Below are the 7 most recent journal entries recorded in J J Osteon's LiveJournal:

Friday, July 8th, 2005
4:25 pm	The London bombings were justified. London is the capital of a country which is at war. The attacks were probably retributive responses to British involement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus can be seen as military actions. So it is okay for the British to bomb civilians in Iraq and Afganistan, but not for British civilians to be attacked in retaliation ? A legitimate military target is anything which, under the prevailing circumsntaces, in its purpose could be seen as directly or indirectly offering a military advantage to the attackers in question. The withdrawing of British troops from Afghanistan or Iraq is one such military advantage, and therefore the series of bombings in London to-day was a legimitate military action, assuming it was conducted by al-Qaeda. It worked in Spain, if I recall right. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005
6:35 am	Quotes of the day. "According to Plato, the negation of existence is no other than matter. Form is the only real existence. For Plato form is the parent and creator of all reality. For Aristotle, in the sexual process the male principle is the active, formative agent, the female principle the passive matter on which the form is impressed. In my view, the significance of woman in humanity is explained by the Platonic and Aristotelian conception. Woman is the material on which man acts. Man as the microcosm is compounded of the lower and higher life. Woman is matter, is nothing. "... Man is form, woman is matter" "...Matter needs to be formed: and thus woman demands that man should clear her confusion of thought, give meaning to her henid ideas. Women are matter, which can assume any shape. "...This accounts for what has been called woman's submissiveness, the way she is influenced by the opinions of others, her suggestibility, the way in which man moulds her formless nature. Woman is nothing; therefore, and only, therefore, she can become everything, whilst man can only remain what he is. A man can make what he likes of a woman: the most a woman can do is to help a man to achieve what he wants. "...Women have neither this nor that characteristic; their peculiarity consists in having no characteristics at all; the complexity and terrible mystery about women come to this; it is this which makes them above and beyond man's understanding - man, who always wants to get to the heart of things. "...The idea of maleness consists in the fact of an individuality, of an essential monad, and is covered by it. Each monad, however, is as different as possible from every other monad, and therefore cannot be classified in one comprehensive idea common to many other monads. Man is the microcosm; he contains all kinds of possibilities. This must not be confused with the universal susceptibility of woman who becomes all without being anything, whilst man is all, as much or as little, according to his gifts, as he will. Man contains woman, for he contains matter, and he can allow this part of his nature to develop itself, ie, to thrive and enervate him; or he can recognise and fight against it - so that he, and he alone, can get at the truth about woman. But woman cannot develop except through man. "The meaning of man and woman is first arrived at when we examine their mutual sexual and erotic relations. Woman's deepest desire is to be formed by man, and so to receive her being. Woman desires that man should impart opinions to her quite different to those she held before, she is content to let herself be turned by him from what she had till then thought right. She wishes to be taken to pieces as a whole, so that he may build her up again. "...Woman is first created by man's will - he dominates her and changes her whole being (hypnotism). Here is the explanation of the relation of the psychical to the physical in man and woman. Man assumes a reciprocal action of body and mind, in the sense rather that the dominant mind creates the body, than that the mind merely projects itself on phenomena, whilst the woman accepts both mental and psychical phenomena empirically. None the less, even in the woman there is some reciprocal action. However, whilst in the man, as Schopenhauer truly taught, the human being is his own creation, his own will makes and re-makes the body, the woman is bodily influenced and changed by an alien will (suggestion). "Man not only forms himself, but woman also - a far easier matter. The myths of the book of Genesis and other cosmogonies, which teach that woman was created out of man, are nearer the truth than the biological theories of descent, according to which males have been evolved from females. "...The supremest moment in a woman's life, when her original nature, her natural desire manifests itself, is that in which her own sexual union takes place. She embraces the man passionately and presses him to her; it is the greatest joy of passivity, stronger even than the contented feeling of a hypnotised person, the desire of matter which has just been formed, and wishes to keep that form for ever. That is why a woman is so grateful to her possessor, even if the gratitude is limited to the moment, as in the case of prostitutes with no memory, or, if it lasts longer, as in the case of more highly differentiated women. "This endless striving of the poor to attach themselves to riches, the altogether formless and therefore super-individual striving of the inarticulate to obtain form by contact, to keep it indefinitely and so gain an existence, is the deepest motive in pairing. "Pairing is only possible because woman is not a monad, and has no sense of individuality; it is the endless striving of nothing to be something. "It is thus that the duality of man and woman has gradually developed into complete dualism, to the dualism of the higher and lower lives, of subject and object, of form and matter, something and nothing. All metaphysical, all transcendental existence is logical and moral existence; woman is non-logical and non-moral. She has no dislike for what is logical and moral, she is not anti-logical, she is not anti-moral. She is not the negation, she is, rather, nothing. She is neither the affirmation nor the denial. A man has in himself the possibility of being the absolute something or the absolute nothing, and therefore his actions are directed towards the one or the other; woman does not sin, for she herself is the sin which is a possibility in man. "The abstract male is the image of God, the absolute something; the female, and the female element in the male, is the symbol of nothing; that is the significance of the woman in the universe, and in this way male and female complete and condition one another. Woman has a meaning and a function in the universe as the opposite of man; and as the human male surpasses the animal male, so the human female surpasses the female of zoology. It is not that limited existence and limited negation (as in the animal kingdom) are at war in humanity; what there stand in opposition are unlimited existence and unlimited negation. And so male and female make up humanity. "The meaning of woman is to be meaningless. She represents negation, the opposite pole from the Godhead, the other possibility of humanity. "...All the qualities of woman depend on her non-existence, on her want of character "...Thus the three fundamental characters of woman with which this chapter has dealt come together in the conception of her as the non-existent. Her instability and untruthfulness are only negative deductions from the premiss of her nonexistence. Her only positive character, the conception of her as the pairing agent, comes from it by a simple process of analysis. The nature of woman is no more than pairing, no more than super- individual sexuality. "...Thus comes about the domination of the male sexuality over the female. It is only when man is sexual that woman has existence and meaning. "Her existence is bound up with the Phallus, and so that is her supreme lord and welcome master. "Those experiments which ascribe to girls a better memory for learning by rote than boys are explained in this way: they are due to the nullity and inanity of women, who can be saturated with anything and everything, whilst man only retains what has an interest for him, forgetting all else." We did not fail to do anything. We secured the oil (the only thing we cared about), we significantly weakened an enemy of Israel's for decades to come, we planted the seeds of civil war, we created a situation where new military technologies can be tested, and work is under way on the 14 citadels. Where did we fail? What moron comes out of an education including serious mention of Vietnam and still cannot shake this garbage presupposition that US must at least have been trying to do good? (well, everybody in the "real media") (Comment on this)
5:32 am	All women are liars. Woman's physical beauty is a hallucination; induced by an overabundance of sexual energy on the part of the beholder, which clouds aesthetic discernment by overriding the consciousness with animal passions. True beauty is not animal, as in a woman, but strictly intellectual., in woman there is no beauty for beautifulness's sake, but it is necessarily either tinged or overidden with the sexual, the animal, element, either in the 'appreciation' or in the construction. As an organically lying, vegetative and purely sexual entity (more on this below). On woman's part, the aspect of physical beauty in her to us men is a deliberate concealment of her physical flaws; use of airbrushing in photographs to hide unsightly fine details of the human face ; immoderate utilisation of make-up & the lip stick ("face paint") for the same ; routine shaving & waxing ; modifying the body to exaggerate feminine broad-hippededness, pear-shapededness, and the such ; & numerous other organic lies and vegetable deceptions calculated to conceal her inveterate ugliness and repulsiveness. To exploit men's sexual instincts by giving outward impression of beauty through such means whilst having unspoken conviction in one's own ugliness (evinced by woman's inveterate desirousness to cover up and 'remove' bodily flaws, to exaggerate 'feminine' contours, etc.)--this is to lie. (The dialectical mediation between inward feminine self-disgust and women's inveterate desire to be outwardly flamboyant and slutty is the cause of many female mental disorders, such as anorexia.) But this is but the actuation of women's metaphysical nature as the embodiment of untruthfulness, falseness, and deception; women do not merely lie; they are a lie. Everything a woman says is a lie, even if it is true, because in order to speak the truth, one must have a share in metaphysical reality; one must be something. All existence occuring as something or nothing, active or passive, women are a fortiori untruthful. As Weininger expressed it, "Truth is dependent on an existence, and only that can have a relation to an existence which is in itself something. . . . [W]oman always lies, even if, objectively, she speaks the truth." And that is the crux of the matter. It is no wonder, by the way, that anorexia is more prevalent among women - for it is the height of untruthfulness. Nothing can be more untruthful than a lie which is embodied, physical--that is to say, organic untruthfulness. (The same may also be said of hysteria, another case of organic lying.) (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, June 30th, 2005
12:35 am	Woman's physical beauty is an hallucination; the perception of which, the result of an overabundance of sexual energy on the part of the beholder, which clouds aesthetic discernment by overriding the consciousness with animal passions. On woman's part, a deliberate concealment of her physical flaws; the use of airbrushing in photographs; routine shaving & waxing (removal); excessive application of make-up & lip stick (covering up); numerous other deceptions calculated to conceal her inveterate ugliness. Now, to give an outward impression of beauty through such means while having an unspoken conviction in one's own ugliness (evinced by the need to cover up and 'remove' bodily flaws, to exaggerate 'feminine' peculiarities, etc)--is to lie. But this is only the materialisation of women's metaphysical nature: women are the embodiment of untruthfulness, falseness, and deception; women do not merely lie; they are a lie. Everything a woman says is a lie, even if it is true, because in order to speak the truth, one must have a share in metaphysical reality; one must be something. All existence occuring as something or nothing, active or passive, women are a fortiori untruthful. As Weininger expressed it: "Truth is dependent on an existence, and only that can have a relation to an existence which is in itself something. . . . [W]oman always lies, even if, objectively, she speaks the truth." The higher prevalence of anorexia and hysteria among womankind is a confirmation of certain of my views herein-above expressed. Do anorexics not epitomise femininity? The essence of women is untruthfulness, and nothing can be more untruthful than a lie which is embodied, physical, tangible--in a word, organic untruthfulness--and anorexia is the very height of this organic untruthfulness I treat of. Anorexia is even a greater lie than women's habitual use of high-heels, lip-stick, face paint, and so on, because it cannot be washed off or taken off, but is part of who they are. Another psychical phenomenon that epitomises the psychology of women in its extremest form is hysteria. (Comment on this)
Saturday, April 9th, 2005
4:25 am	MY THOUGHTS ON MASTURBATION. I know from experience that it is possible to stop masturbating. As a teenager I discovered to my shock and horror that masturbation defaces and permanently damages the penis, because the hand is not designed like the vagina, but has an uneven shape by which the penis is enclosed during autoeroticism. Moreover the temptation to masturbate abates when one has a wife, or is altogether extinguished upon marriage, since the penis is designed to fit into the vagina, and the constant availability of a vagina obviates any desire to stimulate oneself. The realisation of which is contributive to overcoming the pangs associated with masturbatory abstinence, by dint of the knowledge that such pains are transient, and eradicable by the acquisition of a mate, if one has the misfortunate of not having yet acquired a mate. Another thing is this odd--and discomforting--mental imagery (and tactile associations) I experience upon ejaculating semen. I don't know how common this is--it may be quite common, or it may be quite rare; I don't know--I never asked or hitherto said anything about it to anyone. It is this: whenever I ejaculate semen, I feel bloody. I feel like my penis is bleeding, like blood is squirting out of my penis. I have absolutely no idea why this is, how this association came about. It's quite odd. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, March 31st, 2005
11:20 pm	I wish we had plural "you" - formerly we had 'ye'. The thought occurred to me because, formerly I was in habit of normalising my otherwise idiosyncratic speech habits so as not to set self apart from generality; now I realise how transient are "stone walls" of public opinion, how an objectively superior form of speech [one conforming to utilitarian standards] won't set self apart from posterity. So I now write how I think and talk on my Live Journal, whereas before I did otherwise, and this made my writing appear as affected. Now it appears as more natural and personal. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, June 30th, 2004
1:08 am	Chemical Castration for Boys ? I have been listening to boy choirs lately. I have discovered that boy voices are decidedly superior to those of girls and have a certain ineffable quality to them which I prefer over women's voices. I also have concluded, and I say this without hesitation, after listening to countless songs sang by choirboys, that boys should be castrated at the age of six to preserve their beautiful, boyish treble. By the time the castrated singer is a man, he has the physical (i.e., lung) capacity of an adult for singing, experience in exploiting the voice he has (instead of undergoing voice changes at puberty, and having to master his new voice), and he can maintain a boyish treble, which in my opinion sounds the best. After all, castrati were said to have voices of angels, and the greatest singer of all time was castrated (a horse stomped on his genitalia when he was a young lad; a blessing in disguise). Henry Pleasants, in his book, The Great Singers, mentions some of the advantages of castrating boy singers: "Under the rigid discipline to which he would now be exposed [as a castrated boy], his lung capacity and diaphragmatic support would be augmented to an extraordinary degree, enabling him to sustain the emission of breath in the projection of tone up to a minute or more, which is beyond the ability of most normal adult male and female singers. The mature castrato was a boy soprano or alto with all the physical resources of a grown man . . ." (Comment on this)