On The Depressive; A Short Personal Essay

On The Depressive; A Short Personal Essay

I would like, if I may, to introduce to you a man. He is a depressive (hereafter to be used not as a term of judgement on a person’s personality, but of their entrenched depression), and he would tell you that himself. Neither he, nor I, would treat that term as a marker of pride or of shame, or because we want to elicit a particular sympathy from anyone listening. “I,” he would say, “am a depressive”. It may have something to do with his permanent physical ailment (depression is an extremely common occurrence amongst anyone who happens to suffer from a debilitating health disorder, such as diabetes), or it may simply be who the man in question is. In the past, he has been prescribed anti-depressants, but he has refused to take them.

If he was depressed, he reasoned, then it must be for a reason – it must be because there is something in my life making me depressed and, instead of hiding behind the shield of medication, I must work to resolve that issue. This, you will agree, shares a great deal of his perception of depression. He believed that depression was a rational thing; something that could be worked at, fought on its own terms and eventually defeated. Like it was a wall to break through; like it was a prison cell to sunder.

It has become apparent, to me, that depression is not actually the result of any extraneous circumstance, as our subject believed. Depression is not contextual. Instead, I have come to understand depression as a result of personal interpretation. A true depressive (which, once again, is not a grandiose term looking to place one form of misery above another in some hierarchy of contentment) is impossible to cure without showing them the executioner’s needle. To a true depressive, their depression is impossible to relieve. It is as much a part of them as their memories, as what fleeting passions they manage to cling to.

A study of the depressive tends to reveal the same vague sensations which are practically impossible to truly transcribe. Perhaps the most effective, and certainly one of those I would agree with, is that depression is, ultimately, a feeling of hollowness. It is not an emptiness, per se, but hollowness in the sense that the exterior of the depressive is so thin, so ‘porcelainate’, that in and of itself it becomes a major component of the depressive’s hollowness. Personal experience lays this hollowness at the back of the throat, or feeling like it’s just below my oesophagus. It might seem odd to try and physically place a feeling which is largely emotional and certainly mental, but it seems to be the most honest description I can conjure. A hollowness at the back of the throat.

In addition to this hollowness, there are many other symptoms of the depressive. The lack of excitement and hope in favour of a general, all-consuming sense of anxiety – a form of anxiety, in fact, which often results in a borderline obsession with the event, situation or context of the anxiety. This is a permanent anxiety which flickers from source to source like some form of physical parasite. This anxiety is also reflected in terms of nostalgia – but not a positive one. Depressives often find themselves caught in a permanent cycle of shame; something as little as an awkward reply in a single conversation can sit and fester on the brain for months, which can often lead to a form of insomnia.

True, also, is the fact that depression can severely impact motivation. The instinctive, gut-reaction of the depressive to practically everything is ‘fuck off’. Largely, this comes from an understanding that nothing genuinely matters, and a perception that even those things which arguably do matter are irrelevant. This can manifest itself in laziness which not only has its own range of severe side effects, including weight change, lack of exercise, lack of sunlight, low energy, low inspiration to look after oneself and, perhaps most commonly, a disturbance of one’s sleep pattern which can then contribute to the already existent insomnia, thereby making it practically impossible to sleep until early the following morning, if at all.

The most common misrepresentation of depression, or rather the fight against one’s own depression, is that many people tend to picture it as something to be overcome. In my experience, that is blatantly untrue; instead of being something to defeat, it is something that one learns to exist with. Or it kills one. I have heard the great metaphors, of depression as a dragon desperately requiring some heroic passion for its defeat, or for the silver bullets of drugs to bury the werewolf of depression once and for all.

In truth, depression is an endless ocean. An ocean which sometimes sits calmly and is sometimes rocked by the most nauseating of storms. Sometimes the water will open into gigantic whirlpools and swallow the depressive, causing them to kick and fight and scream against their own consciousness. Sometimes, the water is a muddy blue and sometimes it is pure black, reflecting every glance the depressive throws its way. Sometimes it recedes enough for the depressive to reach a small island, and shore up their boat before the water crashes down on forgotten sand again – even the most well-built and protected of boats will be torn to shreds after so long in such foreign, volatile and blackened seas.

Yeah, so this has been inactive for a long time. Motivation is hard to come by. Hopefully, I’ll have more time over the next few weeks and months to really get back into the habit of using this platform; I’ve got plenty of stuff written and saved up for posting, it’s just a matter of making sure it’s actually worth throwing into the meagre public eye.

If you’re interested in reading any of the stuff I wrote before I took my half-year hiatus, then you can check out some ‘poetry‘ here!

Are You Happy?

Are You Happy?

Whenever I think of happiness, I’m filled with this kind of hopelessness.

I can’t think of a single time when I have experienced the joy that I’ve read about – the kind of elation that spits
fire through the veins.

And that is all I’ve ever wanted. I’m not interested
in money, or popularity;
I’m not even interested in love, if I am being honest
with myself. I just
want to find a way to be happy for half-a-second; an instant.

I want to know what it is like to look into myself
and see something other than a hole staring back at me.

I want to know what it is like to be able to look in the mirror and smile,
and not immediately want to cry. It isn’t like I’d call myself depressed – I’d just call myself empty.
It’s like I’m watching a character;
like I’m staring around the room whilst these fingers
– weak slabs of meat and bone – type away.

It’s like I’m pushed on by the winds of habit;
like I’m driven forward by a sail and no storms touch me,
no cool waters make my progress all the easier –
no sunlight falls across my prow and
no rain makes my deck wet and dangerous.

I just go.

I just keep going, with no direction and no purpose and no stars overhead to light my way.

Whenever I think of happiness, I don’t even know that I would recognise it. I have slept with beautiful women and drank until I can’t see; I have smoked and walked and fought and knocked head-wracking painkillers down my throat.

I don’t want anything, except to be happy. And to be honest, I don’t think I’d even recognise it if I was happy, because happiness cannot be this hollow feeling in the back of my throat.

Happiness cannot be waking up with a bad taste in my soul. Happiness cannot be blinking in the sunlight and tightening my brow until I can see. Happiness cannot be hesitating in the shower and turning the heat up until my entire body feels like its burning and turning it up again. Happiness cannot be hovering over the disposable razors and cutting my skin without breaking the flesh until my arms sting but don’t bleed. Happiness cannot be drinking at 3:00 in the morning and waking up at 6:00 and wanting to do nothing more than drink again. Happiness cannot feel like a leash, holding me in place though I’m holding onto it myself.

Happiness cannot be this, this bloody, turgid life waiting for the next time I can go to sleep and, for a few hours, hate myself in dreams rather than life.

So, if you know how to be happy.
If you ever knew how to be happy.
If there’s something that makes you happy, let me know.

Because I want to be happy. But I don’t want to be happy, because I don’t even know what desire is. I don’t know what it feels like to want something so fervently that your heart races at the very idea. I know sex. I know drink. I know drugs. I know food. I know music.

I don’t know how to be happy.
I don’t even know if I want to be happy.

I don’t know how to want. But I know how to hope.

I hope that I’ll be happy one day.

The Empty Breast of Intellect: A Short Essay On the Ingrained Opposition to Intelligence

The Empty Breast of Intellect: A Short Essay On the Ingrained Opposition to Intelligence

Capitalism, the apparent victor of history, has done what all dogmatic ideologies and cultural systems tend to do, in the end. It has promoted and, indeed, cemented the dissolution of generally intellectual thought in certain areas. Whilst technology has grown, and we are all moving towards the gentle, comfortable state of the post-human (whether we like it or not), the minds to whom that technology is made available have become stunted and segmented.

I do not believe, for a moment, that I am outside the bounds of this generalisation; I firmly believe that I am just as stunted as everyone else. Similarly, I don’t call myself necessarily an anti-capitalist, though I firmly believe that an argument could be made that our society currently exists more in line with a perversion of capitalism, than that which necessarily developed over the last few hundred years.

Anyway, before I begin, I feel as though it might be beneficial for us all, myself included, to outline what capitalism is, to my perception.

The goal of capitalism is, in optimistic terms, the general circulation of wealth to improve comfort and self-awareness within the confines of the society itself. Within capitalism, we work and we are rewarded for that work fairly and honestly and we live to a certain degree of comfort based on our talents, the amount of work that we do and the opportunities we make the most of. Capitalism is based on ourselves, and wealth is self-worth and we worship it in practical terms, with a fierce kind of dedication, along with whatever spirits we might desire.

The only real opposition to capitalism, or the ideals of capitalism, is the same as the only thing blocking the ideal of Marxism from becoming a reality. We are people, driven by emotions and logic powered by the self. We are evolved primates, still longing to bare our teeth and take more than our share. Totalitarianism isn’t just an ideology, it’s a logical step from capitalism. Neoliberalism is totalitarianism, and it is how our society operates, with the exception that there is, truly, no law. The strong are not those in charge. Most of the time, it isn’t even the most intelligent, bravest, most daring or most unique. It isn’t those with a clear direction forward; it’s those with the ability to pretend to a personality that does not exist – thanks to the kinds of politics that developed in the 1960s and 70s, particularly in America, power is now dictated by the carefully choreographed personality that sways people from one candidate to another. Democracy has become its own worst enemy and I can only really blame one thing for that sad fact – culture.

Our culture is the main reason for the continuous failure of our society, particularly here in Britain. Our love of the underdog has, in a sense, been one of the primary features of our own undoing. We don’t want clever people in any kind of power, we don’t even really want intelligence because we are afraid of it. Instead, we have this strange desire to keep everyone at the same level. We don’t even want our leaders to be intelligent; how else could we explain the presence of our members of Parliament, our Lords and our council authorities? Intelligence is said to be prized by our school system but it is slowly and surely beaten out of us by our peers, our culture and, above all, our free time.

My argument here (or at least this subsection of my argument) is based upon those three aspects – our peers, our culture, our freedom. The three weights that hold those of us down who aspire to be more than what we are. It is entirely likely that, having grown up in dismal town filled with repugnant people, my birthplace and my formative years have affected me far more than they should have done on subjects like this. Still, these are the opinions that I have formed in this place, with the shadow of the internet and all of man’s knowledge, with a few short years of library access before it was closed down and used as a squat; with access to an education system that didn’t push and didn’t pull and, in the end, was most useful when it left me alone and provided nothing more than an excuse to learn for myself.

Our Peers

Perhaps the largest chain around our collective ankles is ourselves. My complaints against the weight of our peers on the fragile resistance of our intellectual potential is threefold: one; the judgement of other members of society is one of the strongest corrosive elements available, so much so that our entire way of life is built upon it; two; there is a long-standing reticence against the admission or the development of any kind of intellectual advancement for favour as being seen as big-headed, arrogant or any other synonym you might care to name; finally, three; the threat of pretension remains a deadly weapon in the hands of the weak-minded and it’s use, in and of itself, should perhaps be more of a compliment than an offence.

Our Culture

One of the major opponents to intellectual development remains our culture. Over time, as we in the West have grown increasingly comfortable with ourselves, our culture has grown to be less of a benefit to our society as a whole and, instead, works to degrade and weaken our resolve. Our culture has become an enemy of the ideals of, not only capitalism, but also democracy and human development and evolution as a whole. Our modern culture is dedicated to a maintenance of the status quo, and promotion of apathy and an ardent supporter of the unfair distribution of wealth, power, health and resources that we currently have available.

Our Freedom

The freedom that we have is, actually, the freedom to be unequal. William F Buckley, one of the arbiters of the current political system of personality, once said something to a similar effect, and it should be worth noting that our freedom is actually a more debilitating aspect of the innate human resolve and resilience, not to mention to ingrained stubbornness of the British and other nationalities. I propose the idea that, with the ostensibly fair society that we currently have in place, when placed alongside the general freedom to travel, live, work, play and love as we will, our freedom and democracy actually becomes nothing more than another blockade to our realisation of ourselves. This could also be extended to include the idea that the national peace that we currently enjoy, with the exception of misguided spiritualists, is another blockade to the development of humanity and true personality, if not the realisation of a potential intellect.

Peers; Companions; Friends; Lovers; Family; Enemies; Equals; Superiors; Inferiors; Neighbours; The Ultimate Enemies in The Face of True Intellectual Pursuit

Sinatra Night In LiverpoolAs Sartre once wrote, and has been hideously misquoted time and time again, ‘Hell is other people’. I would propose the slight amendment to the quotation to suggest, in fact, the idea that ‘damnation is other people’ ignoring the religious imagery involved in that adjustment, or in the original quotation itself.

Damnation, in this instance, I would describe as the direction in which the world, certainly the Western World, is heading at a rate that has been hitherto unseen. Damnation, in the absence of any physical or spiritual Hell, must instead be considered the state of affairs in which the intellectual ability, the capacity for rational thought, is widely being bred and trained out of the general populace (of which I am one), if they could be said to possess it in the first place. Damnation under the guise of Ginsberg’s representation of Moloch as the bull-headed representation of capitalism.

To be damned, or to suffer damnation, is to undergo judgement and as we now worship society and wealth and popularity as the Holy Trinity, or at least an argument could be made for such, it could easily be said that other people are the main source of our damnation. Without a moral compass of our own, a morality which is typically provided by values imparted to us as we grow and weighed against personal desire and necessity and logical thinking, we rely entirely on others to judge us.

To be judged in a positive light by our peers, our society at large, remains one of the most rewarding and sought after events in modern life. Whether for our work, our attitudes or anything else, we desire to be applauded and accepted into the great ravenous pack that we know as society. In contrast, the daggers of negative judgement are sharpened on a daily basis, and embarrassment, shame and guilt all remain three of the worst possible feelings to undergo – although most of us will have some semblance of a moral compass as we go about our daily lives, it would be difficult to think that we would feel guilty or ashamed in the event of negative action that directly benefits us.

Personally, having suffered from anxiety as a child, I can attest to the fact that shame and guilt are two of the most devastating constructions of society – both of which originate from other people and awareness of their expectations of you which, over time, become little more than expectations of yourself. The fact remains that people, other people, create guilt and shame; they breed it into you and we are taught that they are aspects of humanity which need to be avoided.

We love the underdog, we love the idea of someone who isn’t as powerful, wealthy, popular, handsome, famous or intelligent overcoming their opponent through characteristics like passion and cunning. It enables us to believe that we have the potential to overcome those issues which we believe to be much bigger than ourselves; it suggests that there is hope against the world and all that is wrong with it. It is, essentially, a lie that we like to be told to help us sleep and to drag us on. In that regard, at the least, we are like children still looking for guidance; still hoping for someone to believe in us. Of course, it is understandable that this affection for the smaller weaker member of the tribe appeals to us – as we spend so long inside our own heads, it isn’t really all that shocking to suggest the idea that most of us, the common man and woman, are hyper-aware of our own weaknesses, perhaps more than anyone else. We know where we fail as the ideal human beings we would like to present ourselves as and it is important that we hear these underdog stories to learn that, even the weak and the flawed can achieve victory from the strong. It helps us to know that we are not the only damaged creatures in play.

This leads me on to my next point – the fear to present ourselves as something too much more than we are. The argument could easily be made, and is made with startling regularity, that we all like to pretend that we are better people than we are, that our lives are infinitely more interesting than they are – this is a myth that is not only perpetrated by ourselves, but also the perceptions of ourselves that we are able to cultivate online and across social media websites. There are many people who have been able to push this fear aside, or were lucky enough to never succumb to it in the first place, and have managed to make a great success of forcing their lives to be interesting by cultivating not only the perception of their personality, but their personality in and of itself. Bloggers, vloggers and social celebrities start to believe their own lies, much like politicians, rock stars and other people in the public eye, until they become the person they have pretended to be for so long.

For most of us, however, this fear to present yourself as better than you are is not solely manifested through honest living, but in the rejection of bettering oneself. For example, there is only one bookshop reasonably close to me, in my hometown, and that is a Waterstones. There is a category there, where much of the non-fiction tends to reside, and it is labelled as “smart-thinking”. It took me years to build up the courage to even approach that single cabinet, and I would never be able to do so in the presence of people I know. If I, hypothetically, were to spend any amount of time in front of that category, it would be as though I were placing myself above those who cluster around the romance or the cookery categories. It is impossible to overcome this perception of oneself as “better than oneself” in such a situation, and it always looks as though I am standing in front of that category in an attempt to be seen to be standing in front of the category, rather than any interest in the books that stand there.

Almost ironically, this same fear is what, for a long time, stopped me from applying myself in my education, stopped me from writing what I wanted to write, saying what I wanted to say, to the point that I still find myself checking anything I say before I say it for fear that it might come out sounding like I consider myself an intellectual. It is an ever-present fear of judgement or, rather, judgement of the me behind what they might believe I am creating for their judgement.

I am afraid of being considered arrogant, big-headed and, above all, pretentious. I am not afraid of having ideas above my station, but I am terrified of somebody else thinking that I might have ideas above my station in life.

Pretension, that old dog with bloody claws, brings me onto my third point. Pretension – “the use of affectation to impress”, or “a claim or aspiration to a particular quality”. As someone who is terrified of damnation, the term pretentious is one of the worst possible insults. It symbolises that I, or anyone else, is prescribing meaning to something that does not have meaning; it supposes that things like literature and art are weapons designed to elevate some over the positions of others. It proposes that anything we ascribe our meaning to is, ultimately, meaningless and that we are attempting to emulate what we might consider an artist, a writer, a musician or any person with any form of creative or analytical talent, to be.

It is a term that is used incredibly often, particularly around me; I’ve found. Particularly when I started writing things that I actually wanted to write, things that I gave meaning to, things that were wholly personal, but which is submitted for public view anyway. I will not argue and say that they are not pretentious; that I am not necessarily pretentious; but that there is every possibility that pretension should be, if not celebrated, then at least not condemned by its very nature.

Aspiring to be some other, something better, than what we are has to be one of the greatest possible goals in human existence, surely? Ascribing meaning, even if that meaning is only personal, to any kind of creative work is at least evidence of a semblance of coherent thought that recognises there is more to life than that which we currently are, surely? pretension could very easily be considered the driving force behind self-betterment, and we should not allow our love of the underdog to detract from that.

This attitude towards pretension is not something that we will be able to throw away anytime soon, unfortunately. For many years to come, everyone from students to artists, writers to musicians and even more common occupations will have to deal with the ever-hanging Damoclean threat of pretension hanging over them. This particular sword, cutting the air with sneers and condescension, is deeply ingrained into our culture and will be practically impossible to extricate without executing ourselves in the process.

Culture; Society; Entertainment; Discourse; Debate; Theatre; Perception; Emotion; Interactivity; The Pretence of Emotion; The Enemy of Intellectual Opportunity and Development

Extract from an encyclopedia. A much larger argument than I have the time, inclination or intellectual ability to actually address with any sort of conclusive effort, but our very culture itself seems opposed to the proliferation of intelligence throughout the country. It seems too obvious to point out, but the issue is so deep-seated that it is worth at least mentioning. The major opposition that society seems to present is not necessarily a loathing of intellect, but a love of fakery, personality and two-dimensions well-suited to the flat screens that we surround ourselves with. There are exceedingly intelligent celebrities, that’s true, but very few of them are necessarily loved for their intelligence. Instead, their intelligence takes on their entire personality, and they become a caricature of the concept of intelligence. It is alright to love noted theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking because, in a way, he has become the mascot for the intellectual underdog. Held down by his crippling illness, he has still managed to make wide and varied contributions to the scientific community, and his entire personality is treated, by television, as a brand.

Even then, Hawking and other scientific minds, are not listened to – most viewers switch their brains off when they appear on screen, and are content to be seen to watch these celebrities. Even fairly intelligent programmes, such as Stephen Fry’s QI, still offer little in terms of education as the focus of the entire programme remains on the entertainment factor. The intelligence is, in a way, treated as just another joke as questions that are so obscure or deliberately misleading are asked of celebrities who, for the most part, don’t understand them in the slightest.

Intelligence, just like any other aspect of personality, is marketable – we have a supremely heightened form of cerebral capitalism to thank for that. It is simply another great facet of the ultimate commodity that our freedom provides us with – entertainment. Therein lies the potential source of many modern ills and ailments, particularly the devolution of critical thinking, analysis and personal opinion. Entertainment and culture work to bring society together over shared narratives, shared opinions and feelings and experiences. It could be said to homogenise and gentrify what it means to be an individual, by promoting the ethics of the crowd over the development of one’s own. A bad piece of entertainment is not only like a poor commodity, therein lies the truth behind modern society; leaving us, the viewer, with nothing more than a bad taste in the mouth and revulsion at our wasted time. Entertainment is a commodity, a product, wherein we work to be able to have our free time sucked up by the experience of emotion – it is a strange quandary, when we work to consume, but we do not consume to nourish or better ourselves, but simply because we have no other alternative than to consume. Even the more interactive forms of entertainment which have superseded television and radio as the gods of modern life, such as video games, offer us little besides the shared experience. It is for this reason that buyer’s remorse is like having acid poured down into the back of your throat – you don’t just feel cheated of the money, but of everything that the potential for entertainment represented.

There is a current belief that intelligence is a marked quality that can be, essentially, bought and sold within the public gaze. By choosing to stand in front of the literary fiction, or the “smart-thinking” categories, you are staking your claim to purchase the potential of intelligence. Perhaps the most valuable aspect of intelligence as a commodity is the ability that it can often give us to lie to ourselves; to convince ourselves that we are actually intelligent despite what our breast happens to tell us. Literature and intelligence were, for a long time, intertwined. Looking at the most popular books of the time, it is difficult not to look back with nostalgia upon the days before I was born, when men like Orwell, Vidal and Bellows all wrote in fairly simple, attractive ways which encouraged a mass readership without forcing themselves to dumb down, or hide, the purpose of their writing. Above all else, what we are lacking is a literary, narrative, entertaining voice to take a stand for something, in favour of something. The established system of beliefs that we have, that purely dominate the literary scene of the time, is that of the upmost liberalism. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but when all modern fiction offers us the same advice in terms of morals, then it is not difficult to see why culture and society tend to push people in certain directions, instil us with certain morals and neglect to propose the development of our own. It is all too easy to accept something as good, or bad, when considering the comprehensive benefits and negatives to each point is taxing on the brand. Writing, modern writing, is not so much opinionated as safe; thanks to the political and cultural ideology of tolerance, at least, incredible tolerance in many areas and absolute zero in others, it is impossible to create something that might actually offer even the potential of an impact on a large scale.

By being so irrepressibly middle-ground, by offering relatively unconstrained freedom, our culture has managed to turn our innate apathy and fear and rage into a weapon that effectively allows us to police ourselves. Minor crimes are fine, because our educational system has taught us that we are all special, that there is no one like us in the world, and as long as we believe that we’re doing the right thing, rules are essentially made to be broken. Theft is permitted so long as there isn’t a direct victim. Murder is fine in the name of fear, as we allow immigrants to starve, drown and be murdered in the streets of their hometowns by terrorists that we armed, directly or indirectly. Crime is, essentially, a joke when compared to the crimes of conscience that our society has committed in our name and in the name of all that is good and sane and democratic about the Western World. If our foreign policies, economic choices and general attitude had a name, it would be murder by committee and delegation.

That is the background for the culture that promotes idiocy and joy over intelligence and anger. That is the backdrop against which we applaud half-wit comedians who swear and appear in sold-out arenas on Segways and chequered shirts and cries of ‘you beautiful motherfuckers’.

One current trend with actually promotes the commodity of intelligence has to be the encouragement of the mentally subnormal on our television screens, across the internet as well as in our seats of power. People who replace depth with an embrace of their shallowness. Actors by any other name who turn their stupidity into a brand which they can market, like cultural critics would marketing their intelligence. The promotion of the shallow over the deep signifies the love of entertainment, the love of our free time being soaked up until we sleep and start again. However, these brands play on a much more cunning level than we might expect. When the intellectually shallow, who rejoice in their idiocy, appear before us we are able to rejoice and realise that we are, actually, intelligent compared to other people in our society. Incredibly, rather than making us furious at the failures of an educational system and horrifying parenting which allowed the development of these brands, it amuses us.

Laughter, and the judgement, of these people in society hugely amuses us and could, eventually, play a major role in the continuing function of society. One argument that could be considered is that it creates an “us versus them” mentality, similar to “the self versus the other” idea. By giving us a shared laughter point, a shared target to mock, we are able to make the most of a more liberal and easily justifiable “minute of hatred” such as Orwell wrote about in 1984. By bringing a community together against this one person, or this small group of people, society is able to create communities within itself that can easily work together to keep themselves sane in an insane world. Culture, in this instance, presents us with an opponent, satisfies us that we are more intelligent than they, and gives us a community within which we can rejoice that satisfaction and share it with others. If intelligence is a commodity, as I have begun to believe, then surely the inverse is equally true and stupidity – sheer, bloody-minded, ignorant, innocent, cruel, hollow, plotted and circumstantial idiocy is like ambrosia when it comes to sustaining society. Capitalism has performed incredibly well at keeping us in place by the development of these communities, and the promotion of a morality which encourages us to support and adhere to the beliefs laid down by these communities.

Communal ignorance is a well-documented factor of humanity, and it comes down to a certain meekness; a certain desire to be included and not stand out. Community is another of the major threats to intelligence, particularly as an influx of diverse opinions, delivered in such quick succession that they are impossible to truly intake and reflect upon, is nothing more than white noise – a smokescreen used to blind and befuddle for long enough that the next topic, the next opinion, the next horror occupies our minds instead.

Interactivity, with each other and with our culture as a whole, is a powerful blockade to personal intellectual development.

Freedom; Liberty; Joy; Desire; Design; Inequality;

The sun through the fog behind a silhouetteThe greatest blockade of all, to our intellectual development, to the absolute advancement of ourselves, is our freedom. I am not speaking in favour of totalitarianism, control or dominance, but of our willing ability to deny ourselves development. We are free to do as we choose, within reason. We are free to avoid our own intelligence, to spend time in front of entertainment without intellectual stimulation.

We are not forced to learn different ways of thinking with the cane across the knuckles or the spine; we are not forced to perform well or pay attention in class as children; we are not forced to go to university. Over time, the gentle build of ‘human rights’ and our free, classless society with weakened expectations and the willing desire to oppose expectation, has given us comfort.

Because we are comfortable, entertained, fed; we don’t need to be intelligent.

Because we are free, or free to an extent, we don’t need to develop intellectual thoughts to obtain that freedom.

We are driven by the basic desires; hunger; thirst; acceptance; comfort; warmth; safety. We are not driven by a desire to build a better world, to create things that leave our mark on the future. We are free to forget, free to ignore, free to be unequal. We are free to better ourselves, and that freedom makes us less than we could ever be.

Saying that, I am a major proponent of freedom. I think it would be the greatest thing to obtain, even if it destroyed our culture and our society. Freedom, ultimate freedom, is such an alien concept to most of us that it is a wonder we could conceive it at all.

Capitalism is the enemy of total freedom, but provides us just enough freedom to make us believe that we are free. Just enough freedom that the avoidance of our intellectual development is a choice of our own.

Through this half-freedom, we work to damn ourselves to ignorance. We are free to be stupid, ill-informed, ill-educated, incapable of thought beyond decision.

Through this freedom, we have emptied the breast of human intelligence and ingenuity and, instead, drank ourselves to death on the milk of ignorance.

As well as half-though out political essays, I also write poetry and prose. If you are interested in reading anything else I’ve written, you can click on any of the images to your left which are all free eBooks, available to download from Smashwords. Alternatively, you can read some poetry right here on this blog, such as Coal Carthage, A Red Dress or On Passion.

As always, if you disagree with any of the above comments, feel free to let me know!

Solpadol: My Brand New, Free eBook!

Solpadol: My Brand New, Free eBook!

Solpadol is a semi-fictional, semi-confessional eBook based around the twin sins of drug abuse and unrequited love. This is the latest novella I’ve managed to drink my way through. It’s the most recent entry into the Broken Polemic series, which has so far included Adjective Narcissism and God Metaphor. If you’re unfamiliar with my Broken Polemics, you can click on the links to learn more about them.

Taking place over a single day, and revolving around a simple conversation between the unnamed protagonist and the woman he used to love, this piece of writing explores dependency on love, nostalgia and a range of other pleasant-sounding emotions in a similar vein to drug dependency and addiction.

Before, I’ve focused on art and religion, but I have to say that love – or the dry thirst for impossible love – has had such a major effect on my life that if I had felt confident enough I would have liked to tackle a year or so ago. I’ve done my best to avoid a lot of the deliberately garbled, complex sentences that put so many people off of my previous attempts, but I think it’s fairly obvious that I’ve been reading (and writing) a lot of poetry around the same time.

What Is Solpadol?Solpadol covering image for free J.W. Carey eBook

Solpadol, itself, is an industrial-strength painkiller that is regularly subscribed to deal with agonising back pain and a load of other really debilitating issues. For the last year or more, I’ve been using it to numb myself to the horrors of work on a daily basis, as well as a few aches and pains of my own. A couple of these things will send me to sleep, but I’d recommend avoiding them if you plan on drinking. Believe me, it really fucks you up. Not in a good way.

Still, being half out of it all day does make it go a lot quicker.

I’m off it now, but it really impacted me whilst I was taking it (and all it will take is one bad day before I’m knocking them back again). It kind of let me run my daily life on autopilot, and spend a lot of the day thinking instead.

Why Did I Write Solpadol?

Simply, I wrote Solpadol because I wanted to draw a comparison between the effect of unrequited love and drug abuse. Love is the strongest and headiest drug I’ve ever known, but I know that if I was me, now, I wouldn’t fall in love as hard as I have done in the past.

Above all else, I wrote Solpadol because I have known love in smokeless bars, and felt the disappointment when it fails, even if it never really gained any momentum. I have fallen in love with women I’ve spoken to for a few hours and those whom I’ve only seen perform once, in an alleyway in Edinburgh.

I wrote Solpadol because I once heard a Tom Waits lyric that said ‘falling in love is such a breeze, but standing up is so hard for me’, and I think that line fucked me up a lot more than I’d ever care to admit.

Get This Free eBook From Smashwords Today!

This eBook is completely free, so download your free copy today. To download the eBook from Smashwords today, all you need to do is follow the link, or click on the Solpadol image to your left, or at the bottom of the page on mobile devices.





here comes your ghost again through the wall
wailing. The scars in the meat of your arm,
beneath spectral skin, catch on the iron nails
that hold up your art and make you scream
and pull away the muscle itself. With
scrabbling fingers, hooked claws, puncturing
the air like talons howling, disturbing,
disturbing my sleep and burning, burning,
burning the air itself with formless lungs
of rotten space that exhale tobacco cider
smoke. Nameless ghoul, wearing
another’s face come to take my soul
as I sleep.

To think,
that you return to me now a memory
rising from unfamiliar streets, when I
dreaming of chaining you and your
ghost beneath familiar flagstones
bloated, billowing through cracks
in the very stone; to smile and recall
crying at the sight as you drive
spikes from the railway through my
eyes and the bookshelves of pages
of half-forgotten verse turning
about you and I had nothing,
nothing else to stumble and
support myself against, along,
than the dream of a heart never
beating in time
with mine.

Of nightmares,
talk honestly about depression though
honesty doesn’t come honestly to us or
the gas of your breasts and your
thighs half-hidden in the shadows
cast by a dozen men’s eyes, and lips
and fingers but never mine though
they trembled and made the air shudder
in passion that left me sweat and
empty breathlessness
around the vowels of my affection,
trembling bookstore dancing and
blinding tears and scars on terrified
arms, and love.

So, I’m expecting to get my next novella in the Broken Polemic series out within the next week or two – make sure you keep an eye out for that. If you want to catch up (not that they’re necessarily essential for understanding, but they might help) then follow the link above. For more poetry, why not take a peek at Bluebird, or All These Words? I also recently wrote a short opinion piece on religion and atheism, A Gangrenous Limb, so you might find that interesting as well.

On Passion

On Passion

Mightn’t it make more sense to spill my passions out upon the floor,
Than direct it in meaningless frustration at these hollow keys,
And the clicking clatter of their tombstone impact upon the white-page door –
To ignore the lure of life’s great, dreadful typewriting ink seas,
And its prison-cell freedom;
And simply live?
Simply love?
Simply wear my knees to a ragged mess as I crawl to your apartment door,
Or to the door of your family home in the Northern night?

To ignore the maddening pulse of drug-dealing conversation’s lure
And the threatening theatre of post office robberies in the half-light,
And the smoking meth addicts outside the body of our Queen?
To ignore the bitter rain sweeping cold and frost from the ground
And into my freshly-shaven jaw
And my conscience stinging like a needle
In the pit of my throat and the back of my stomach?

Am I not to fall in love, in a moment, with the girl
Who rescued a ladybird on a drunken bus as I rolled with the ocean,
From the depths of disturbing slumber to weary wakefulness?
Am I not to love the waitress with gleaming eyes,
Whose smile makes my meal taste of ash?
Am I not to love the artist, for a moment,
Nervously expressing her passions and hearing nothing
But the practicality of HTML 5 in return?

Am I not to love the women,
Who refuse to dance but instead sit and drink and stare
And long and mock those who rename themselves
In their public self-loathing,
After talentless Shakespeare melds and acts
And dreams from the nights of Midwinter?

Oh, me; Am I not to love?
Am I not to love at all?

Am I to resent passion as a foreign body,
And resent orgasm for residing within the thoughts of your foreign body,
And hold affection in disgust as a weakness not a strength,
A weakness birthed from olive overhangs beneath the Italian sun and ignorant
Of Roman ambition and Venetian Titian artistry?
Am I to read of love and mark it down and return to the underground bars
Which have been my home and hope to see you once again
And know that you exist and that you are happy,
Or unhappy,
Or spitting out your happiness with shots of absinthe that ceased to work their magic long ago.
Are you to spend your weekend with vampires?
Am I to spend mine with ghosts?

The metal road screams with electricity, moaning
beneath the midnight summer streetlights.


The moon is on fire.

If you liked this, why not check out some of my other writing? For poetry, why not take a look at Bluebird, A Red Dress or All These Words? For opinion, check out my latest essay on Atheism and morality – A Gangrenous Limb. If you’re looking for prose, you can always follow this link to my Smashword‘s page, or click on any of the covers to your left (at the bottom on mobile devices).

A Gangrenous Limb

A Gangrenous Limb

A Short Essay On Morality And Atheism.

There is a certain duty of atheism and of atheists. That duty wears the collar of logic. They need to be logical, intelligent and morally superior. They need to adhere to a certain code that features all the moral features of traditional religious beliefs, perhaps even more of the positives, simply because they are fighting more than 2,000 years of bigotry and propaganda.

And therein lies the issue. Thanks to their heightened need to show themselves as better, thanks to the logical language that they use to form their arguments, they can never appeal to the religious mind set because of the limitations of their logic. Spiritualists, religions, believers; they respond to conjecture, emotion, morality defined by fear, not morality defined by logic.

I do not believe in spiritual things. I will not lie and say that logic has no place in that statement, but the main reason for my lack of belief in traditional, alternative or modern spirituality of any kind is that I find such belief immoral. I think it degrades humanity, as a whole.

The Language of Belief

The first major problem in terms of addressing any argument between the religious and the irreligious is the language we are forced to employ. Immediately, it places one side of the argument, the religious, as the positive and the irreligious or the atheist as the negative. A moment ago, I had to state the fact that ‘I do not believe’; again, placing me immediately on the side of the negative.

After all, simply the fact of disbelieving in and of itself is seen as a negative. Who wouldn’t want to believe in the comforting ideology of a loving god, or an afterlife, or any hope of eternal love or redemption, when compared to the basic facts of life. Rot, decay, an organic circle of life that goes on and on and is half-beautiful, half-sickening.

As our language itself has evolved along the same veins as religious belief, over the same period of time, it isn’t any surprise that there is a certain level of dominance or bias in favour of the ‘positive’ option.

Immediately, therefore, atheism comes up against any and all forms of religious belief, including agnosticism, as the ultimate negative; as the anti-culture; as the spiteful little thing alongside the established beliefs of the predominant religions of the time.

Ideally, we need to develop new terms for faith, perhaps more along the lines of a political spectrum. On the spectrum of faith, belief dictated by fear could be the right-wing, and belief in the proven role of nature and fact and logic could be the left-wing. That brings with it its own problems, of course, but it would be a fantastic way to redefine faith, and the arguments of faith, for the modern generation.

The Morality of Worship; The Logic of Faith

My main argument, here, is not whether the logic of faith is necessarily true. If we, hypothetically, say that Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Karma, Ganesh, Shiva or any other deity you care to name does exist, I would like to address whether it would actually be ethical, or moral, to worship them. For the moment, I am going to primarily focus on the Christian god, Jehovah, as a standard archetype for generalised religious belief – after all, ‘God’ is the mismatched, purloined template from a host of different religions, mainly Pagan religions as a means of cementing control and making their occupation much more palatable.

It is my belief that the idea of worshipping some mystical entity, or even a living thing, an institution, a belief system, or anything at all, in fact, with the exception of oneself, is degrading. What’s worse, however, is that it isn’t just a matter of personal degradation, but of universal degradation. When people place creatures, phantoms – things – above themselves, they are destroying the ideology of equality. They are, intrinsically, lowering the value of a life. Death doesn’t matter because people live on in the afterlife, because it’s all part of God’s plan, because we’re going to see all of our loved ones again in the end. It doesn’t make a mockery of the death itself, but it acts like a coping mechanism which degrades the entire life that has already been lived.

By worshipping a higher power, spiritualists or religious people lower the entirety of humanity. They destroy the efforts, the work and the struggles that people and animals have had to endure because it was always God’s plan. By attributing any glory to a deity, you are taking away the purpose of the struggle; you degrade the value of the human spirit. Fate, or the idea of fate, removes to potential for success. Pre-ordainment negates the reasoning behind any pleasure and joy in favour of the inevitable.

To my mind, simply believing in the existence of a higher power is enough to weaken the integrity of the entire species, but by actively worshipping anything at all, you are aligning yourself with fanatics. Fanatics are the worst possible representations of people; they are deliberately opposed to the ideals of a free, fair society, they are opposed to debate and honest, intellectual discourse and development. Fanatics and followers will ignore the negatives and focus on the positives of their subject and their beliefs. Fanaticism, in the modern era, has largely developed into an attitude towards conversation and debate, with the exception of deluded creatures being used as living weapons in a war that is more political and economic than holy. They will discuss their beliefs with zeal that offers no opportunity to be persuaded, that leaves absolutely no room for the presence of logic.

I believe, if I believe in anything at all, that to call yourself a human you need to adhere to a certain set of standards and morals – not necessarily follow the law as laid down by government and society, but have a set of rules that you, personally, need to live by. One of the most important rules, for me, is the rule of intellectual honesty, especially in the face of weakness. People need to accept the obvious truths, the proven scientific laws, and cannot choose to ignore, adapt or pick and choose these laws to fit in with beliefs. By choosing to ignore fact and favour fiction, by choosing to believe instead of think, spiritualists and religious people are weakening the integrity of the entire human race.

I advocate complete practicality when it comes to this particular form of mental illness. If someone chooses to live in a fictional world, at the cost of humanity, then they should be helped to overcome their problems. If there are regular functions where people can gather to be converted and controlled, there is no real reason why something similar could not be arranged for their treatment.

For those who refuse to admit that they have a problem, or those who are blatantly obsessed with their own fictional world, I would continue to advocate in favour of practicality. If you have a limb that turns gangrenous, the only way to limit the damage is to remove the limb. If there is a sub-section of humanity degrading the rest of us in terms of thought, and honesty and even morality, then for the good of the majority they need to be treated. If they have gone so deep into their delusions that they are beyond treatment, then they need to be isolated or dealt with in such a manner that they cannot spread their infection to others. In extreme circumstances, I would not call for re-education, but for damage control via quarantine.

Preaching Hate, In Favour of Equality

I am opposed to people being treated differently because of things they cannot control. When it comes to race and sexuality I will not accept anything less than complete and utter equality. When it comes to gender, I am in favour of equal pay for equal hours, longer maternal leave than paternal leave and the same job and educational opportunities based on talent and predilection for the job.

I am in favour of people being treated differently for their beliefs. I have often wondered if that makes me a preacher of hate. To me, it is no different than someone being treated in a certain way because of their actions. If someone chooses to believe in the existence of a higher power, and abandon Humanist morality, then they should be treated differently to someone who has respect for human life and beliefs that there is nothing, or few things, worse than taking a life. Just like someone who has never murdered someone should be treated differently to someone who has.

I believe in judgement, but not the judgement of imaginary creatures. I believe in horrifying, human judgement; as fickle and unfair and unfounded and spontaneous as it is, I believe in human judgement.

Religion as A Weakness

Belief in nonsense is not so bad, but belief in nonsense that degrades humanity, that tries to paint us, as a species, as weak and in need of shepherding, is morally wrong. It is also selfish, as it projects internal guilt, imagined sins and all too real weaknesses onto other people. Because these worshippers have a low self-esteem and little in the way of confidence, it seems to me that they are trying to overcome their weaknesses by declaring that everyone suffers them. How could we not, after all, when there is something big and unknowable and fantastic out there, amongst the clouds, smiling down on us benevolently.

John Lennon once sung that ‘God is a concept by which we measure our pain’, whereas I would amend that to say ‘God is a concept by which we measure our weakness’. People, real people, do not turn to faith, their imagination, when they suffer a setback or a tragedy. Instead, they deal with it themselves and emerge the stronger for it. Suffering, as the old saying goes, builds character. To me, it seems a waste to spend that suffering on building up the perception of an imaginary character.

People turn to God in their moments of weakness, when they need help or they’re frightened for their lives; when people believe that things are completely out of their control, they surrender to the whims of an almighty being. They neglect to take responsibility for their actions, simply because they don’t need to. ‘It’s in God’s hands now’, is a common enough saying when waiting outside an operating theatre, or when you hand in an exam paper, or when you’re waiting to hear back from that job you applied for – it’s not; it’s in the hands of people or as a direct result of the actions you took, or neglected to take. Having a crutch, for that is all faith is – a painkiller for weakness – doesn’t really strengthen a person or, if it does, it strengthens them at the expense of their mental health. Any and all belief in a higher power is directly opposed to self-respect and awareness and love.

Religion allows people to avoid the obvious truths; the unpleasant truths about existence that should be beautiful. We have a finite amount of time; we are not given it, but it is ours and something is trying to take it away from us. Nature is our greatest ally, for it provides us life in the first place, but it is also our greatest enemy for it immediately tries to take its gift back. Nature is not God; faith in science is not faith; thought is not belief – if we, as humans, need to believe in something, then we need to believe in ourselves. The rest doesn’t matter.

In Conclusion:

From a moral perspective, ignorant of science and logic and fact, religion is abhorrent. It stunts our growth, or leads us down pathways of mental illness and irresponsibility. It can be used to control us with fear, or with promises of paradise. It stops us, as a species, from realising our full potential and creating a paradise amongst ourselves. If paradise is external to us, as is eternal damnation, then what choice do we have but to exist in a fluctuating half-and-half world, where there will never be complete joy, just as there will never be complete misery.

It sickens me to see spiritualists and the religious as the moral backbone of a society. Anyone who believes in themselves, who does not adhere to the laws of decency because of rules laid down thousands of years ago by an imaginary creature, is to be applauded far more than those who bow down to fear and conformity. People who believe in a personal code, and stick to it, and are able to look themselves in the mirror at the end of the day, are made of much sterner moral fibre than anyone obeying the whims of a fictitious deity.