Hell is women, not other people.

It was one of those awful overcast blustery rainy days in London, England, when, looking up at the sky, you can understand why people get turned off religion.

Any Movement that lets women into it on an equalitarian basis will almost certainly find itself going backwards, not forwards.

Those men who cannot defy women and live independently of them, whether alone or in male company, will never be able to accept the Way, the Truth, and the Life (eternal).  For them, the world is a taken-for-granted inevitability.

Women are more or less in their element on wet days, when doors and windows are likely to be thrown wide open irrespective of whatever inclemency is at large.

That writer is only worth reading who speaks for himself, not for others or out of consideration for others, like the populist and ‘man of the people’ who, as likely as not, doesn’t have much to say that we haven’t already heard from anyone else … who lacks an independent turn-of-mind.

Males are fated to prey upon females because they have to like the look of the woman they propose to sexually engage with.  There is also a sense in which they would rather strike first, as it were,  than leave it to women to ‘come on’ to them, fearing a reversal of fortune in relation to the basic terms of life.

Living life on its own terms, presumably in relation to the dominance of women, is the mark of a philistine, not of a cultured disposition which, somehow or some way, always strives to ‘turn the tables’ on nature.  But to be truly cultured it is not enough to ‘turn the tables’ on nature; you also have to be capable of turning them on the Supernatural ruler of nature whose book is comprised of stars.

The truly religious, who are metaphysical (and preferably so on more evolved terms than would be commensurate with either a cosmic, a natural, or a strictly mankind-esque predilection towards metaphysics), can only be atheistically ranged against the ‘Great God Almighty’ of things metachemical that rules over fundamentalist religion from a standpoint rooted, supernaturally, in cosmic materialism.  Such supernatural materialism rather contrasts with the subnurtural fundamentalism of the other side, as it were, of the metachemical coin, pretty much as Beauty and Love with Ugliness and Hatred.  And the fulcrum of metachemistry, namely free will, is the beautiful Devil the Mother hyped, in Creator-oriented and Creator-stemming religious traditions, as truthful God the Father.  This is the basic religious Lie that even the democratic, more accustomed to half-lies and half-truths, find themselves playing along with, if only because in their world, which is likely enough the world per se, females are still the dominating factor leading, invariably, to familial norms.

The philosopher, when true, is the least popular of writers, since essentially an ethereal thinker, and the People abhor thought that is not crassly corporeal, having an almost psychopathic sensitivity to it which, at times, makes one think of some kind of Pavlovian response.

Freedom, in the modern democratic sense, is not freedom from sin, including women, but rather freedom from autocratic/theocratic ‘tyranny’ on the one hand, and freedom of (democratic) choice on the other hand.  This is a kind of worldly alternative to both netherworldly and otherworldly traditions, whether in terms of otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly Catholicism or netherworldly/pseudo-otherworldly Protestantism (Anglicanism), the latter of which is of course closer, within the Western more-or-less humanist framework, to mainstream Judaism, which goes all the way back, via nature, to the Cosmos on approximately stellar/solar-like terms.  However, such freedom can and I believe should be used to choose a new theocracy, namely Social Theocracy, which would have the capacity  to go further than any previous theocracy in achieving otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly parameters within the framework of ‘Kingdom Come’, thereby invalidating everything else.  For the world is not – and by definition cannot be – an end-in-itself, despite the inevitable protestations of the overly democratic.  It is only such, it would appear, for women and the unthinking heathen.

The difference between aeroplanes and airships is that whereas aeroplanes are akin to birds darting through the sky, airships more resemble the passage of clouds.  They are, in a sense, more of the sky than aeroplanes, and are accordingly closer to Heaven.



Published by:


I am an Irish-born but English-raised self-taught writer and philosopher who publishers his work in eBook on the net, including with (ePub) and (Kindle), as well as through Centretruths Digital Media (PDF), and many other platforms. Latterly my works are also available in paperback at various Amazon sites, as well as at Barnes and and a wide variety of other sellers in several countries.

Categories philosophy, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s