WHY I WANT TO FUCK THERESA MAY *
1)
Her aggressive élan as she addresses the cameras
of the world. The way she purses her lips, brushing off interlopers of the
higher truth – the Conservative project.
2)
The putrid stench emanating from her labia as
she rises from her palatial seat in Westminster.
3)
The angular contours of her jutting lips.
4)
The power she wields. She is able to extradite
thousands of innocents immigrants. She is able to extradite thousands of innocent
foreign students. All by a mere snap decision.
5)
Enforcer of law, order and justice.
6)
Her scientific precision. She believes in
reacting immediately, in finding temporary expedients. This is in stark
contrast to the unscientific Michael Gove, a most unsubtle Conservative, who
believes in radical reform.
7)
Her thaumaturgic appearance. She is capable of sorcery.
8)
Her oppressive aura. She is leader of the ‘the
nasty party.’ She can use this appellation to undermine and oppress anyone.
9)
Her grit and determination.
10)
Margaret Thatcher was called a ‘witch.’ May, in
many ways, will follow through on this lineage and, upon becoming prime
minister, will create a dynasty of witches. Yet, despite her occultist
inclinations, she approaches it with scientific precision.
11)
Once metadata has a record of this, she can
bring me to account and penalise me.
Parody of J. G. Ballard.
Principle of Sufficient Inebriation
All inebriation has a reason. Here I propose a ‘principle of
sufficient inebriation.’ This brief tract is meant to gauge how inebriation comes
about.
First of all, time and space, which are known to us a priori, are muddled. We lose are ability to discern abstract concepts. Indeed, the phenomenon which appears to us is in direct contradiction with the intellect. As a result, we can make no sense of the phenomenon. The intellect cannot discern between things as they are and his knowledge.
When a person does not know where he is, who he is or where he came from, the principle of sufficient inebriation accounts for this. Indeed, he is so drunk that he cannot use his intellect to mediate between phenomena and abstract concepts. He is confused when he talks. His a priori understanding of causality is confused. Objects organised in space can appear smaller or larger than they really are. He does not understand why a cause comes about. It surprises him if a person appears on the other end of the room, when just a second ago he was right next to him.
How do we reach the principle of sufficient inebriation? This is relative. It depends on the person. In the case of this writer – Simon King speaking rather confusedly as Arthur Schopenhauer – just two glasses of red wine will suffice. Other people need a little more, some a little less.
First of all, time and space, which are known to us a priori, are muddled. We lose are ability to discern abstract concepts. Indeed, the phenomenon which appears to us is in direct contradiction with the intellect. As a result, we can make no sense of the phenomenon. The intellect cannot discern between things as they are and his knowledge.
When a person does not know where he is, who he is or where he came from, the principle of sufficient inebriation accounts for this. Indeed, he is so drunk that he cannot use his intellect to mediate between phenomena and abstract concepts. He is confused when he talks. His a priori understanding of causality is confused. Objects organised in space can appear smaller or larger than they really are. He does not understand why a cause comes about. It surprises him if a person appears on the other end of the room, when just a second ago he was right next to him.
How do we reach the principle of sufficient inebriation? This is relative. It depends on the person. In the case of this writer – Simon King speaking rather confusedly as Arthur Schopenhauer – just two glasses of red wine will suffice. Other people need a little more, some a little less.
Parody of Arthur Schopenhauer
