Fields of Immanence.
Try as you might in your Stockholm Syndrome, in your
relativism and you emotivism and your tragic pretense towards egality, you
cannot defend him. I never condemned you, but HE DID. About him had all ways
been a negative field of immanence that mere Reason could not penetrate. You intuited
it, but in your desperation you fore got your Intuition and relied only upon
your Logical Function. It IS the strong suit for INTP.
He did not love you. He did not love me. He did not love any
one. Not even his self. He acted out of insecurity that night. And that night
laid to waste all of my hopes and illusions in his loyalty and his potential
goodness. I was left only to investigate the ruins of a once beautiful kingdom
of character. We all knew the Kresten from before he started smoking meth and
crashing cars. Our nostalgia blinded us to truth.
Lucid Reason can accompany us some way. In the haze of
marijuana smoke and the company of his allegiant Robbie and his old friend with
whom the bristling ancient bridge is shaky, Anthony, it was easy from the first
hit of cannabis to see in Robbie what YOU saw in him: A gentle, well meaning
boy. And so I came under your stiletto shoe, the one you might have worn the
night I met you. And I pictured you standing over me with Kresten grinning
demonically at your side.
And yet you were too demonic for him. And he condemned you
to the diabolical. Your humour is justified but pitiable. He hurt you. He hurt
you for having expected you to be so much more to him, not knowing that you
could surpass any expectation that HIS feeble mind could produce. He hurt you
by his disappointment and neglect. He hurt you because (damn does it feel like
a relief to write this and not scream it) he broke his most loyal friend’s
heart for a woman that he did not love, and rather than blaming his self he
blamed – the victim? In passing only. I was too strong for him. <Maniac(hanic)all
(s)laughter.> -- YOU. The son of a bitch. Of COURSE he blamed YOU. So that
you would blame your self. So that you would take that Shame for having hurt me
for a man that did not love you. So that you could turn it in to pride to use
against me. So that you might follow his example and not blame your self but
blame me. But you did blame your self. And I blamed you for blaming me. But I
never blamed you to begin with. Never. No obligation rested upon you. THIS I
explain to Tony: With women, we cannot hold them to our own standards. You were
only half-right Alanna. I CAN hold others to my own standards. But only other
men.
Damn. As a debater that felt good.
The Bro Kode exists for a reason. I tried to tell you rationally
affectively and openly. It exists for women. It exists that men could defend women
from faithless pricks. The bro code is a spiritual gauntlet that dates back
even to the Hindu version of the Chakra System: If you can prove your loyalty
to a friend, you may move up the spiritual totem. You shall be ready to prove
your faith to a woman.
The rationalists with no myth in their heart try to weasel
their way out of the bro code. The feminists are no better.
Rationalists: Well of course it is a Circular Reasoning yet
again isn’t it boys? The other guy is bad because he gets the girl. He SHOULDN’T
get the girl, making/rendering him bad, for the same reason that we had
established at the beginning: He is a bad guy!
The Feminists: And you mean to tell us that it is OKAY for a
girl to date a skummy guy just so long as he has a “bro” to back him up?
Of course, the bro code is simple: I do not rat you out,
bro, and in exchange you do not rat out me. We make each other look good. And
no bitches come between us. We shall never be rivals, for that exists in a
competitive arena. That creates no net benefit to people on our level,
interested in creating love. I trust you and you can trust me. I trust that you
trust me. We are on the heart-chakra. We are not bound to our past karma. This
is no zero-sum game with no net benefit, where one’s selfish joy is cancelled
out by the other’s suffering, and it is only by virtue of this un-spiritual
selfishness that the indecorous joy is made even permissible. This is not a
conquest for a mate. For such a conquest, were it…
And the Feminists pro-claim again: So you have but a
CONSPIRACY to hide your own skum from women, like a gang does?
You didn’t let me finish. For such a conquest, were it to be
motivated by Love on the parts of both men (surely evidence of the absence of a
Just and Sane God from this mortal Uni-verse) for that woman, would have to
consummate the surrender of the friendship, and that is to be honored as a
tragedy. But supposing that only one man TRULY loved the woman, that he would
be capable to go to such lengths to Comprehend her, to forgive and to love no
less than her normalities her peculiarities and idiosyncrasies, and not to
miss-lead her with temptation of a diss-honest sort,, and that the other could
only hold before her a deceptive mirage and lead her into traps set up to house
his own diabolical flesh-eating insecurities that would swallow her whole, then
the virtue of COMPETITION would be found, as the virtue of POWER is found when
it is trans-muted in conjunction with the Fifth Chakra, used to dominate others
not for personal gain but for the honesty expression of the Truth due to be Vocalised,
not in seeking this mate for one’s OWN sake but genuinely for HER sake. Not once
would the victor in this duel of consciences be capable of blaming her, for he
could not dis-possess his self of his own responsibility in choosing to pursue
her. Competition, an evil when it is done in the service of the self and
produces no net benefit, can be made acceptable when truly the most Virtuous is
the victor. And only the less Virtuous, the less honest, the less True, (for
that is what it means etymologically to have Virtue), would condemn the woman
for his own victory. Only HE would blame HER, that gem that he had killed his
best friend’s innocence of heart for. And of course long before any one else
saw it the Just and Virtuous of heart, his slieghted adversary, would flee. For
how could he compete? What is of greater gravity than the benefits of the bro
code are the detriments of its breaking. For the genuine man can NOT SAY ANY
THING to warn this woman now that she is ensnared in the guy’s charm, and it
would appear to be the feeble jealousy of a poor friend, for that expectation
upon him that he would BE a friend and not a petty cuckolded lover creep would
still hang like a fading poisonous cloud. THIS is why it is a crime to break to
the bro code. But Jay Dey was right. I am NO LESS OF A MAN for being Jealous!
Andrew was right. It is perfectly all right for me to feel this way. So was
that Christian lady. Ali would say so too; I know it. Even Anthony, though he
tries to be nice (to Kresten). Even some Irish stranger at the bar who is best
friends with the chill guy who got me drunk. The second man to ever get me
drunk, Jay having been the first. And Kresten for all those years of debauchery
could never do it. Nor tried to.
The logicians and the feminists are wrong yet again. It was
never a merely circular contrivance; we merely passed through the circle to get
to it. The Truth: No man WOULD be-friend a prick. That is an OTHER un-written
aspect of the Bro Code. By entering into this invisible contract we agree that
we are both of virtuous character. Aristotle would applaud us. So would Plato.
Even Lao-Tzu. This is not, as the insecure cynics would posit it, a circular
contract to gang up on women, nor a way to blame a man of no lesser character
simply by condemning him for an inconvenience that is only evil because our
condemnation labels him evil. The Bro Code PROTECTS women BY preserving the
dignity of men, for only a man of no faith would break the bro code
indecorously, and a faith less man could never be a satis-factory lover. Broes
before Hoes ultimately serves the Hoes, for while the Hoes come second they all
so have the last word. <Oh! Check out that millennial victory dance at the
sight of that rhetorical stease.> And to swoop in after only three days,
with out warning, with out remorse, with out even having the nerve to confront
the friend in person and to sever the friendship nobly, claiming Love, with out
the COURAGE to have a fair game, but rather using the entire instruments of his
intellect to deliberately dis-patch an enemy, can only be symptomatic of
insecurity and selfishness. It was Ali that told me that insecurity breeds
selfishness, but so had that Christian lady. The fyck deliberately became
knowledgeable on things of arbitrary scholarship just so that he might
dis-confirm me when ever he wanted to, to make me look marginal, and that he
might flatter YOU at will. Who does that? Who stoops to that degree of
competition? And who surrendering that friendship for rivalry then blames the
woman for his own shame full conscience? “I could kick your ass Taylor.” A lad
who all ways had been too insecure to be totally open, except in moments of
brash anger which were just symptoms of a psyche losing control. And I as a
fool had missed taking it for its GAINING control over ME.
You tire of these rages. But now you under stand my
position. My heart is full with the Grace of God. It had been that Sunday.
Which was why I had invited you both over. I had no competitive intentions,
only trust full ones. But compunction is beyond me at this point. This is war,
and I am winning. I cannot be happy for some one who hurt a person that I
loved, and I cannot be happy for her that she hurt me to get to him. But I can
fore give her. I fore give you. All ways. He does not deserve YOU. And I will
vanquish what ever ghosts still haunt you by his vice and virtue because he
does not deserve the enduring influence that his image has over you. I am sorry.
I know it. Like a police officer, no one likes to see me coming. But I only
carry the Truth. It was all you ever asked me for, except for Space.
Dm.A.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment