I’m in a Taylor Walker pub near Paddington.  There have been lookalikes of Colin the pastor from Kingdom Faith whose last name I can’t remember at the moment, and there is a lookalike of David White sitting right by me and he has been there for about an hour while I have been here.  As I remember him from about 20 years ago, obviously, not as he would be now.  The look, the carriage, the mannerisms, everything.  Mobile phone conversation, not sure if real or not, or if so much language of church and business and therapy overlaps these days.

In the corner there is a nasty little runt in green who, when I laughed, made a point of saying to his ‘friend’ something about laughing and sounding happy but being manic or something and you need to calm down.   That is psychological violence and criminal harassment.  I said something about everybody being a closet analyst these days and not even admitting to it.  maybe because they are not good at it and are only using it for harassment and control and what appears like subliminal attacks, even though they are quite open and obvious.  I’ve heard of double bluff.  I wonder if there are any terms for bluffs that go deeper than that!

Nasty runt in corner has just upped and gone.

What is this?  Is this the latest fashion in achieving a sexual conquest or something?  Man, it’s grubby.

Random Fire

Of course some fire is random and other is not.  I was just listening to Melvyn Bragg and his guests on ‘In Our Time’ discussing Delacroix’s painting of Liberty Leading The People, and the woman contributor pointed out that a woman used to be seen as a blank canvas on which to project any ideal, and to round off one of the contributors said you only have to look at the painting to see what kind of revolutionaries they were, and my eyes were immediately drawn to the two guns in front of her and behind her.  My first impression was that one wanted to shaft her while the other wanted to shoot over her head.  On second sight I thought they might both be more hopeful and supplicatory, wanting to draw Liberty to them.

I thought about something I read in William Blake in my Romantic Poetry class, about letting something fly as it passes otherwise trying to control it you lose it altogether.  I can remember an old man with scissors in his hands and somehow, either in the poetry itself or in Alan’s commentary on it, the idea of clipping people’s wings was disapproved.

Clipping wings.  I don’t know.  On a winged animal is that something anyone would ever do for the animal’s benefit?  I think not but I might be wrong.

Surely it can’t be done for the benefit of a thought or emotion either.  I keep coming back to discovering that if I don’t censor my thoughts and emotions to myself, even if I don’t express them outwardly, after allowing the thought and the emotion which I might instinctively want to censor and letting myself think or feel it without trying to repress it, I will come back into my own equilibrium.  That obviously doesn’t apply if I think the people around me are hacking my computer, in my writing I hardly ever recover my equilibrium, but on my own while out and in my own self that no one sees I do regularly.  I just wrote that bit about hacking and the woman downstairs said ‘yeah, baby’, with a derisive laugh, and they have been interjecting all the time I’ve had my headphones on.  But yesterday all the women screamed just before I went to turn my light out, and that decision all happened in my head.  But they have all been on at me all the time I have been here, they have no respect for anything most people consider decent.  When I leave I will say which hostel it is.  It is London, 12.15 am.  But they haven’t stopped all night and probably don’t intend to.  They are saying hallelujah and dobre and coming out with all the old accusations and harassment and violently striking surfaces.  I know who is violent and it isn’t me.

I was thinking today about the law and not having to implicate yourself in a crime.  I think that should change, if you know you have committed one.  You should confess immediately when asked, in the presence of a solicitor, and not to do so should be considered to be wasting police time and public money and changing your plea half way through to guilty if you have dishonestly maintained your innocence to that point should not lessen your penalty or punishment, since those are the terms we still think in.

A criminal should not be entitled to the defiance of not implicating themselves.  Nor should the police and other authorities be allowed to get away with the dishonesty and misuse of power which makes people say it is preferable that guilty people should have the right not to ‘implicate’ themselves.  I think the experience of the abuse and misuse of power often comes before an individual decides they need to protect themselves that way.  I don’t know, which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Whose underhandedness was winked at first?

When a community knows that someone is guilty of a crime they disapprove of, and that the person is protected by the present legal right not to implicate themselves and therefore see no action being taken, in some cases their anger can be a legitimate thing.  Obviously if it gives rise to violence or vigilantism or reciprocal crime that isn’t true, but a good community should not be expected to bear the brunt of the criminal’s present right to withhold information unless asked.

As a consequence, our society has tipped over into a really unhealthy place.

I can’t write more.  The screaming last night as I went to switch the light off sounded like what you would expect a gaggle of witches to sound like and there was obviously a spiritual dynamic to it. I wanted to write more, but I am going to wait.  And then it might not come out the way I intended.  Because we are now rife with violence and witchcraft in our country.  Threat, harassment, spiritual theft, intimidation, vile, savage mockery and defiance and disrespect.  Both men and women, rulers and ruled.