The Liminalist # 188: Coalition of Chaos (with Charles Upton)

Return conversation with Charles Upton, on electromagnetic spirits, the psychic mine-fields around Alexander Dugin, Putin’s berserker, poaching traditional metaphysics, postmodernism’s egregious contradictions, schismogenesis, symptoms of a split, traditional metaphysics as cure, Richard Spence & the Alt-Right, grasping for the ground, celebrating diversity, trashing Islam, who’s behind who?, dark spiritual forces, a question men have always asked, Dorothy Parker, nine truths to smuggle one lie, a parasite on truth, Dugin’s negative identity, inverting divine truth, high-level rationalizations, Crowley’s left-hand path, replacing God with chaos, Heidegger & the death of Logos, a coalition of chaos, when irony tyranny steps in, Stalin’s Friendship of the Peoples redux, a praxis of magic, exploiting demons, chaos magic, Austin Spare, postmodern magic, a new mutation of liberalism, the Borg, from classical to cultural Marxism, the pathologos, the goal of disembodiment, the Gnostic analysis, denial of immanence, cybersphere, a world of images, Elon Musk’s space shuttle to Mars, the compendium of all heresies, the Lucifer ruse, the traumatic blueprint, veils between us & God, the mercy of the latter days, God’s apocalyptic love, the little logoi, the reification of the idea of the world, getting free from ideology, ideological gang warfare, Frithjof Schuon, hippies communes, peeling away the layers of the world, seeking a concrete way via major religions, the limits of traditional metaphysics, Buddhism & the denial of the absolute, the divine frequency, the eternal reality of the sexes, what women want, Victorian morality reborn through liberal sex politics, the body’s wisdom, guided by lover, Dugin’s ethnic love, Husserl & the horror of eternity, appealing to the disempowered, Russians wounded pride, the new cold war, the true oligarchs revealed, Trump & the fall of the Empire, Red Ice, challenge to Dugin, the peoples of the sea vs. the peoples of the land, Leviathan & Behemoth, the Book of the Apocalypse, a mercantile empire, the Beast overthrowing Babylon, Rene Guénon ’s Sign of the Times, the Yugas, the psychic residues of the archetypes, embodying the Beast, living in the matrix, the ordeal of mercy, Dugin & Strieber as mirrors, thanking the darkness, the greatest illusion, born in the worst times, handbook for the end times.

Charles’ site

Charles’ YouTube channel

Songs: “Slouching Towards Bremen” by Geoff Berner; ” Fire” by Nate Maingard; “High Seas”  by Trailer Bride; “May We Die in Peace” by Greg Houwer; “These Words Are Yours,” by Hazelwood Motel

19 thoughts on “The Liminalist # 188: Coalition of Chaos (with Charles Upton)”

  1. My critical faculties remain unstunned and in the interests of objective truth: Here and elsewhere on this site I’ve heard and read comments about Crowley’s left-hand path. As far as I understand it, the term originates in India and relates specifically to sexual magical techniques. The left-hand path teaches the immortalisation and deification of the individual as opposed to the right-hand path which attempts to submerge the self in a universal oneness or cosmic union. Crowley’s writings are contradictory because in the main they appear right-hand path – all magical operations are to be undertaken to achieve Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel – the end goal of yoga and magick is union with the One/All. However, The Book of the Law and his antinomian role The Beast are clearly left-hand path.

    • Wherever or however the term originated, it is clearly a delusional way of thinking which gives the very false of impression of equivalence vis-à-vis the “right hand path”.

      When you think about how human minds work, you can’t abstract the self which forms from the face-to-face relationship between two individuals from the beginning of life onwards. For instance, my nephew can’t pursue an object at eight months with an obsessive vigorousness without having had innumerable experiences with his mom, dad, and others which confirmed the existence of a self behind his actions. Our responses, in the language of infant researcher Peter Fonagy at UCL, is “marking”, so that a cue implicit in our body language “marks” a capacity within the infants developing experience, so that in future experiences this quality will be implicitly searched for while at the more explicit level the baby moves into a ‘higher’ or slightly more complex representational relation that extends from the earlier attainment. Thus, the experience of looking at Matthews face and searching for his self yields a smile. A smile is thus a consequence or emergent property of one self ‘searching for’ the self of a newborn infant. Eventually, the smile comes, and a proto-narrative of looks and responses develops between the infant and the caregivers around him.

      The so-called “left hand path” is a delusional bunch of nonsense which evolves in minds with severe relational trauma so that the relationship between their feeling states and the so-called “oneness of the universe” is not understood to be a relationship of FEELING; that is, the feeling of oneness is the knowledge that matters – not the ability to think about oneness. Hence, to be experiencing human-level self formations without a consistent semiotic experience of connection between self and other, or between body and mind, itself expresses a very disturbed relational system which has deposited an ‘alien self’ at the core of self-experience, while at the dissociated periphery, or depth, lies the relational configurations which have formed the basis of their feeling states, and hence, the complex moral reality that the emergent self fundamentally lives within: if you can reflect, it is only by virtue of the “grace” of the other implicitly acknowledging your selfhood, and hence, affording you an experience of the realness of your agency. To ignore how a) is nested within b), or how recognition dynamics are nested within agency-capacities, is the heart and soul of the stupidity of Aleister Crowley and all the other human beings canalized by social-dynamics into identifying with and developing a self that is alien – a bubble – and like all bubbles, will one day burst.

  2. Never been a fan of the idea of a ‘matrix’. Before the movie, the term was hardly ever used and where it could be found – mathematics, computer sciences – most people weren’t aware of.

    But the whole notion is intensely dualistic and disembodied. Why is this world “the matrix”? Vis-à-vis what? Traumatic dissociation? Is traumatic dissociation and the framing it creates i.e. of one part of the self existing vis-à-vis another part, with the former identified with and the latter disavowed, not a function of trauma?

    The matrix (1999) is primitive philosophy that is utterly incompatible with the ecological nature of physical, biological and psychological processes, and so when I hear this term, I feel like a noxious and toxic meme is being gratuitously perpetuated. How much is there to know that you don’t know? Freud’s repetition compulsion more or less explains why Matrix-type concepts persist: people are wont to repeat a trauma that they have not overcome; ergo, the concept of a matrix is a metaphysical trauma that the self is struggling to overcome, but cannot, because so long as the tension of the relationship goes misunderstood i.e. so long as the concept of nature as matrix means nature as “other”, and so long as your motivation towards representation of nature as other is deemed unconnected to your relational history of trauma, you are still, paradoxically, existing under the influence of the trauma and its object relation processes.

    To me, nature is a beautiful gift; it is the self of God just as the social dynamics of our relations is the self of human beings. The self is a gift – it is real, and no doubt, it is this self-processed-through-body which explains the way humans behave in the world. The self is a gift and should not be devalued as a function of a “matrix” or “maya” or “demiurge”. All of these ideas are oppositional and fail to recognize the fundamental tension between polarities at the core of life, feeling, society and self.

    If you can let go of your past traumas you are able to do so only because you’ve developed a relationship of nurturing to them. You can’t nurture the world – the other, as nature, without acknowledging the other within – the self you have suffered as, and the relational processes which created it. If I can orient to this self – my self, and come to mourn, care, and tend to it, then I can do the same thing to other people on the outside. It is only by recognizing the mirroring structure of my internal world with social processes that I am able to transform my object relations, and so, retire any concern I once had with reality “not being real”.

    It is real. It’s not a dream, but an adventure – albeit, in the mind of God.

    • Not much. I can only say: reality is made of objects; objects develop in terms of symmetry dynamics with other objects. The “mind of God” only becomes apparent to human beings who have come to recognize that the external world and the biological self are descended from a common ‘oneness’ – this oneness being God. Since the discovery OF oneness is itself a very complex biological, social and psychological process with the 86 billion, 85 billion and trillions of cells operating as the geometrodynamical base atop which higher level emergent realities ‘sprout’ – where selves interact in a ‘recognition system’ where motivational/biological needs are regulated by external caregvers. These realities – self experience states – are really emergent states that derive from these infant-caregiver interactions, meaning they arise from the way the objects of the external world interact with the genetic proclivities of the body.

      All in all, the percept of God in self and nature and the biological process that leads to this is one very long and complicated symmetry dynamic that transforms in complicated but very interesting ways in a type of point-counterpoint, oscillatory movement.

      Identifying with God – or as the singularity – is a premature gnostic-esque mistake which, because it happens without correcting the way the body represents the environment (or how self+object create feelings) tends to create insanity/and or severe and chronic megalomania.

      You cannot control love if you aren’t loving. If you ignore others; bully others; deny them the same needs you have – for instance, to experience agency, capacity and power. How does such power emerge? I don’t mean the repulsive Nietzsche notions of power, but the power of having power of your feelings: not will-power, but the power that parents give their infant children; not the illusion of having a separate self that competes with other selves.

        • Cool. Hope you have a good experience.

          I’ll review Vice of Kings at Amazon.ca and copy/paste it for Goodreads.

          As you can probably tell, I’m a very wide reader with many different interests – conspiracy topics being a definite “ancillary” interest of mine, behind neuroscience/developmental research, prehistory/archeology/history, and the way physics/biology/ecology interact to produce the effects that they do. Of course, providing a satisfying material explanation does not take away the fact that emergent properties are ‘something more’ than the interacting parts which create it. For instance, the cell is something more than the biochemical processes it controls. Yet, the cell could not exist outside the processes of the parts which make it up. Proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and the metabolites which generate them, are carefully selected – hyper singularized – products of the interaction between the environment and the organism. This coupling is so tight that one may even consider life to be the emergent product of the interaction of three interacting geospheres: the lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere, with each domain providing elements that go into the emergence of life.

          Similar to the relationship between the cell and chemistry, mind emerges from the biological processes of the body. Cell becomes organism around 500 million years ago i.e. the Cambrian explosion. Around 400 million years ago, the definite beginnings of ‘mind’ emerges – with affects and images represented in the ‘tectum’ – a primitive area which united all these different sensory and motor processes. Hence – consciousness seems simple, but you cannot truly appreciate how it combines itself into a singularity without knowing neuroscience. It’s akin to thinking you know a building by painting a picture of it, yet having no knowledge of the complex mathematics and structure that the architect and engineer has mastered; it is their knowledge which makes the building real; it is their own competence in symmetry – a basic fact of balance – which allow them to do what they do. The artist – as merely an artist (with no engineering or architectural awareness) is just an egomaniac caught up in a Romantic idealization of themselves.

          The Hebrews, or Jews…This seems off topic, but it is interesting nonetheless to mention: Hebrews or Ivrim means ‘to cross over’. Jews, or “Yehud”, means “He who acknowledges”. These both seem like philosophical or ideological statements about overcoming trauma (crossing over into health and wellbeing again) and dissociation and idealization (being able to acknowledge the structure of reality). It is a strange thing that Jews or Hebrews have been constructed as “ethnicties”, when no such thing seems to have existed 2000 or 1500 years ago. Ethnicity was concocted over the last 500 years since the 30 year war in Europe. We have come to think this way so certainly that we’ve projected ethnicity into ancient peoples who never thought such a way; whose religions, in fact, were philosophical or theological statements with a rather surprising depth of self-understanding. The so-called “Hebrew Bible” seems like a sophisticated self-psychology with trauma understood and recognized in a pretty-much naturalistic way. Trauma as a theme is so central to the Hebrew bible that even Moses – or that part of the self that ‘dips into eternity’ – can’t enter the Holy land; and why not? Because he is traumatized; remember Egypt? This happened to Moshe and the Israelites, and hence, it was only the later generations – those untainted by the developmental disturbance in affect regulation – who are able to have a bodily experience which represents reality as beautiful, wonderful, exciting, and enlivening. The illusion of dysfunction – the torment of gnostic constructions, of apocalypse, of a diseased world – is shown to be an illusion of the brainstem – of the serpent, and a non-conscious interaction between the serpent and the body (eve – of living one). Eve tells Adam – or the intellect (Adam means “I” – or Aleph, am blood, or “Dam”) what the brainstem – snake – says. What a profound intuition of what developmental neuroscience more or less as happening in actual reality: the ontological status of the brainstem, which controls action expectations (and therefore controls the complete sensory and motor sequence) creates affects, which form the basis of how the ego will reason. Affects – Eve – guides the ego – Adam – because of the serpent, or unresolved trauma.

          Said differently, psychological and psychodynamic processes in mind are controlled by homeostatic processes in the body which have come to ‘regulate’ external objects in certain sorts of ways. In order to change this, the higher levels of the brainmind (prefrontal cortex) need to develop a very nuanced relationship to feelings and the ‘truths’ they represent, and learn to relax the autonomic arousal (brainstem/serpent) which causes feelings (eve) to represent external reality (i.e. adam) as being a certain way.

          Science seems prefigured both in the Hebrew bible and the Socratic method of being skeptical towards what one thinks he knows. I agree with Eric Voegelin here – that the emergence of Christianity is a thoughtful and logical combination of the Hebrew theological orientation and self-psychology with the rigorous philosophical reasoning of admitting that our relations with one another – and ourselves – are socially constructed, and therefore we must exercise a great deal of constraint/reason/patience with one another and our expectations i.e. being able to compromise ideal with the real, however complicated that can be, it prevents the emergence of trauma and the rigidity and chaos it creates.

          Anywho, really enjoy your writing Jasun. You capture that one element which seems real to me – a megalomaniacal apocalyptic minded elite class; and it seems real because, having studied trauma and development, and having been traumatized and fucked up myself, I can very well see how the symmetry dynamics of human beings could be so distorted – via class relations – that those who self-organize at the ‘elite’ level would have narratives that reflect the asymmetry that clearly exists between them and the rest of the society. The 1% are logically what they are because of the way trauma works, and how trauma is another way of saying ‘structural asymmetry’. Between what? Between bodily dynamics (brainstem regulation) and the world (the way objects threaten or induce safety).

          Since people are never willingly or deliberately insane, but always trying to be good even if they think the end-justifies-the-means, your understanding of this complex psychology mirrors my own understanding (that is, you and I have converged on the same truth i.e. the basis of our reality) and so, what’s demanded of us is an intense willingness to be for the other what they need us to be to help them be better people. How does a baby know that the world is good? Because the world is first good to him. His expectations embody this experience. Similarly, a person whose grown around trauma – and I am well read in the ritual abuse literature – is a person whose come to fetishize trauma, which is to say, his positive objects are complex evolutionary adaptations to psychological and emotional experiences of the void (the emptiness one feels by refusing to relate to reality; i.e. the illusion of self-coherency, but based in lies, creates an intense feeling of the void) which he has assimilated in the process of his own psychological growth from the traumatological interactions with his caregivers. The caregiver-infant relationship thus is the “container” – or prima-materia – for the selves own internal object reality. Traumatic experience forms very large basins of attraction (in complex systems theory lingo); and in order to regulate these traumas, certain self-states or identity structures are created, or assimilated, both in deliberate psychological programming as well as through daily interaction with the self-states of peers – both cult members and non-cult members – with the former informing the relationship to the latter.

          The world you come from and have grown from is very different from mine, but not so different that I can’t imagine it. Reading has given me a sensitive understanding of human frailties and human megalomania, and how the latter reflects the force of the former – or the former is the “trough” and the latter the “crest” of a wave of self-experience at different points in time.

          Anyways, I definitely think the denial of the concept of a secret society, or aggrandizers or sociopathy forming a basis for a secret-society, is a dangerous omission in contemporary anthropology and political discourse, but this appears to be changing (I mentioned Haydens efforts to move the conversation in this direction). So long as logic and a scientific narrative is maintained, discourse will be pushed in this more mature direction.

          Carl Sagan inspire me at times when I feel depressed about the world. Maybe because he was famous and well respected as a communicator, or maybe because he wrote a book, “A Demon Haunted World”, which dared to focus on the naivety and epistemological shallowness of politicians and other social ‘elites’ who, succumbing to a primitive mysticism, come to believe themselves to be possessors of true knowledge, but in reality are involved in their own sort of passion-play with their friends who are similarly doing the same. Being screwed in the same ways – leading to the same ‘solution’ – is not impressive, but desperate. Sagan didn’t go into the emotional and psychological maladies which make politicians what they are, but I’m sure he would appreciate the logic of the presence of secret-societies within large and complex societies as a repeating dynamic reflecting or recapitulating or mirroring the dissociation or separation that can happen between self and other when trauma interferes with communication. A dissociated and idealizing self mirroring a dissociated and idealized notion of society would strike Sagan, I’d imagine, as a very plausible description of both historical and contemporary society and culture.

  3. Looking forward to that Michael Jackson documentary on HBO on March 3rd and 4th, “Leaving Neverland”…

    Isn’t this the crux and core, Jasun? The man was charged with pedophilia throughout his life, and throughout his life – and the lives of those who defended his innocence of the charge – was a constant chorus of innocence. “I’m innocent! I don’t do those things!” I remember MJ saying. Isn’t it strange? I remember getting into arguments with people who believed Michael Jackson’s innocence, whereas I, more informed about how human brainminds work, felt it important to emphasize that a man his age, with his history, in the milieu of Hollywood and stardom, was most certainly engaging in sexual relations with children – and to think otherwise would be to unreasonably remove from Michael Jackson’s self-experience experiences of libido, arousal, erection, etc – something any self-aware man should be highly skeptical towards. Hence, the likelihood of him being a liar before him being some asexual creature. Why is the latter extremely unlikely? Have you see Michael Jackson’s hyper-sexualized image? Do you not realize that to interact with such material is to assimilate such material? Then why…the naïve person will wonder, is he always so childlike? Because he is stunted emotionally and socially. Listen to his voice; he is a weakling. Yet he is revered: a bizarre contradiction. He walks around in tight clothing while grabbing his balls and intoning a masculine huff, while off-screen he speaks at an extremely high-pitch, as if he were afraid, or rather, as if his feeling of being made to feel weak and ineffective had become so generalized that he self-organized from such a position. Everything about Michael Jackson screamed “developmental trauma”, yet we stood there, blank eyed, as dumb and dissociative as can be, believing the unlikely fiction that Michael Jackson “merely” played with the kids he brought around him.

    How amazingly dissociative! How intensely idealizing! This dreamy type response to the owner of ‘neverland’ ranch speaks to something far more nefarious: the degree of corruption that can exist, such that MJ can be made a spectacle, yet the truth – of pedophilia and the sexualization of children as sex-objects for adults – lies within, denied, yet seemingly a very relevant parameter in the feeling and objects relations of the adults who lie and play games with a gullible and dissociated public.

    I then heard the defenses of the Jackson clan, and all I could hear was the chorus of the basal ganglia: that part of our forebrain which compels behavior through reward-punishment calculations at a consequential level. The nucleus ambiguous charges idealization, while the caudate nucleus engages us in our rote action-tendency. Translation: Tito, Jermaine, and the rest of them, lie in the way that they’ve been taught to do since they were young-ones. How crazy is this claim? Yet, its likely the truth.

    The “one” in Wachowskian gnostic fantasy is basically a debased sexualization of human relationship, such that sex is conflated with love, and love becomes entirely “self-love”, such that the signs of interaction mean nothing (“im suffering” the other’s facial expressions say; “Im suffering” my feelings say; yet both are dissociated, because neither can be cognitively managed through reflection) and the only thing which moves the self is unreflected-upon affection. Since affection is a result of a self-other calculation of consequence, it is inherently triadic (self+other=feeling/expectation). Since reflection is deemed “evil” in gnostic fantasy, and evolution is not even acknowledged as the organizing principle of life and reality – and hence, language can be vilified as “unnatural”, or, relativized as ‘purely human’, as if it didn’t play any orthogonal role in coordinating human interaction with the feelings we feel and the awareness we have about the world, ourselves, and one another.

    Since development is a series of constraints and affordances, to be sexually abused is to have a profound shame or void put into you because the self-who-is-sexualized feels like an object whose experience is denied and violated as the other projects their own fantasy onto the interaction with you. Since the fantasy arises from unresolved affects based in their own experience as an infant/toddler/child, their attraction and compulsion to engage a child is not an expression of “who they are” i.e. “essential pedophiles”, but of a predilection that has been built into them by what another adult did to them when they were a child.

    In the documentary, one of Michael Jackson’s victims came forward because of the conflict that existed between how he imagined himself in being a father (and the self-states of attachment and caregiving that underlies it) and how his own unresolved and unrecognized memory of being sexualized abused by Michael Jackson had made him attracted to his own child – a relation he felt to be inappropriate, wrong, and objectifying. He could see – whereas Michael Jackson could not (because of social influences/narratives) -that the child really isn’t interested in sexuality, whereas a tendentiously organized adult who believes everything he thinks is legitimate would read cues having nothing to do with sexual motivation as expressing sexual lust. They would ‘jump’ at these cues and seek to develop them, coax them, and normalize them (if the child is verbal), so that the self-state that is desired would eventually be selected – after dozens upon dozens of self-states which denied, resisted and refused.

    In any case, in your book The Vice of Kings (great name btw) you do get to the strange root of what non-sexually abused people have to do to deal with this public menace of pedophilia. Why do the pedophiles hide? Why do they persist in their idealizations – for instance, why do postmodern philosophers dare to make adult-child relations a ‘non-taboo’ topic? Because the trauma of the experience of being objectified as an adult is insufficiently recognized to be the core of the attraction felt by the adult towards the child. This is consistent with the intersubjective and Vygotskian nature of human perception and cognition, where we switch object-relation poles in our interactions with others; so, if I’ve been abused by my dad, and I go to school and see someone who reminds me of my weakness (the weakness my dad hated in me) I will unconsciously identify with my dad/aggressor/persecutor and attack the kid who represents my internalized victim-state. In order to ‘conquer’ that victim state and more fully identify with my dad/aggressor/abuser, I have to beat the shit out of that kid.

    This is the dilemma people with a history of sexual abuse are often in: they have extreme experiences of abuse that have been behaviorally linked with extreme acts of aggression and violence towards others. Their mind is the tension between these two poles, and hence, they experience themselves as ‘very large’; perhaps invulnerable, since their relationship to suffering is somewhat pleasant. Yet, of course, there is a limit to this perception of suffering: it is only good within a range that my mind can tolerate, beyond which I am truly suffering, and hence, there is no pleasure with pain, but simply pain in relation to a pleading center. If the center – the ego – refuses to plead, then it ‘loses itself’ i.e. it goes insane, and the periphery invades the center and comes in and out as a function of the context. It is not ‘magical’ – just a breakdown of the center because the center assumed that it wasn’t being generated by the periphery.

    In any case, compassion is demanded from people towards this issue i.e. towards pedophiles, however distasteful that may feel. Why? Because the tension of our hostility, as non-pedophiles, makes them – the pedophile – feel like a disgusting, hateful object, which triggers dissociation and the idealized defense mechanisms that they are controlled by. Hence, it has to be imagined and understood how anyone, given the circumstances, could be made a pedophile, and hence, the truth of things is how radically determined we our our early experiences, and thus, how victimized we all are even as we can become victimizers of others.

    Attempting to escape this ecological understanding is the problem. Not speaking, or communicating, more coherently about what is happening, and what we need to do to help those who are existentially lost, afraid, and angry, will make the situation worse, as the internal dichotomy and the external dichotomy reflect one another. If I cannot be open and mindful – non-judgemental in my body language, then I cannot be helpful.

    I am therefore very happy to see mainstream culture attempting, yet again, to address this very deep problem within western societies in particular. The shame of the abusers must be acknowledged and sensitively dealt with if they are ever going to feel safe enough to feel the truth of their inner victim.

  4. Till– Very much enjoyed reading your comments. Have one quibble so far. Husserl says the ideal is the objective… meaning, in one lame gloss, that we find “truth” in such things as mathematics, objective science, laws of physics etc. because it is precisely the idealization that makes objectivity possible… idealization locates a plane of commonality, of intersubjectivity, which makes communication, etc. possible.

    So as evolving beings become thinking beings they begin to inhabit and work in ideal, or non-real thoughtworlds that are nevertheless very real; language being a fundamental type of such a thoughtworld.

    I guess I am trying to open up the question of whether you’re a thoroughgoing materialist or if and how theology and metaphysics fit into your evolutionary framework. I’m kind of skeptical of evolution talk because it’s such an unsupported dogma. You sound like you’re used to dealing with materialists but may actually be running an inside-out epistemological “matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness” kind of post-Pythagorean idealism. I mean not to be labelling you, but to get you to discuss the old question– what the hell are we? Waves or particles? 😀

  5. I’ve really enjoyed listening to this. Charles is well informed and, for an older guy, has his finger on the pulse of contemporary political and cultural currents. I sussed out Dugin pretty early on and really didn’t feel his influence was that great or unique. There are far more anonymous cheerleaders of greater influence online.

    There’s much more I could say, but I just wanted to share an anecdote in regards to a point Charles made about what women want.

    Many years ago I found myself sat on a tube train across from Germaine Greer. I had not seen her prior, but she must’ve been staring at me intently, because I looked up from my reverie to meet her stare. What flashed into my mind was a comment she’d made not so long before, about how much she enjoyed travelling in Italy because the men there are not shy of flattering women (she had received some of it, apparently), whereas English men are so reserved and withholding. Coming from her, even though she had a point, it riled me. The sheer pushiness of the unfettered female, who doesn’t know when to stop eating her cake. I briefly thought about engaging her in conversation and raising this point, but decided to honour her observation and resort to type. A guy I respect made the point that this female trait of shit testing men works well when men are not hamstrung and therefore can’t keep this trait in check. Essentially it motivates men to get the things that need doing, done. He can go out, slay the monster and come home to collect his reward. Win-win. But no self-respecting man is attracted to an unbounded harpy and lord knows we have far to many.

    • Great story Joe. I have the unfortunate experience of knowing quite a few women whom I’d classify as ‘harpies.’ What’s even worse, they are relatives who often hit a sour note, and who then stretch it out for as long as possible. Even the ones who are gay have difficulty maintaining a relationship with other women of the same ilk. People are complicated, I guess.
      Cheers, J’nia

Leave a Reply to Till Cancel reply