top of page
Search

Diary 2022 (part 2)

Updated: 11 hours ago

April 8th 2022

Having released my new album, "A Box of Far Off Things", I realised for the first time that I have quite a (relatively at least) soft, high voice when not keeping to grainy spoken-word vocals. The first takes were even higher in pitch, but my tuning wavered at some points as I lost the key notes, so I re-recorded. It's a shame, the timbre on those was better, with a more satisfying resonance also, though in the end the missed notes jarred too much. I decided I could have done it better, given 100 vocal takes, but also that that would lose the immediacy and I might grow bored and sacrifice any emotional impact. They're a mixture of lost love songs and my trademark approach to ancient pain. As always, I am closer to a poet than a lyricist. Abby says I sound 'gay' in tone in this. I think she meant it as a compliment. I can see what I think she meant, but her way of phrasing it was odd.


I'm not sure who I was thinking about in it. Probably no one in particular. Just lost loves in general, romantic or in friendship. Like in setting 'Thread' to music, where I did consider Carman a little. What makes it sadder is that Carman has an original written copy of that poem. I was well estranged by the time it was set to music. I leave it online not because it's true now, but because it was true originally. The truth is the affection. The romance is over. I figure if she ever finds it it might give her solace, same as with 'Erysichthon By Dusk', addressed to Jillian, a former writing correspondent. They may need those as counterpoint palette-cleansers if they ever encounter the Vore Complex album Culler.


Jillian's advice damaged me terribly, all the usual "I still think you should take your meds...", and her inability to understand psychic pain outside of a pharmaceutical orthodoxy was very persistent, despite the fascination with involving certain aspects of philosophy and religion, mainly Christianity and Buddhism. Lots of rational/clinical theorizing mixed with New Age detours and liberal perspectives. I remember discussing a disbelief in the Christian God, wracked with concerns of theodicy and despair, as a former devout traditional Catholic from childhood, recently evaporated under the background life-stress, in horrifying guilt and resentment, and, as tonic for this harrowing collapse of faith, an only response on her part was being instructed and encouraged to believe in him, as if handed to me on a doctor's prescription, as "there's research that it's healthy not to be an atheist. Try to make yourself believe. I think it will do you good".


A strange, mechanical pragmatism. There are many important arguments why I think Christianity is a mind-poison. I didn't really consider much on them back then. I had not looked into it historically. It was more of a sense of religious betrayal, the betrayal of a creator, and yet personal responsibility for still somehow getting it wrong. However, what she had considered on the proposed technique of snapping into religious belief purely because it is helpful psychologically... I didn't think the mind worked like that. I still don't. Not with honest integrity. It would still be a lie to the self. It's not a switch that one can coolly flick. Is it true or is it convenient? I take it she had never experienced the sensation of a genuine Catholic faith, let alone what losing that belief actually feels like. I sense genuine Catholicism is shed with more difficulty that with the parishioners of Protestant and Evangelical or Puritanical denominations. There's a higher commitment and solemn intensity. I felt that, much as Jillian maybe found whatever non-Catholic anything-will-do Christian euphoria fun to think about and read about and explore, and perhaps valid, or 'valid enough', given the liberal propensity to relativize in gleeful egalitarian optimism, where it's "so" important to "give everything a chance", I was, most likely, still talking to an atheist. She was not serious or devoted enough to manifest a genuine rigorous faith, and never had been. It was all just cool, fascinating words and concepts for a determined scientist to work out and solve, another bright, young, open-minded adventurer, a bit like Lara Croft on her day off, and just as real.


The time of writing to her was the first point that psychosis started to emerge in my personal life. Before then, it was merely depressive, and the only 'symptom' coping mechanisms I utilized were alcoholism and drug abuse, and a great deal of self-harm, often very brutal in nature. It wasn't her doing as much as other people, but still, she did not seem able to understand it, and I found much of her content insistent, and with an obvious desire to be kind and useful, yet often psychologically clueless.


In one of her first emails she advised me "it looks like you need some mothering..." I noted at the time that she was younger than me by about 5 years. Irrespective of that, I could see that was not really going to be a bonus. 'Life advice' from an ignorant younger woman, a city-dwelling Californian medical student. I was too destroyed and weak at the time to really recognize the consequences though. It should have been a warning sign. I had been terribly lonely for a long time though, and any new company was always good. I am indeed a loner. It's got worse and worse over the years. I'm a reluctant loner though, an involuntary loner. I love company, and crave it very much. It nags at me.


I ended up writing some very odd, nonsensical emails. She was unable to tell that they were written in a psychotic state. Her final email to me included the lines "Don't write to me any more. We are voided. By the way, some of your emails have been totally bizarre. Like, really bizarre." I had phoned her up angrily to inquire why she had gone quiet and yet, from small written hints in her replies, an indication was there that she was drawing something from our correspondence, as if I was a 'case study' being put to others, or utilized for research purposes. That incessant theorizing.


A passionate desire on her part to be an academic, all enthusiasm and the joy of science, and what this or that popular scholar said. An excited, driven mind, and already closed. I'm sure there was heightened suspicion on my part due to the stress. I did realise I could be wrong. Silence, mixed messages, and secrecy can bring paranoia though. I've always hated the term 'paranoia' being considered totally irrational, another medical label. Her background activities were never confirmed.


The last things she said down the line, her voice cracking up into sobs, were "but I love you... I love you...". I was silent. Then she hung up. I received her final email shortly afterwards.


Some weeks prior to my phone-call she had kindly set time aside in working out, in ongoing fashion, if there was a way to help my wife get out of her poor circumstances, until she could emigrate to England to live with me. Naturally, there seems to have been some mutual suspicion between the two women, mainly of the "is he cheating on me?" sort, on the part of my wife. Thankfully, I was not cheating on my wife with Jillian, as, though I did consider her a good long-distance pen-pal of reasonable friendliness and intelligence, I was not romantically interested in her in any way, and the thought had never crossed my mind.


I was out of the loop for quite a lot of the time, and deteriorating fast. I'm sure other things were said between them. Living back in the same house as my Dad and Mum was literally killing my mind. There was absolutely no relief from it, for months on end. She pitied that, and I noticed, but, fundamentally, it did not stick. Not enough. The authentic connections were not made.


I am used to the endless proffered 'advice' of people who always assume they are right, from the get go, and that they know more about my needs than I do, even when I suggest what would help me (and, often and significantly, what would not), having had a lifetime of daily self-reflection and observation to consider it. I am not suspicious of them until I know their behaviour, and only at specific incidents, never at a person altogether. They are suspicious anyway though, without usually noticing why. I would suggest that I am not a naturally suspicious person as much as an informed one. Uninformed suspicion, a blind distrust, is terrible on me.


Quicker to advise than to go out of their way to learn details. Their confidence in ideas they find interesting overwhelms their ability to listen to what a person in any distress is actually saying to them. So many assumptions are made. Anyway, this is just an aside.


On a better note, I was reading some leftist critical theory philosophy. What an odd thing for me to say. The sentences were as follows:


"This is not just a situation 'in principal' (the one it occupies in the hierarchy of instances in relation to the determinant instance: in society, the economy) nor just its situation 'in fact' (whether in the phase under consideration it is dominant or subordinate) but the relation of this situation in fact to the situation in principle, that is, the very relation which makes of this situation in fact a 'variation' of the - 'invariant' - structure, in dominance, of the totality." Louis Althusser


"it is the connection between signifier and signifier that permits the elision in which the signifier installs the lack-of-being in the object relation using the value of 'reference back' possessed by signification in order to invest it with the desire aimed at the very lack it supports" Jacques Lacan


It occurs to me that, though I notice that Marxist philosophy is (more than) very popular these days in Western centres of learning, I still can't shake the nagging doubt that these people are taking the piss, and, somehow, in some insidious way, it's all literal nonsense, designed to confuse and mislead. I read these sentences over and over and over again, and they yielded nothing. I was afraid to continue up until the point at which they possibly did, as I recognised that it would take a toll on my sanity trying to analyse sense out of deliberate madness. Deliberate madness! What else can evil be?!


Also, I was forced by my first degree syllabus to study Lacan whilst at university myself. My tutors loved him. Foucault also. And Gramsci. And Marx and Engels. I can vouch for the fact that, though Mein Kampf doesn't have the same complicating academic tone, and is not popular, at least it has straightforward, sensible prose and can be read at all. It is not pretentious, intellectualized, or unfamiliar. There's more than that to it, obviously. I'm considering merely from a linguistic perspective. These theories do not communicate anything, as much as display something alien before you. They are not for the sane to interpret. They can only incapacitate the already weakened, and seal them. The language of Jews. Their weapon, their evil contributions, their only offering. A race alien to us. Not even different. Alien. It is impossible for us to interpret them as minds. We have no connection. They are enemies. The rest does not matter, and is a waste of all time. To read them as we read each other is not permissible to us. We define them. Co-currently, they define us. Who loses? Who shall win?


I have always recommended to the children, for as long as I have talked to them on education matters, that they do not, under any circumstances, ever consider attending a modern university. Not that I think it's likely, as they struggle academically, but it's always good to forewarn. I don't care that they 'fail' at class either. I would have done were it a Classical education they were receiving. However, their inability to diligently rote list 500 manners of White privilege oppression on Blacks, or to name the 250,000 gender identities, or, thankfully, to know what happened in 1943, is quite a blessing to me. It's nice that none of them ever got offended or put out if I mentioned Hitler's life to them in glowing tones, or criticize authority. I am glad they 'fail' to take it in.


Andy was less pleased. He thinks I brainwashed them. I respond privately with the idea that the State school, with its vast government resources, couldn't even do that too effectively, given 5 years' worth of 5-day week 6 hour lesson plans, so I'm not sure what impact I could have. It is sometimes a mercy that their general intelligence does not seem to be too high.


Since it's now just Sterling who remains, I wouldn't be that disappointed if he didn't work at all, though would worry for his financial future. If we can't keep children happy and safe, what's the point in focusing on their economic potential? It's always "how productive can someone be?" not "are they actually okay?" We seem to be terrified that if we don't make as many new workers as possible, and keep them working to the bone, the world will collapse. Really, honestly, what bloody difference are we making? Suit our system to our people, not our people to their system. To sacrifice their integral health and their safety long-term to keep production flowing, are we f**king mad?! So much of what we consider important around us is totally, totally unnecessary. It's just consumerism, convenience, and institutionalised pig-headedness, using humans like robotic units, there only to perform a Utilitarian function, and punishing them with guilt if they disobey.


I'd certainly worry if he became a civil servant though, any type of State employee. Even if not putting practical skills to the betterment of our community (difficult currently), at least he'd be free of destructive interference. A smattering of non-PC historical knowledge would be nice as a backup. A tutorage in elite European Classical culture. Only if he is healthy mentally though.


I worry that Andy will soon succeed in his lifelong scheme to force Liberty into becoming a Police officer. I am told he has placed a big photo of himself on her wall in his uniform, with her dressed up in her Police cadet uniform beside him. He made up a photo book for her birthday called "I love you", full of pictures of himself standing around idle at work, or selfies in his uniform, or receiving his Police entrance certificate, and one or two of him and her, and two of all the children and him on a picnic. He is rarely smiling in the photos, and seems to be posing in quite a few of them, the usual stern, glowering "you will respect my powerful authority and moral correctness, or else!" look.

She'd have to be made considerably dumb for that plan of his to succeed. You can tell she's humouring him, desperate for him not to get angry with her, or disappointed. A natural concern to do the right thing, and to receive love. It appals me that he appears to be making it conditional - a terrible arrogant abuse on his part. She's quite naïve as it is, but not rigid. She is definitely his 'pet project' though, his favourite potential.


There is no desire in her to command others or organize them, or to push them about. In all her school time, she has been bullied and manipulated by the other children. Most of me thinks he won't succeed. It will certainly wound her though, his domineering spirit, the "Look at me, I'm a good citizen, I do everything right, I know best!" mentality. The coruscating pride.


It's disproportionately common in those who have chosen to join the Police. They need to see themselves as public heroes, and they like the idea of commanding respect, and being praised for their job. While everyone else is busy proudly conditioning mindless enforcer drones for the global ideological 'army', I suppose I'll just continue to weep, as I regularly do as often as I can 'get away with it', in floods of tears, making sure no-one else can find me, and to bang my head on the brick wall (metaphorical, although I have performed this literally in the past, trying to knock myself out, and escape) upon returning from my quiet spaces of mourning.


I did a cleanout of my shelf recently. I came across a notepad though, with a list of questions written on it. It had crossed my mind that they could take them into school if they wanted and discuss them in their own words. I always assumed good teachers like questions. It starts gently, and spirals. They probably don't require all that much thought, but are still not entirely as superficial as they appear. Worryingly, I think some would genuinely stump some adults. I would have liked to write some more, but never had the enthusiasm. I didn't give them over in the end. I figured the trail might lead back to me. I don't want it taken out on them either. It felt manipulative, almost a gimmick.


Unless they're here, instead of brought up by the school, there's very little knowledge that can be imparted to them. Any time spent with them, anything true and wholesome, is just contradicted immediately with more lies. They need kindness, more than just endless words and tutorage.


I'm not sure if any of the questions are amusing, per se, as much as just trying to drive a point home. I was thinking about them when I was in the bath. Despicably, as a token of how my mind works, always in futility, I thought up a few more, just in case.


I still maintain my position that that this isn't brainwashing. Andy would disagree. We both seem to tell them things from our perspectives. I have learnt the hard way that it is only known as brainwashing when I do it though. How convenient.


April 9th 2022

Reviewing the increasingly intense LGBT activist stir in British society, I am reminded that my cousin Paul is homosexual. I wouldn't want him taking umbrage at my regular discussions. He's a lovely, shy man. That said, he did ask me if I wanted to sleep with him when I was 15 (he was very drunk; I tactfully declined). I discard that memory. It was totally inappropriate, but it was not an insult, and I sensed I understood him a little. He experienced terrible sexual abuse at the hands of one of his teachers when he was at boarding school, never addressed by the family, and always a barest, minimized, embarrassed "his teacher was very mean to him, and upset him" from my Mum, the only person, bar him, who has ever said his pain out loud. I don't know what my aunt says to her. I am never privy. It was just before I was born, and barely recognised, which seems to have set him on his life course. I don't know any more, and would find it rude of myself to ask. I'm sure he might tell me. I'd have to be with him though, in private, just the two of us.


I am under the impression that they endorse the orthodox psychiatric approach. I think he's been given psychiatric pharmaceuticals at times. It seems he took them unquestioningly. I have felt terribly sorry for him. He's been through long social isolation, alone, drinking too much. He was also beaten up very badly once in what, as far as I can piece together, was an unprovoked random attack, closer to sectarian reasons than on account of Paul's homosexuality. He dresses and presents conservatively, peaceable by nature. Nothing flamboyant or offensive. No activist mentality. No wildness. No public obscenity (and no record of it). He never really recovered from that further hurt, I don't think, on top of the rest. The physical wounds were horrific to look at. I could see how the post-attack psychological trauma could really break someone.


He doesn't try to have boyfriends these days, just lives celibate and by himself, walking round to my aunt and uncle's daily for company. He's also kind and helpful to my Dad in my absence. A soft, caring, soulful person, and one of my favourite cousins.


There is one other that I miss particularly. Dad hates him though, and calls him "the black sheep of the family". He's disappeared these days.


I was close to Paul growing up. I haven't seen him in years though. I wish we could meet up, but I'm rarely in Derry these days. Getting over there can be a practical struggle. The long absence makes me very sad, and yet worried, wondering how to approach my cousins again - and I have a great many cousins - for the first time in forever. Fearful of putting my foot in it, or disappointing them. They don't know me very well as an adult. I'm not sure if they would accept me. I always wanted to know my cousins on my Dad's side too. Since childhood, I've never had a chance. He doesn't keep in touch really, only seeing his 3 brothers for the first time in the past few years, following a 40 year absence. Always a sadness to me. The family is big, and seemed so much better when I was young. There were always get-togethers, and smiles, and parties, and laughter.


April 12th 2022

My friend wrote to me.


"As I see it, at the present state there's no truth in this world anymore. If there ever was. What could be referred to as truth in the broadest sense is blurred and covered with badly organized shit, the excesses of individual sick brains. Individuals die. Other individuals will not continue what those predecessors did. However, I don't believe in the power of organizations and labels anymore. They are only flags. Flags are good for turning people against each other. It has been successful. I'm out of this system and will probably go down due to this decision. May others be to the left or to the right. It's not of interest. Political and dominant systems are dead. All together."


I replied:


I still disagree, but only very slightly. I don't think truth is dead, nor do I think it has always been a fiction. I think an objective reality is firmly there, with the foundational creative force of Nature governing decent behaviour drawn from decent values, and with compassion and spirit. Just because the entire power-group that composes the governance of this planet is comprised of pathological liars, and just because these days a - frankly huge - number of our citizens appear to be thoroughly devolved mentally, or otherwise totally psychopathic and antisocial, and just because all these individuals are, to some degree, supported, shaped, and validated by that original, intrinsically corrupt power group, does not mean than there are not also sensible people, and good people. I would be loathe to throw them out with the bathwater, so to speak. Rather than retreating from truth as a natural concept altogether, I tend to recognise that the number of humans on the planet still able to let themselves recognise it is fiercely diminished. Truth is, after all, invariably bitter and unpleasant when we recognise it, as Solzhenitsyn once reminded us, and it is easy to shy away in fear and denial out of self-protection, maintaining an often artificial ignorance in our desperate longing for the oblivion of forgetfulness and for unobtainable bliss.


To level the playing field into an equal mass of wrongness seems to remove the idea that some things can be worse than others, and prevent investigation into who has made it this way. The opposite is akin to shooting down a room full of people then legalizing murder so 'no one is guilty', or stealing £1,000,000 from a pensioner's house you broke into and claiming we are all to blame for this, one as much as another, because your next door neighbour's toddlers once lifted a couple of gummy bears whilst stepping around the local corner shop.


If one group, A, contains 500 good people, and 3 lying murderers, those murderers have certainly tarnished the group.


If another group, B, contains 200 good people, and 20 lying murderers, the same conditions as above apply internally.


However, in comparison, one whole group of people appears slightly better off.


If group B, however, has a monopoly of control over group A, they are not going to draw attention to their 20 murderers, as much as big up their 200 good people whilst focusing exclusively on the 3 lying murderers of group A. They may even start to skew the data. I would think a reason for this decision on their parts would be their group's greater number of lying murderers, as well as the monopoly of control in place that will let them get away with this. They might even have gained this initial monopoly at all for the same reason - being more equipped with lying murders, much as psychopaths naturally succeed in the world of big business, and thus rise to the top.


I have always been rather loathe to dismiss objectivity. I've never understood why someone will read one book claiming to be facts, and accept it all, and then totally dismiss another book claiming to be facts, without simply examining in impartial detail the proposed facts themselves, and the logic, science, and cohesion of them, rather than the power/control level of whoever owns the publishing company. We forget the definition of 'fact'. Its validity does not depend on how much we can cope with it. It's external to us. Or we not read the materials at all, and just believe on demand without evidence, taking the explanations proposed by the 'lying murderers' at face value, lest we be murdered (or because the liars have nice suits on, and present well, and often).


Rather than completely dismiss the existence of facts at all, it seems my position to instead understand that a great machine of all-encompassing systemic lies is still a machine of lies. Lies being by definition untrue suggests the existence of truth, otherwise the concept of lying also loses its meaning. In the face of this flux of strange doubting relativism, all centred around stubborn personal psychological comfort and fear-reducing denial, I feel compelled to cling to some gathering understanding of traditional absolute reality, to Nature, to the eternal generative energy at the roots of the cosmos.


Beyond that, I can, to some degree not inept, recognise deliberate deception in others. Until postmodernism, there were liars. Lying having been accepted previous as a malicious behaviour, lies having been noted long ages back in our records of our civilization, is is not unreasonable to suggest that postmodernism itself, a product of the 20th Century, is a lie.


A terrible subversion. A defensive cop-out to void the possibility of legitimate criticism, or the evaluation of circumstances on an empirical, impartial basis. Thus, I would prefer to slowly chip away at that machine, with the aim of eventually shattering it.


With regard to left and right, you are correct. Intrinsically, some people are psychologically 'left' and some are psychologically 'right', to varying degrees along a mental spectrum. It's used too much, and overcomplicates, allowing the terms to be dismissed as 'politics'. It's really an unhelpful euphemism for, in our context, 'a healthy European' or 'an unhealthy European'. The more 'left' one is, the more damaged they are psychologically, not that claiming to be on the 'right' particularly aligns with the reality of being healthy-minded, as many are soul-dead themselves. They mistake authoritarian bourgeois conservatism and secular (or faith-led) Christian trappings for National Socialism.


We must accept National Socialism as distinct from mere "far right-wing" ideology or political organizing or labelling.


However, following my notes above, it is still worth mentioning that, regardless of conclusive moral correctness, in line with nature, and with compassion, the left (I'll still use that term to save space, though I hope I have better explained its wantonly misapplied euphemistic nature now) remains in control of the entire debate in the Western world, as it controls the power structure, whereas the right (indiscriminately - anyone not 'left') is viciously stamped out and dismissed wherever it is found.


To consider post-truth relativism once more, the right, thought unpalatable under the left's framework, is not automatically untrue in its statements, provided postmodernists believe their own warped logic at all, as, by their assertion, there is no such thing as truth. To argue otherwise suggests a spark of objectivity on their parts, albeit one rooted in exclusivity. Their opponent's arguments are given the 'post-truth' treatment as one desperate way to invalidate them if simply shouting them down and calling for them to be censored does not suffice, but this standard is not applied by them to their own assertions.


Meanwhile, reasonable minds - and not mindless voices - argue that truth exists (becoming frustrated that they even have to, to be honest), and that the left is merely incorrect, or deliberately making it as difficult as possible. If masses of warped minds are controlling the discussion (and the outcome), reasonable minds stand no real chance. Back to egalitarianism, another useful tool to them to justify every stupid, unnatural idea and base deception.


I'm not confident that a communication technique exists that can allow the warped to realise their positions and arguments (if present) are warped. Stupid, blind people cannot accept the words of more informed and more intelligent ones, on account of this very stupidity. No amount of confidence, stubbornness, rage, and guile can force something to be true, and yet... it is all as if level. A mad froth of opinions, until everything is rendered an opinion. Easier by far than courage, self-reflection, or admitting to themselves (or to others even - their perennial nightmare) that they have been wrong. If they cannot be changed, and cannot change, they are lost. A dead weight. End them, before they end everything.


I often ask these types if they'd like to show me how they walk through walls. The wall appears to be quite thoroughly there, and so if they try they will bash their noses. They can, of course, claim the wall is not there to their hearts' content. It can be their opinion. They can be proud to hold it, clinging on to that idea desperately. Their noses still remain sore. Their concussed bodies may happily pile up in my eyes, and bleed out. They cannot drive innocents into the wall before them though.


In conclusion, my approach to all this could generally be described as "Uncovering the Ruins of Inconvenient Walls".


Much as one could see us all as distinct individual units of varying soul cloaked in genetic material, some of that genetic material is more similar to some distinct units than it is to other distinct units. Thus I can group these similar distinct units together. I feel myself naturally closer to them than other more distant individuals with greater genetic difference who are also of a more distant cultural perspective, that being shaped by the former biology. So different that it is alien. They are not like us.


In truth, the quality of the race defines its behaviour, the level of its culture, and its success. A hierarchical scale. My opening sentence was too generous to them, these aliens. What concern of ours is it to spot if they have souls? Does it matter to find wonderment in them? They're trying to kill us.

For the sake of obviousness, in this example, I would see this broad group of immediate family, incorporated family, and surrounding kin as my immediate priority. As a working model, they are generally defined as 'White' people i.e. Caucasoid genetic lines established across the UK, Europe, Russia, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I take particular interest in Europe though, as the ancient lands of our civilization, focusing on Northern Europe.


It's just that the left these days they won't let White people do that. Anti-White race traitors, and hostile non-Whites.


I think the core problem of the entire human struggle post-war has always been coming to terms with the reality of race. We have forgotten what was once well known and accepted. The vicious drive to deny race exists, and simultaneously, the labour to enforce total equality worldwide (and even thinking in terms of equality, making any comparisons along those lines, relating the unrelatable) does nothing to reduce the cold, hard fact that by the end of this century, at current rate, White people will deliberately be rendered extinct.


Teaching people at school that every single person has won the competition so as to big them up and not hurt their feelings removes the entire purpose of the game. Someone wins and the rest lose. That person who won is, in whatever category is selected, objectively better at it than the other students. By definition, that is inequality. Excellence is to be praised. The secondary idea is that the others see this advantage and try harder to catch up. If they cannot do that, then it must be recognised. We cannot force through the impossible.


The false dogma that they've all won already can be no more than total utopian fantasy, and severely disadvantages the naturally bright and talented students, dragging them down to 'dur...' level. To go one step further and actively punish them for being bright, whilst constantly bolstering the thick people as top dogs does not seem a kind and moral strategy.


Which morals are we thinking of? Christian ones, I think. Lingering Christian morals. We can take on any religion for ourselves that we like. Christianity has shaped us for many generations though. Shaped our parents. Shaped their parents.


These days there are far more ignorant and inept students. They pretty much run the entire 'school'. The bullying is out of control. I hold out a small hope that their deceit, cruelty, madness, dispassion, self-repression, and constant passing of the buck does not end the entire Western world. If it does, they will deserve it. Yes, both 'left' and 'right' are certainly complicit in this. Those reams of easy labels that perhaps insult your sensibilities when applied to some groups can likewise be self-applied by other groups to big themselves up, resting on their laurels, confident in their manifest superiority, jostling and boisterous, a sweaty rush of hollering complacency, ignorance intact, minds still full up with dung. I know quite well what you mean and it makes sense to me. I hope you are having a good day."


April 18th 2022

It's been rather quiet for a few days. I went to a car boot sale with Abby. I purchased a straw-stuffed plush koala and baby, and a large toy wombat. Abby bought some dolls, all of which, by amazing coincidence, are also possessed, she tells me. She is proud of her ability to 'spot' them. I came home and went round to Dave's for coffee.


Two weeks until the end of my bail. I am totally resigned and prepared, and yet calmly broken, internally soft and sad.


April 19th 2022

When the Police raided and took my PCs and laptops they removed the last copies of my song master, as well as private family photos, including my only happy photos of my parents, email correspondences from 20 years of writing, extensive art by myself and fallen friends, all my personal poetry book PDFs and creative writing and journals, all my gathered e-literature PDFs, and pretty much my entire recorded life, everything in memory that held meaning to me, and everything I had ever contributed that was not lingering online. Rather callous of them. I don't think I'll get those computers back, so my entire corpus is nearly obliterated.


I hope they're f**king satisfied.


June 14th 2022

A decision was made on the 25th of April. The case seems to have changed, in both a laid back way, and also a cynical one. I'm off bail. They're still keeping me on 'under investigation' though. That could be indefinite, at any moment a phone call or letter could call me in. This could be weeks, months, years, never. I suspect that this is to keep me under some form of mental pressure, and thus control. It keeps me very uncertain and on edge. Also, I am aware they are busy, and have probably not given much thought as to the psychological aftermath from my perspective. On the plus side, it's been over 6 months and they still haven't found anything strong enough to convict me with. I don't really know what they're looking for.


Andy appears to be using the children as household servants to clean up his property. He instructs them not to mention me or Abby out loud, and not to talk to me if they see me. I saw them once outside and waved hello. They stared at me, ignored me, and returned to playing with their phones.

They do not seem to be being fed meals consistently, as Liberty and Morgana report via text. Liberty had nothing to eat last night. Morgana had nothing but a chocolate muffin. Andy made up some more lying allegations that we has "dead animals hanging in the bathroom" and "pots of urine on the front step" - both totally fallacious claims, pulled out of nowhere. They could check the bathroom if they liked. They should at least check the empty front step first though, before they considered barging in in concern. Useful to tell the kids though (who, as usual, are more naive and believing). Making an allegation out loud is usually enough to at least set off some suspicion in people, especially if the target is not well liked, or has been demonised already. I notice it's all pronouncements on what we are. There's never any reasoning as to why, any explanation to them. He never quotes to them anything we have said either. Nothing is verbatim.


Abby is, by Andy's proclamation, not allowed to work on Liberty's school prom dress as "everything she touches smells of dead dogs and is covered in diseases". Meanwhile the neighbour reported us the other week with yet another lying allegation, this time that I had a "flamethrower" pointed at her house and was threatening the lives of her and her kids. The Police immediately broke in again and searched thoroughly, climbing over the back fences unannounced and surrounding me with multiple aimed tasers when I was gardening, shouting fiercely, and mobbing me, and handcuffing me, then rushing me in for interrogation whilst they tore through our cupboards. No flamethrower (or anything like it) was found. I was released without charge. They did not apologise, although stated officially to Abby a day later that no further action would be taken.


Andy has also used this false allegation, and the Police breaking in, as a means to try to bring us into more fresh trouble with Social Services. The question was raised as to how he knew it at all though, seeing as he has not been in contact, and there was no one in the family to report it to him.


Consequently, Abby has raised a complaint with the Police that Andy may be illegally scanning the Police database for info on me/us which he could use against us.


It's all building up. The house no longer feels like a safe or secure refuge from the outside world. Abby's mood is dire. She has always been bossy and insensitive to me, from very near the start. Now it's just complete contempt. Never any patience. Never any reflection before she speaks to me. I wish they'd just leave us alone. I have no real way to concentrate on anything. It all feels shattered. I just brood and prevaricate most days, and get very little done.


June 20th 2022

Gardening time again. Lots of soil moved, and boundaries formed and laid, and new plants potted, and settled in. Much weed removal. Much rubbish removal in general. I'd say it's almost at the point where I'd be comfortable taking show-and-tell pics. I'm hopefully going to buy a new blueberry bush tomorrow, to compliment the ones from last year. The raspberries have come up well. I managed to pick a modest crop. The pear tree is much better. I'll be finishing up tomorrow.


I've been in a quandary wondering if £7 is too much to charge for a full length mastered-quality album (with cover art, and full lyrics where applicable). It's pitiful but I still have the nagging doubt. Then again, perhaps £1 is too much for some people, and if they won't pay that even, I might as well keep it at £7. I thought Bandcamp was quite well known. It seems that it is to musicians themselves, and they sometimes buy from each other, all impoverished together, but it really isn't to the general music listening public.


Occasionally someone I know or have just met will ask me if my stuff in on YouTube. I say it is. I hate it that they make the assumption that it just appears there by magic though. Also, I have no ability to allow comments. The function is disabled as part of the YouTube deal with the Distrokid distributors. I have to be precise, and keep trying with them. If I just give the name of the project, or the song, they have no patience to scroll through anything to find it, let alone to add search term "topic" to reach the official uploads. They just want the first thing that pops up, always utilizing predictive search text. If they don't like that one example, or even the first 10 seconds of it, they won't browse the 400+ other examples just in case any more might be closer to their tastes instead. There's no such thing as 'giving something a chance'.


Last person who asked me to show them what I wrote talked loudly all over it when it was playing on her phone, and didn't even notice when YouTube auto-selected the next random, unrelated song, and indeed even after that when some non-musical video content came up.


The time before I was in a large group round someone's flat... they sat in uncomfortable, silent horror, shifting and grimacing. The song ended. Without a word someone put the Grime/Drill Rap back on again. Conversation restarted.


The time before was round another flat. I played the 'Lesson One' version by Bleach For The Stars. The older guy grew very flustered, as if in panic, and had to leave the premises. He refuses point blank to come back. I think he was arrested that night. He said later that the song was some kind of "LSD mind weapon".


Abby has just asked me to go and prepare her a donut. Prepare as in... "cut it into little pieces, and don't let your dirty fingers touch it - I know what you do with your hands..." Yes, what I do is play a piano keyboard, type endless futile emails and pull up bind-weed.


June 21st 2022

I have almost finished the garden now. The new bushes have settled in well. Upstairs, I listened to Tchaichovsky's Sleeping Beauty.


Abby turned to me. She was watching the BBC hospital drama, Casualty. Like EastEnders, Casualty is a thinly-veiled dramatic production used to ferry whatever socio-political hot potatoes the BBC wants to propagandize into unwary TV viewers. The characters are always in conflict, always arguing. Abby says this makes it "realistic". I say that the producers would probably anticipate that response, having scripted it in the first place. Presented with hours of this stuff, it normalises it. Nothing but friction. A deliberate media tool to break down family cohesion, as always.


She said "this episode is all about school shooters... the children are also learning about it at school this week, and doing safety drills."


I responded "why? I was under the impression that school shootings aren't really a thing in this country. Wouldn't they be better teaching them some type of academic skill? Also, you must concede, the BBC and the education board, both Statist enterprises, do have an anti-White mission at the moment, to both demean and dehumanize, and also to brainwash the native youth. We ignore the disproportionate Black crime. I'm sure the school doesn't teach them that, and neither would it ever. I cannot expect that the school shooter issue would be covered impartially be them, or with any sensitivity, or reference to psychology and the impact of this society. It will all be White shooters, inevitably with some sort of link to what they call "fascism" and "White supremacy" . It will be a ruse to turn them against the bogeyman of 'Right-wing extremism', and to stoke their fear and distrust of each other. Same with terrorism - its historical definition, obviously. I don't mean sticking up posters saying "it's ok to be White", or posting memes of people in fierce theatrical get-ups and skull masks in chatrooms, or disparaging and declining vaccination programs, or voting for Donald Trump... the crime statistics show that it is predominantly Islamic in nature. Its literal definition has had to be altered, and the criteria widened significantly, so as to pillory patriotic natives. Regardless of how one feels about violent direct action, it is not a common response in White people. Even when it has occurred historically, the political far-left has participated significantly, in actual organised cells that gather rifles and Molotov cocktails and explosives and use them, not just lone 'crusaders' snapping totally and going postal, or bullied madmen from severely abusive homelives transferring their anger onto their schoolmates. It is always presented so as to demonise any Whites who do not accept an anti-White agenda. Their familiar bogeyman, 'Far-Right extremism'."


Abby looked shocked, and annoyed.


"Well I think it's important. I worry for their safety. They need to be protected."


"Yes, and with there being a higher statistic probability of them being run over, or struck by lightning, or indeed knifed by illegal immigrants, condemned by medical malpractice, broken by a repress