing is validating them. That's a responsibility. So, if your 'girlfriend' verbally abuses another person, that makes YOU responsible if you do not USE your power as a supplier of affection to her by withdrawing the affection until she acknowledges what she did was wrong. If you continue to give her affection as if it never happened, she won't learn and she'll do it again.

And that's kind of what I'm arguing for. Being liberal in the AMOUNT of people you give affection to, but draconian in tolerating bad behaviour and withdrawing affection immediately, not subject to negotiation, when coming across bad behaviour.

Where will this ultimately lead?

Well, here's a thought. I freely admit to being a womaniser. For me, it's pretty simple. I don't trouble myself worrying about 'feelings' or 'relationships' or any of that crap. To me, it's bloody simple. 'You make me feel good' or 'You make me feel bad'. We call being 'in love' love, but is it fuck. It's a high. Love is a deeper feeling. So subtle it's barely a feeling at all. Love is a sense of peace and service to a greater good.

Our duty- out of love to our species- is to make others feel good and not make them feel bad. End of.

Now here's the point. For many people, finding someone who'll 'fall in love with them' is a major thing. Because they muddle about through their lives 'being themselves' 'calling a spade a spade' and wondering why this tactic doesn't work. Eventually, by simple law of averages, they stumble on someone else desperate enough to 'accept them for who they are'.

Well, I'll admit. Once you understand the mechanics of it, you can drastically increase the chances of someone 'falling in love with you' very quickly. Once you understand the simplicity of it, you can pretty much ensure that you can make MOST people 'fall in love with you'.

Thing is- it really ISN'T hard. Do you know how you do it? Make. Them. Feel. Good.

Not hard. You can't help who you fall in love with because you can't help being made to feel good. But you CAN help who falls in love with you. Make them feel good.

So no. You owe nothing to someone just because they 'fell in love with you'. You made them fall in love with you by making them feel good. If they want to be made to feel good back, it's their responsibility to make YOU feel good.

Some people say this means 'faking feelings'. Being 'false'. Sorry, life is about being 'false'. Life is about telling your Gran her apple pie was yummy when it tasted like cardboard. Making people feel good means telling people what they want to hear in the tone of voice they want to hear it, put bluntly. Now, if what they want to hear is a blatant lie, telling it is wrong. But for something to be a blatant lie, it has to be falsifiable. Whether or not you liked your Gran's apple pie isn't. From an external point of view, the truth of the statement means nothing, you tell your Gran what she wants to hear. End of.

In the same token, you tell people you like them even when you can't stand them. You tell people they look good even when they look atrocious and you tell people you love them when in reality you couldn't give a flying fuck. But you don't go round saying Capitalism is a good thing because that's falsifiable and therefore IT'S A LIE.

You make love to people to make them feel good, no more, no less. What we have now is a daft set up where because people by and large DON'T trouble to make others feel good they invent a moral system where they castigate those who DO trouble to do so as 'womanisers' and 'maneaters' and invert morality to suggest those who are good at making people 'fall in love' with them- in plainspeak, make people feel good- are somehow villainous.

Well, guess what? Free Love means you can't do that. Everybody will just have to make the effort and concentrate on making others feel good, because there will be no tolerance shown towards those who think they can just 'be themselves' and be loved 'for who they are'.

Anyone who has studied evolution will know the basic principle; competition can be a good thing. It leads to the best emerging, eventually. Capitalism, for all it's faults was a good thing in it's day. It led to the frantic competition which led to globalisation and the creation of one world out of which the ONE system, the survivor, the universal COMMUNIST system will emerge.

Free Love means competition for affection on a perpetual basis. What this means, is that it really will be survival of the most charming. It will mean that everyone will have to learn to interact LIKE WOMANISERS AND MANEATERS. In other words, the winners will be those most good at making other people feel GOOD and who don't make others feel BAD.

Whereas competition for resources led to survival of the most ruthless, the most tough, the most intelligent, this will lead- yes, to the survival of the most intelligent, but also the most calculating, the most agreeable, the most silver tongued, the most sensual, the least aggressive, the least confrontational. No room for rough diamonds any more. If you're a rough diamond, GET POLISHED.

Competition will mean that individuals will be forced to start learning how to make other people feel good and learn to hold their tongue when they feel words coming into their mouths that make others feel bad.

Human interactions will eventually end up being hammered by the power of these forces into THE FITTEST. THE BEST.

Eventually, people will just get used to continually putting a check on how they express themselves. All people will always be selling themselves at all times, all people will always speak in soporific, calming tone, avoiding words likely to antagonise or offend. All will have mastered the salesman's trick of knowing how to disagree with you and yet do so in a way that doesn't offend you.

All people will continually have running through their mind 'Am I making them feel good?', continually conscious of causing offence, careful not to alarm by exhibiting emotions that might alarm or repulse others, continually behaving to everyone, even those they know well, with the politeness of a waiter in a hotel, the sensuality of a concubine, the concern of a social worker and the comradeship of a military unit.

Eventually, it will simply become accepted interaction. Expressing hostility to or about someone to their face will become unacceptable.

The behaviour people now exhibit- or the best of us exhibit- when on a first date trying to get into someone's pants will become the standard form of interaction all people use in interaction with all people at all times without exception. Even when there is an 'issue' to be resolved, it will be dealt with via the spoonful of honey, not the barrel of vinegar.

Because once people start to learn how to interact like this continually, they'll realise it just gets the best out of people. They'll always be wanting to make as many people as they can feel GOOD. So that others will make them feel GOOD in return.

The rare speciman who goes against the trend will thus seem even more discordant than now. It won't be the eccentric but charming maverick who loses out. The different will be rewarded because people are attracted to difference, when it's pleasant. But it WILL penalise those who cannot or WILL not focus on making other people feel good and think it's OK to interact with others in a way others do not like being interacted with.

Love will be- a constant desire to please everyone else. Aesthetically, intellectually, sexually. And those best at being pleasing will be rewarded.

And why should anyone worry about 'relationships' if everyone is always being pleasing to everyone else?

Except those incapable of always being pleasing.

Will we be any less altruistic? I think not. More so, in fact because we generally speaking feel good about making others feel good. Altruism will increase.

What we will have done will have come to understand Love PROPERLY. We will have made a moral advance.

A moral advance as great as the moral advance Christ brought us. Reached a new understanding.

That new understanding needs a post of it's own.

Free Love- The Argument From Nature

2010-09-18T03:52:00.000-07:00

Determining a way to resolve what I call the 'sex problem' is a matter of logic.

Love is easy enough; do unto others as they would do to you. Thing is,
human beings have sex. They like sex and furthermore they associate
sex with feelings of love.

The question then arises 'What system of ethics regarding sex and love
serves human beings best?'

There are some who argue the best system is one where the only sex
permitted is within a formal coupling called marriage and sex outside
this discouraged.

Others, like myself, argue for marriage to be removed and sexual
promiscuity encouraged.

Who has moral right on their side?

One argument is that Monogamy is natural in human beings. Ask any
anthropologist and they will inform you that the NATURAL sexual habits
of Homo before the 'Great Leap Forward' remain a mystery archaeology
cannot solve. For reasons we will come to later, we gain no help here
by studying our nearest relatives.

The argument that society has always practised it holds no water. The
WINNING culture did. In fact, if we list all human cultures that ever
existed, we find Polygamy practised by about three quarters with
Monogamy only narrowly ahead of Polyandry. Free Love doesn't get a
look in.

What does this prove, if anything?

It proves that no sedentary cultures survived without some sexual
code. It proves that if any culture practised Free Love in the past-
they have been eliminated.

Solid point to the traditionalists, perhaps.

Not really. The fact Polygamy predominates as the choice of most
cultures suggests that if any choice was the INITIAL and NATURAL one,
it was Polygamy. A harem system, basically.

Of all possible variants of marriage we COULD invent, that one was
clearly closest to our inclinations.

Well, closest to men's inclinations, perhaps. Perhaps all this shows
is the relative power of women to men in culture. Polygamy overtly
favours men, Monogamy still favours men's interests, only Polyandry is
truly fair to women. At the expense of men.

A case can be made that the successful culture triumphed because it
practised Monogamy and not Polygamy or Polyandry but evidence for that
is lacking. Islam practises and practised Polygamy. So, in fact did
Christianity more tacitly for a long time, as evidenced by the harems
of the Byzantine Emperors. All this proves is that rules were needed
in early societies to prevent fighting. It didn't really matter how
silly they rules were. Polygamy is as daft, if not more daft than
Monogamy.

Judging Polygamy as against Monogamy ethically? Well, it leaves a huge
surplus of men over women meaning women in harems do not get the
'attention' they require, for the most part. The huge amount of effort
needed to police such a system, the cruelty, the need for castrated
eunuchs, etcetera, etcetera, not to mention it's flaws from a simple
point of view of reducing the gene pool relegate Polygamy to being a
highly socially undesirable system.

Polyandry is preferable, but again, wastes most of the women. Since
women are less violent it isn't such a problem, but still, we can see
why Polyandrous societies haven't blossomed.

All we can say is that civilised man (meaning anything above the
neolithic system) tended to prefer the worst system of the lot but
fortuitously the culture that ultimately triumphed practised one less
stupid.

There is no evidence Homo of the savannah practised Monogamy. If we go
by THIS evidence, he most likely practised Polygamy. The worst of the
lot.

Nor does any of this PROVE the virtues of Monogamy.

To do that, we'd need evidence that contrasted a society practising
Free Love with one practising Monogamy and measure in which society
was least aggression and hostility felt and in which society was there
least conflict.

We don't have such evidence.

So. What evidence do we have from our cousins? And what validity does it have?

Orang Utan is a rapist by nature. This is not encouraging news but
fear not. He's a distant cousin. Our near cousins are the Chimp, the
Bonobo and the Gorilla. Wouldn't it be nice if they could help us?

Let's be clear here. Our cousins share almost all our emotions. Same
hormones, mostly. There are differences, of course. We have evolved
differing morphologies. And have certain different instincts. But
let's be clear. Though the Gorilla is the most distant genetically,
the odd one out is us. We are the one who have evolved most by
whatever standards you measure it. We are a very unique animal, the
other three less so. We are a primate that became the master predator
of the planet and THEN created civilisation. And that path to power is
so far a story only a few skeletons can illuminate.

It would help if our cousins had the same sexual arrangements as
eachother. They don't. The Gorilla is monogamous. The Chimp practises
the harem system. The Bonobo- practices what we would call Free Love.
Literally. Bonobos are the randiest animal on Earth. With one
exception.

Does any of this tell us what our ancestors practised? Well, there are
a few clues, actually. Clues regarding our morphology. Bonobos have a
lack of sexual dimorphism- as in, their makes and females are similar
sizes and only possess genetial differences. Gorillas possess marked
sexual dimorphism. Generally speaking, species that fight a lot have
marked sexual dimorphism, especially if they fight for mates.

We don't have marked sexual dimorphism in spite of our violent
history. This suggests that in human society in the long millenia
before the neolithic, male and female lifestyles were fairly similar
and men probably didn't fight eachother for mates. It suggests, in
fact, that our violent past was one shared equally by both genders.
Not perhaps as surprising as we first think.

In other words, gender distinctions as experienced in the last ten
thousand years of human history are actually a MODERN aberration.

At all events when we consider the evidence against the possibility
our ancestors practised Monogamy when we became sedentary, the lack of
sexual dimorphism and the fact that there is no consensus amongst our
nearest relatives- in fact the species that DOES practise Monogamy is
more distant to us than the two that don't, we have to concede that if
we were betting wo/men, we wouldn't be betting on our ancestors having
practised it.

When one compares the variety of systems practised by human cultures
and the variety amongst our cousins, an obvious reality emerges; human
sexuality is governed by culture. Human beings CAN practise either
system. And if we can, it is likely our cousins could too. Gorillas
are Monogamous because of culture. Bonobos practise Free Love because
of culture. Our respective morphologies have adapted to fit sexual
lifestyles but in terms of our emotions, we're actually pretty
malleable.

That malleability doesn't mean we're identical. That evolutionary
difference will mean we're more inclined one way or another. What it
does mean is that whilst Gorillas may be more inclined towards
Monogamy and Bonobos towards Free Love, either COULD, if put in the
other's world, live the other's life.

Must be so. Because clearly, whatever our TRUE 'natural' inclinations-
SOME of us have at some point suppressed it and lived totally at odds
with it. Just we can't agree which lot.

In a sense, therefore one MIGHT argue it actually doesn't matter WHAT
our ancestors practised. That would be correct on the basis that all
the assumptions we have made in this post are correct. There is of
course an exception. It matters if the sexual lifestyle practised by
our ancestors was radically different from any we have envisaged and
affected actual morphological changes on our species which completely
contradict the traditional moralist viewpoint of human nature and even
patriarchy itself.

If there was evidence that human beings are by nature promiscuous and
bisexual and in the human species women were the dominant sex prior to
the neolithic period and human instincts are actually geared to
support society being this way, then we'd have to take this into
account not just in terms of devising morals for sexual codes but
dealing with a bigger question.

Was the last ten thousand years all about men inverting the 'natural' order?

I believe there is evidence to support this hypothesis which I will
offer in a later post.

In essence however, the point is relevant only to a limited degree.
The past and how we got where we are should not dictate the present.
Whatever system got us here may not serve our needs NOW.

Our ape cousins are all headed to the dustbin of evolutionary history-
or would be were us kind human beings not showing them more
benevolence than natural selection has done since the end of the
Miocene. They are all failing species, regardless of whether they are
Monogamous or practice Free Love.

Nevertheless, we are where we are and have other concerns. Failing
they may be, but there is a pertinent question we can ask.

Which of these species lives in greatest harmony and is least violent?
Which species manages it's behaviour to the degree it is nicest to
it's fellows? Is there evidence that the sexual lifestyle practised ny
these species affects it's behaviour.

Let's not waste our time on the chimpanzee with the mean old
silverback hanging on to his harem and bullying the smaller males,
sometimes buggering them to prove his point.

First, let's look at the Gorilla. Since the sixties he has been recast
as nice Mr Passive. Not REALLY mean if you get to know him. If you get
to know him, he can be just like us and emote like we do. The
aggressive Gorilla is a myth. He's just territorial to an obsessively
paranoid degree.

This kind of proves the point. Like it or not, Gorillas ARE violent to
outsiders. They WILL fight eachother for females and to defend their
own. All this proves is that the violence of Gorillas is down to
nurture more than nature. Their culture makes them violent. They will
kill to protect their females from other males and kill YOU if you so
much as approach a tree they think is their territory.

Sound familiar?

Bonobos, on the other hand have developed a great way to avoid
fighting. Not just over mates, over ANYTHING. They use sex as a
bartering tool. Instead of fighting over it, they give it in exchange.
A bonobo will offer sex to another Bonobo for a stick and think it's
got a good deal.

Again, let's mention a critic's point that proves the rule. Critics
point out that Bonobos are just as naturall aggressive as other apes.
Bonobos are capable of the same levels of extreme violence other apes
are, and like other apes, not just if provoked. The idea that Bonobos
are less CAPABLE of evil is not true.

Again, the highly socialised lifestyle of Bonobos actually means a
higher number of incidents of potential conflict. Bonobos, in short,
feel much the same emotions we do. They just have a way of life which
manages them better.

Firstly, Bonobos are matriarchal. In other words, women rule. Bonobo
tribes are led by lead females, not lead males. This means their
society, sexually, serves women's needs, not men's. The sexual power
in Bonobo world, rests with the submissive not, as in other Primate
groups, with the penetrator.

Second, the fact Bonobos use sex and affection as a bartering
resource. Bonobos don't get emotional about sex- they use sex to
defuse emotion.

This proves the point that the critics think is discredited by
pointing out Bonobos are, emotionally, no less violent than we are.
Bonobos live a lifestyle that means they 'Make Love, Not War'.

They're NOT less warlike, instinctively. But their sexuality prevents
fighting for the simple reason that a Bonobo when faced with
confrontation presents it's genitals.

I often think that would be a rather easy solution for us. You're
arguing with a bloke over something and you simply drop your trousers
and say 'Hey, we're not agreeing. Let's fuck'. The other bloke would
run a mile :)

Well, I'd have a good laugh in to my pint anyway.

Anyway, that's pretty much what Bonobos do. The only thing that really
distinguishes them from their cousins the regular chimps is that
Bonobos have significantly higher libidos.

It's the huge amount of social problems this solves for Bonobos. Other
species fight over sex. Bonobos use sex to prevent fighting. Whereas
in most species, sex is a source of strife and adds to the levels of
tension, in Bonobo culture it acts as a suppressant of all negativity.

If you increase the amount of stress in a Bonobo community, they will
simply fuck more, thereby reducing the stress levels back to
equilibrium.

In a sense we know this. How often when we find someone behaving in a
decidely unpleasant manner do we roll our eyes and say 'Stupid bitch
just needs a good hard fuck'.

It's a true. We know it. And Bonobos don't exactly know it, but it's
how they keep their culture pacific.

The advantages in scrapping Monogamy aren't just that it makes life
easier, it actually means we can do what the Bonobos do. Bonobos
ensure that in terms of sex, supply always meets demand, which meets
ONE problem. But they're doing more than that. By increasing the
supply over and above the demand, they solve problems over and above
what sex was originally FOR.

They're not just fucking to satisfy eachother's needs, they're fucking
to eliminate stress, eliminate aggression, eliminate jealousy,
eliminate competition. And it works. The evidence suggests that take
sex away and Bonobos are as prone to these problems as any other
species. Perhaps more so, because they've got used to having this
solution to hand.

Before you suggest that Bonobos are amoral, the evidence suggests that
amongst our cousins they have one of the highest senses of altruism
and a sense of respect for others.

True, they don't 'Fall in Love'. Gorillas will pine for a mate.
Bonobos are less likely to. They form friendships and most, if not all
of those, will involve sexual contact. But Bonobos aren't going to
fall in love for the simple reason, sex means nothing to them, so what
distinction could there be between love and friendship?

Bonobos are living proof that a world of Free Love would NOT be a
world where no one cared for anyone. It wouldn't be a world without
emotion, merely one in which we had a mutual system for managing
eachother's emotions by offering eachother sex as a kind of medicine
to ensure everyone's emotions were ultimately harmonious.

Sex is always going to be a problem for a collective species. What we
have is the ability to separate sex from reproduction and childrearing
as well. This means that we CAN have a social system for reproducing
AND childrearing which has absolutely NOTHING to do with sex which can
now be purely recreational.

Since we no longer need people to form family units, we don't need to
tolerate those excesses of emotion and we can instead use sex as the
Bonobos do, as a tool for PACIFYING emotion. At the end of the day,
it's a drug that everyone wants that costs nothing and does no damage.
Why not use it to it's full potential?

Furthermore, we can impose a new ethic in place of the old. Right now
we're feeling youngster's heads with drivel about marriage and
fidelity and family and getting them to see sex and love in that
light.

Why not tell them that you give people sex as a reward for them being
nice? We can do this in a world where we have cradle to grave social
care. Where all children are brought up by the nannies of each commune
and each parent loves their children sure, but they're not any more
RESPONSIBLE for them than anyone else. The commune is responsible at
large. All are responsible for the children of all.

This does not mean STATE control of childrearing. It means SOCIALISED
childcare. There is a difference. We're ninety percent there anyway.
It wouldn't mean the state dictated because ultimately the state as we
know it will whither away, it means that each commune has it's own
nursery and the COMMUNE has full parental responsibility. Not the
state. But not the parent either.

The benefits this would have for our children are enormous and
obviously in society's interests, but that's for another post.

What this does, is really allow for the full FREEING of human
sexuality to serve a new social purpose.

We can use sex and love to acheive what the carrot of Heaven and stick
of Hell never could. We can use it to regulate human conduct towards
eachother.

It stands to reason that people will strive to behave towards
eachother in as passive and non-threatening a manner as they can.
People will get used to being non-confrontational towards eachother.
Males generally will become more submissive and females will become
more dominant. People will supress aggressive emotions and ensure they
are permanently polite and charming because they know a public display
of anger will likely lead to a reduction in intimacy.

It will lead generally to NICENESS increasing in value as a commodity.

The flaw of Monogamy is the idea of unconditional love for one person
and none for everyone else. Free Love ensures that sex and love are
distributed as a reward for good behaviour.

The next post will explain the mechanics of how that works in depth
before returning to the issue of what I believe our actual nature to
be.

True Sins Two: In the Days When I loved With Evil in My Heart

2010-09-15T07:42:00.000-07:00

It was getting towards Christmas in 1997. I thought it would be our first.

She was going to Leeds for her sister's graduation. I admit, this doesn't make much sense, quite why her sister was graduating in what must have been early December.

We'd had our only serious row that week. By which I mean I'd spent all afternoon in the pub sulking. I can't remember what it was about. It was a row in the sense that when I got back we didn't speak to eachother for about an hour. Whatever it was about, we got bored of it.

Things otherwise were good. About as good as they get. She'd even told her Mum she wanted me to stay with her family at Christmas. I'd accepted as well.

The only cloud really was that we'd had that little tiff. That we'd disagreed with eachother. It had surprised us. I could tell she was- disconcerted by it. And I was a little worried about her going away because of that. I'd been a little thoughtless as well during my sulk.

She'd bought a rose a week or two previously and it had seemed the everlasting rose. I had said it was like our love. During the sulk, she'd tried to inject a bit of lightness by picking it up and pointing out it was wilting. Kind of a hint for me to say something nice. I hadn't taken it. I'd replied 'Everything dies'.

Which wasn't what I should have said. Later she admitted to being quite upset by my callous attitude to the rose.

Anyway. Her being away for four days kind of bothered me. Put bluntly, I'd got used to not going more than a day at the very most without a bit of loving. Four days seemed like a year. And yes, I guess I worried she would. I was, after all kidding myself she was what deep down I knew she wasn't- faithful.

One thing that happened during this weekend that probably had an effect on my state of mind was the fact I did in fact cheat myself. The first time I'd ever done it in fact. Not with a stranger either. With one of Joanna's friends. Well, they weren't themselves close but members of the same social group. Joanna was close to her cousin and this other girl was too.

This didn't have any bearing on subsequent events aside from a certain rather stupid residual guilt on my part. Stupid because, as it turned out, she'd been doing exactly the same thing herself. Not that she ever knew I had, I don't think. But MY guilt at the time was almost certainly a factor at the time. It was much as Nietzche said; imaginary guilt for an imaginary sin.

Anyway, I spoke to her on the phone on the Sunday and everything seemed good. I was looking forward to seeing her again and her to seeing me again. Or so I thought. She was back on Wednesday.

Only she didn't come round on the Wednesday. Or the Thursday for that matter.

She came round on the Friday. I was a ball of nerves. worried she'd found out. I can remember herwalking up the stairs and got up out of my chair (the fact I was even IN the armchair a sign of my nervousness) and opened my arms to greet her.

She just stood in the door way and put her hands up 'No. We need to talk. You might want to sit down'.

I did. She continued. 'I think we should split up'.

Me: What? But why?

Her: I just do.

Me: Can't we talk about it? If there's something you want me to do, I'll do it, if you want something to change, I'll change it.

Her: No. I've made my mind up. I want us to split up.

Me: But last week you said...

Her: People can change their minds. I don't love you any more. But we're still friends aren't we?

I had a choice then. I had a choice between Good and Evil. Rushing up through me was a sense of hurt, rejection, anger. But what was causing it?

A sense I was entitled to Joanna. That she had to give me her love as a RIGHT. A sense of humilation, embarrassment. Facing other people. Loss. Blame. Blaming HER. It was her fault. We were meant to be together and she was reneging on a promise. She was supposed to love me, I was entitled to be loved by her.

What I was feeling in this moment had nothing to do with me loving her, it was all about her NOT loving me.

And so I gave the answer I did 'No. No we can't be friends. I love you. Now I want you to leave'.

She turned and ran down the stairs, down to her cousin's room. I knew she was crying. Did I feel remorse?
No. Just anger.

In retrospect, the cruelty of what I did stands out. I knew something was out of the ordinary before she came round or at least SHOULD have been prepared for it. Should have had some appreciation for the fact she'd obviously made her mind up but had been scared of actually facing the conversation involved in case it turned out exactly the way it had. I hadn't made it easy for her, I'd made it worse. Furthermore, she'd made clear she still wanted to stay friends and I'd spurned that. Punished her for wanting to end it. Made her cry because SHE rejected ME.

That was so NOT love. Love would have been me smiling and saying 'Of course we're still friends, we'll always be friends. Love would have been making sure she walked down those stairs feeling light of heart and knowing things were OK between us. Love would have been- not being a complete dickhead.

Sad to say, more dickheadness to come.

In fact, let's stop talking about 'I'. I'm pretty ashamed of 'I' in this story. Let's pretend it was someone else and call him 'Dickhead'.

Dickhead then went downstairs in to the kitchen where his mate was having his tea. Dickhead then threw a glass at the wall. Dickhead's mate was less than impressed.

Mate: You're a twat. What did you do that for? That could have hit me.

Dickhead: Joanna just ended it.

Mate: Don't be silly. What did she say?

Dickhead explained the conversation. Mate conceded it seemed final but was at a loss to offer any constructive advice.

Dickhead and Mate went out and got pissed. Dickhead actually was in not too bad a frame of mind that night. This stage is called 'denial'.

Next day, Dickhead woke up and things were less good. Dickhead was in state of total depression. So he went down to the off-licence and bought two bottles of Jameson's. Dickhead went for a walk. Dickhead came back later wallowing in self pity. Dickhead went to talk to Joanna's cousin. She was very sympathetic, Dickhead's infidelity hadn't come out, that wasn't the reason it ended. Why it was over she couldn't say. Dickhead would have to talk to Joanna about that.

Which perhaps wasn't good advice. The last thing that was needed at this point was for Dickhead to talk to Joanna about it. Because Dickhead was too obsessed by getting her back. Some bright spark should have ensured that Dickhead was kept away from Joanna. Or Dickhead shouldn't have been a dickhead. But he was.

Anyway, Dickhead's mate came back and figured he should take Dickhead to the pub as Dickhead was getting maudlin. In normal circumstances, possibly a good idea if Dickhead hadn't made a good start on the Jameson's.

On returning home for some food, things got worse. Joanna came round to get ready to go out on the town and party. Hence much noise and merriment from cousin's room downstairs. Dickhead is upstairs on his second bottle of whiskey, plating 'Creep' by Radiohead over and over again. And brooding over the fact Joanna is off on the pull.

Mate decides Dickhead needs a night out himself. Dickhead syphons a good deal of whiskey into a platic bottle and agrees.

Dickhead is NOT goo company. Things get worse when Joanna happens to show up with all her mates at the student venue Dickhead is at. She is on the dancefloor, attracting male attention and clearly not averse to it. Dickhead decides to down his whiskey and throw the glass in her general direction. Not AT her, but close enough for her to notice the missile. Dickhead then goes to the bar, orders another and returns to his position, downs it and takes aim again. Again, not AT her but with intent that she notices the missile. She does. Her friends suggests they leave.

This is not Dickhead's finest hour. His mates point this out and suggest a walk on the beach.

Here, all sense of reason departs from Dickhead's intoxicated mind. Dickhead decides he's going to swim to Ireland. Well, not exactly. He just wants to go into the sea. His mate talks him out of it. His mate ALMOST manages to get him home when Dickhead feels a sudden burst of aggression and decides the sea is the place to be after all. At which point Dickhead decides to throw his housekeys as far as he can, divest himself off his shirt and go charging down the street. However, he's too pissed so he stumbles, falls and being unable to get up again, lies there.

His mate moves him as there is a car coming. Now things get worse.

Joanna and her mates appear. Dickhead gets a sudden burst of energy and gets on to his feet. What Dickhead's intentions are is uncertain. He presumably thinks that shouting 'Joanna, I love you! We need to talk!' is likely to get somewhere. Perhaps he forgets he is shirtless, wasted, covered in grazes and was, only an hour ago, aiming shot glasses at her.

Either way, she starts screaming and flapping her arms 'Get him away! Get him away!'

A plan is formed to get her into the building and hide her whilst he he is then put to bed somehow. This goes awry when it is remembered he is locked out and has no keys. Two volunteers agree to take Dickhead round to someone else's house.

Much later his keys show up and he is put to bed.

The following morning Joanna emerges from his mate's room (yes, she slept with his mate that night). She goes into Dickhead's room and delivers the following judgement.

'I used to think I loved you. Now I hate you, OK? I hate you'.

Dickhead is thoroughly ashamed.

It was over four years before we spoke again. I spent the next year, pretty much, on a sex, drugs and alcohol binge.

When I was in Amsterdam two months after we split up, she worried about me, apparently. Was worried what levels of excess I was putting myself through to get over her.

Some time afterwards I discovered the facts. She had met some guy in Leeds. It hadn't lasted. She'd gone up there every weekend for about three months, but it had just been a sex thing, really.

I didn't learn that from her but someone else.

She'd finished with me because there wasn't REALLY any way she could explain going to Leeds every weekend. She had felt she had to make a choice. She'd done the best she could in the circumstances.

Thing is- what she told me over four years later. That she'd never stopped loving me. Never. Whoever Leeds boy was- he was just a flash in the pan.

Had I not been a dickhead, had I smiled when she 'ended' it and accepted her offer of still being friends, had I got on with my life, gone out with her and her friends the following night like a normal person, gone on the pull myself perhaps, just taken it on the chin so to speak, we'd have stayed friends throughout her fling in Leeds.

And perhaps we'd have ended up after it as lovers again.

She couldn't make her mind up, she couldn't. Too many men and not enough time to do them all in. I should have had faith in her. LET her do them all. And have had faith that if she did, she'd have kept coming back to me. Because I know NOW she would have done.

But that dickhead bawling his love for her whilst covered in grazes, crying after downing two bottles of whiskey?

Why would any woman want to come back to that twat?

She WAS too good for me. Too good for the idiot I've described in this post. But the very fact she still loved me all those years on suggested to me that she knew in her heart of hearts that that idiot wasn't the real me.

But she held her ground, always did, that she wasn't to blame for my evil behaviour as outlined here. I was. She forgave me because she knew I was capable of better and that most men were capable of a lot worse. She had just expected better of me.

There is and always will be a deep sense of shame for that mixture of emotions I felt then. I see myself then and I must have looked a horrible specimen of human being. Conscious of my own dignity, in fact all I did was throw it away. I became bitter. Blamed her for my failings. Turned my love to her into some kind of feeling that I had been wronged. Became consumed by a love turned into hate that I couldn't direct so I turned it, ultimately, onto myself.

I was too stuck in my own ideas of what Love should be, brought up in a Catholic ideal of virgin brides and courtly love and way, way too much reading of Malory and the Faerie Queene as a teenager. One rule for men, another for women. Too much focus on rules and entitlements and a set mindset on how things should be. Far too much film and storybooking and not enough experience of the realities of love in the nineties.

I look back on things I thought then like 'I hope my Mum doesn't find out how many men Joanna has slept with'.

Like it fucking mattered.

I couldn't deal with the dichotomy for so long. I was stuck in some crazy world of sham morality which calls black white and white black.

I didn't learn, not really. It wasn't till 2002 I kind of got the point.

It was the first time we'd spoken in over four years. After I'd come out of a horrific relationship. The relationship had been with a woman who prided herself on being everything Joanna was not. She prided herself on the fact she had never had a one night stand, only slept with three people, never cheated, etc, etc. She saw herself as being a woman every man would want. She'd never been Joanna though.

And over the years I'd lost sight of WHY.

And it came during the phone call. I was agitated at speaking to Joanna again after all those years. She rang when I was at Five Ways station. The trains were playing up and I was the only person there. Because I was so focussed on Joanna I wasn't paying much attention to the trains, but kept asking the guy at the desk when the next train out would be coming that stopped at my stop. At one point I said to Joanna 'This guy's pissing me off now. He hasn't a clue what's going on and in a minute I'm going to shout at him'.

It was her reply. 'Oh don't. Please don't.'

It was the way she said it. With a hint of pleading. Concern for the guy in the ticket office. And you KNEW. Knew you would be a lesser person for shouting at him. Knew you'd upset him. The world would be a worse place if you did. And she didn't want that. Didn't want someone she thought well of to be the cause of something evil. A little evil in the grand scheme of things, but still an evil.

I realised thinking on it later that I'd never heard Joanna speak ill of anyone. Never heard her raise her voice to anyone. Joanna was NICE. All the time, to everybody. And she wanted everybody else to be nice to everyone else.

And that's what had made my atrocious behaviour to her all the worse.

Joanna's love wasn't 'loyal', it wasn't 'faithful'- it wasn't complicated. It consisted of a fairly simple set of rules. Do as you would be done be. Be nice to people and hopefully they'll be nice back.

Joanna's love was the simple love of a puppy wanting to be stroked. Sex, affection, intimacy- they're nice. Joanna's simple attitude to them was you offer them to people because it's nice thing. And you get a nice thing back.

To Joanna, what I did to her didn't make SENSE. And in time I realised she was right. How can you say you love someone and yet demonstrate it in such a NOT NICE way. The words don't match the deeds.

What I encountered in my life after that was always coloured by my relationship with Joanna. Her simple purity was that of Eve before the fall. Joanna just hated nastiness.

So many times after that with other women I found myself in bitter rows, dealing with resentments and jealousies Joanna just did not possess.

Actually, I can still remember Joanna saying; 'I think sometimes it bothers you I've slept with so many more people than you. Well, Livvie's boyfriend isn't really doing his job properly and she really wants shagging. Since I'm on my period, maybe you could shag Livvie? Just an idea'.

At the time I declined. My sense of 'loyalty'. But she didn't WANT that loyalty, particularly. Her solution was sincerely suggested. Like it would make everybody happy.

To Joanna, life was that simple. I think of all the arguments I had in all the relationships I was in and the thing is, they just couldn't have happened with Joanna. If it got fractious, she'd just be off.

I think of one of my exes screaming 'Why can't you love me like I love you?' Joanna could have answered that 'Because if you're screaming at someone, what you feel isn't LOVE. You can't scream at someone you love because you want to protect them from coming to harm. So you wouldn't harm them by screaming at them'.

It was that purity I missed. Love to Joanna meant being nice to people. Sex, intimacy, they all belonged to that. Just part of being nice to people. Love, as in being in love, simply meant two people being extra nice to eachother because they were more attracted to eachother than other people at that point. But if she changed her mind overnight, she changed it overnight. A creature of whim, pure and simple.

But she never had evil whims. Her whims were to cuddle people, kiss people, shag people.

Of course I loved her. At the time I couldn't face why, but it was because she was THAT BEAUTIFUL a human being. Incapable of evil.

That's why I loved her.

Truth be told, I was ashamed of myself for a long time after I did what I did. Up till then I had believed that one day, one I'd got sex out of my system to the degree it could be managed by the odd illicit affair with obliging congregation members, I'd end up an ordained priest.

The events in my post changed my mind. I felt I'd lost the virtue I possessed and needed to atone for me sins somehow. Get cleansed of the evil which had possessed me. I knew in my heart of hearts, though it made no sense using traditional moral interpretations, that Joanna had been good and I had been evil.

I guess I saw it more as life progressed. Saw evil more at first hand. Became part of it.

I can blame Claire all I like for her temper tantrums, but what did I really do to stop her evil? I stayed. I stayed out of 'loyalty'. And worse. Wanting to be 'loved'. And there's a twisted sense of logic isn't there, that if someone has such a strong feeling about you that they'll scream and shout, contort their face with rage and get impassioned about 'the relationship' that strong feeling they have about you is 'love'.

We believe this out of a twisted sense of vanity. It doesn't occur to us that someone who truly loved us wouldn't inflict such evil upon us.

We deserve better than we give ourselves. But we ourselves become lesser people. By treating people we purport to love like this, what do we become?

Even in resisting, one gets corrupted. Yes, women treated me badly, but I treated them badly back. I shouted back. I did nothing to STOP them feeling the way the did. Because in some sense I thought 'She loves me'.

It took me till me late twenties to realise that if that's human love, give me human indifference any day of the week. The moralist's deepest darkest fear is society which they describe as atomised, where no one feels anything for anyone, where all sex is purely casual, where there is no feeling, no emotion, nothing means anything.

They are wrong.

I look at the evil that's been done to me over the years by women 'in love with me', but also the evil I did in defence. Did I not shout back? Did I not react to defend myself by adopting defence maneouvures that themselves exacerbated disharmony?

It's not just Claire throwing the pint in the barmaid's face or Carly cyberbullying Phish. It's the friend I knew who after a relationship broke down, rang the mother of his ex and told her untrue stories about her daughter out of spite. The girl who told her new boyfriend her old one raped her when it wasn't true.

It's the completely EVIL things people do to eachother because of the horrid, HORRID nature of what we call 'love'.

And what's the point of being against war, against poverty, against torture, against tyranny, against violence, against Racism if we don't face up to the fact that we're not loving people the right way?

If we can't love eachother with the tenderness and care that our dogs love us, can we really say we're a better species when a species we domesticated to love us does a better job than we do?

We ARE a loving species, I know that. So why can't we love without throwing evil into the mix?

Because we try too hard, is why. We wonder why it doesn't work and the answer is that what we do to eachother is a betrayal. Doing what I did to Joanna was a betrayal.

I didn't know that at the time because I hadn't had it done to myself. Hadn't been on the receiving end. I had been brought up in a society had filled my head with all these silly ideas about love everlasting and sexual fidelity and marriage and all this crap. Taught that in relationships you have rights to eachother. And when you have these silly ideas in your head, you don't love people. You WANT them. And that's a huge difference because the things you will do to protect your property or avenge the loss of your property are SICK.

There are some lucky people who get through life without this sort of thing happening. But many do not. And we wonder why ther is a problem with human affairs?

If people can get used to treating people this evilly when they ostensibly LOVE them, is it any wonder they behave so amorally to others generally?

If you can't see why you don't do what I did in this post, then how on earth can you be made to see why displaying anger to people you don't love- just happen to know- is?

It's a knock on effect. If you think you can cause distress to someone you purport to love, you think it's Ok to shout at your friends. If you think it's Ok to shout at your friends, it's Ok to shout at anyone.

If you can't display a perpetually passive persona and avoid any displays which signify any emotion OTHER than affection towards someone you LOVE- how they hell are you going to moderate your behaviour towards others?

If you can't ensure that every word you say is nice and said nicely to someone you want to PROTECT how the hell are you going to make sure that everything you say is nice and said nicely to those you secretly can't stand?

I was a stupid young man when I did what I did to Joanna. It was only later being in her shoes I understood the scale of the betrayal and the scale of the betrayal we humans do to eachother every day.

We give people our love so they'll protect us from others. And then they become the very people we gave them our love to protect us against. BECAUSE of the love we gave them.

I am ashamed, thoroughly ashamed of what I did to Joanna. And because of that, I want to live in a world where Evil like that doesn't happen- where we bring up boys and girls not to be as Evil I was but as good as she was.

And I KNOW we can. We just need to change the way we bring up our children.