In Greece, I amuse myself for years to study the implications of movements and appearance, as vector of thought and understanding. At the end, I manage silence so well, that it is enough to light two cigarettes at the same time to indicate to a Greek that we are talking a double language. And finish by the defining the idea vehicled by fashion as: “Other we say, other we mean, other we think” (the three monkeys.)With greatest enthusiasm I retranscribe all types of appearances into inherent thought, while trying to understand what homosexual means. Thus I pass from a smyrnean mangas to a French softy copying movements and fixing the thoughts appearing to my consciousness while doing so. After, as said in http://sonjakasten1.wordpress.com (under: personal) I do the same for all sorts of women. Slowly I define my own movements and behaviors as resulting from my own fundamental nature, and feel myself horribly well in my new fashion. Corresponding wrapping in clothes is missing as no one has dared defining such fashion ever and thus I cover my whole invention with a ‘and nobody has cared to wrap me ever’ which gives the whole an almost provocative allure with an ironical touch. At that moment I start analysis of the implications of haute couture on people’s thoughts and behaviors. It’s not that I’m that worried about Chanel at that moment. In fact and fundamentally I had discovered that most of active and social terrorism as well as psychic illness seem to be linked to repressed homosexuality. But what the damn is homosexuality, I ask myself, while trying to get a clue of the block of thoughts staying (and I know it) as main vehicle of aggressive currents ending up in Twin Tower and Opera attacks every where in the world. I finish by understanding that even declared homosexuals are repressed homosexuals, and even worse, that heterosexuals behave very often as repressed homosexuals, too. I jump from one hypothesis to the other, making fun on Sask (harsh military lines) as she bans homosexuality as reality from her field of thought as not ‘corresponding to natural behavior’. Animals don’t get excessively excited by porno films either, I remark, with almost sarcastic distance, mind the natural.In fact, I finish by defining what I call the ‘Dutch virus’, as seeming to be the result of some thought defined by Spinoza and others during the XVIIth, which annihilates soul through the pretension a word is defined in word. Equivalences: word for body (male) and notion for soul (female), meaning that if the notion is not the source of definition but word itself said in categories (Aristotelian deviation), man loves man, and women are none. I call it then: deriving artificial homosexuality from mistake in definition of fundamental abstract concepts.This ‘mistake’ introduces itself through Wittgenstein and Russell (both either homosexual, either under the influence of the Dutch virus) in symbolic logic and thus in the computer logic (as the former is used as fundamental structure in the ‘translation’ of mechanical signs -typing- into electronic language). The computer transmits thus a logic that is inducing to homosexual behavior. The refusal to fall under the influence of this logic in different social environments does explain, though not justify, the proliferation of pornography as means of affirmation of strict male patterns.Is this natural, Madame Inés de la Fressange?

Consequently I’m obliged to define a natural homosexuality and a perverted one (my mother’s idea when I was 13, although she had to give in to environing pressure and finished by accepting only heterosexuality as corresponding to nature when I was 16 – ya está, I thought, ha cambiado de identidad – that’s it, she’s changed identity …) But this becomes impossible if not thinking the concept of soul, which seems almost impossible in a general context allowing only the reality of material concept (strict empiricism.) Strangely, spiritual currents and religion become the support of this possibility of thought, as being the only realm allowing thinking soul. To think soul, allows the understanding of two independent entities, and the possibility ‘male souls’ get lost in a female body and vice versa. As sexual impulses are not as much determined by hormones but by psychic relation, the ‘double natured’ do vehicle sexual undetermined impulses towards the same physical appearance although to a different psychic determination (real homosexuals are more heterosexual than homosexuals, I comment ironically to Sask, as far as you don’t understand yourself as psychic reality, you’ve a body tending towards a body without vector of interrelationship, as positive poles don’t transmit but allow just transmission, consequently, you have sex without love and that means, that you’ve fallen lower than animals who are not that … brute!)Homosexual behavior without definition of soul is consequently a further deviation. It’s not even good for reproduction, I say, laughing, and neither beautiful considered from an esthetical point of view.Psychopathetic currents get born, I conclude, from the attempt of appropriation of an imaginary soul (to say: female) in a woman with male soul (or vice versa). The repressed reality of the male soul does not disappear, but goes on living in the very low levels of the unconscious, transmitting fundamentally: the hatred towards the own identity, the principle of keeping appearance against the real nature, the complete deformation of the other’s nature as such as being just an imaginary configuration resulting of a determination lacking of the backing of the principle of identity, and all sorts of lower feelings as jealousy, refusal of affective involvement and wicked logics aiming at the personal survival outside of reason and common sense, which are the result of the respect of the principle of identity.Is it like that, I say to Sask, you’re the worse of all, even if originally heterosexual, and a 90% of humanity bathing in homosexual waters.Seeing the disastrous universal situation, I conclude that a certain number of people, whose high capacity of work has been excessively estimated as not considered that it was nothing but the result of high affective repression and consequently transmitting into financial, social and other spheres ways of thinking affirming such dangerous thoughts as the before mentioned, are at the origin of the general mess and should be pushed out of spheres of influence.It’s too late. Finally, the excessive bombing through fashion, mass media, computers and other of all that block of thought has disturbed the common mind as much as to make impossible the functioning of the most fundamental structures of reason and common sense. This means an irreversible fall into a financial pit as the heal economical poles are almost all destroyed and can’t resist the constant attacks of the repressed though well dressed hooligans.Only image, I say. Only fashion. Like American Hollywood (another main object of my deep studies) French Fashion seems to keep a fundamental identity maintaining … something at least as consequence. The thin ghostly models of the last years do finally affirm the truth: we’re starving in our psychic dimension. Looking into the surroundings I’m though appalled by the difficulty of the task, which is not such in Hollywood, which maintains clear heterosexual lines as image in appearance of a potential psychic reality, with little exceptions staying without further success.Fashion has been eaten up by shadowy homosexual lines. To my greatest despair Yves Saint Laurent ‘announces’ his homosexuality on television, and ah! I say, they do not know how to keep appearance anymore, whereas my horrified soul sees only a way of escape in Betty Catroux, whose general attitude towards the whole appears clearly in my beloved wikipedia: “Catroux and Saint Laurent met, according to her, in a “very, very gay” nightclub in Paris, Regine’s in the 1960s and have been friends ever since. She reportedly inspired Saint Laurent to begin dressing women in clothes inspired by men’s tailoring, including the famous “le smoking” tuxedo. She is also friend with designer Karl Lagerfeld.”See the implications: she says (maintains as her personal experience and not a universal truth: as ‘he is homosexual’) he meets Saint Laurent in a gay bar. He ’s there. But she’s, too. Would this imply that she is homosexual? Nobody would conclude. Why then conclude for him? What opens the doors to a desperate homosexual public who hasn’t ’speakers’ in the outer world, is though elegantly veiled by her own determination as heterosexual for a more conservative public. These very elegant complementary lines to an extremely conservative Hollywood, do though get lost if Saint Laurent starts making ‘confessions’ in public. The conservative world does naturally turn its back on him and the structures of integration of homosexuals are lost definitely.Worse are Galliano and Lagerfeld. The first gets inspired of Almodovar’s flashy appearance in Hollywood while mentioned for ‘Mujeres al borde de un ataque de nervios’. Almodovar is though strangely extremely conservative. A book of his appearing around 1980 does take serious distances from excessive homosexual affirmations (or it was censored, but he submits at least to that) while he spends his nights in Chueca, the than á la mode gay quarter of Madrid. (And still.) On the other hand it is said that he ‘protects’ Antonio Banderas  from invited Madonna, who almost falling into his arms in Almodovar’s apartment in Alcalá, is pushed back by the latter who says: “Antonio is married and these things are not inside of Spanish customs.” Of course that was in 1981 and things have seriously changed ever since.Almodovar keeps almost hysterical lines preserving the possibility of free expression of the homosexual reality with strictest lines of appearance which become even sharper when he realizes that he may become international. Galliano seems to see in Almodovar’s horribly balanced distinction between private and public life resuming oldest Spanish traditions a ‘funny fashion’ and falls into the vulgar. Galliano is not able to make the difference between an image that synthesizes other realities and thus constitutes a relief for many hunted from their family and pushed to marges little one’s and the strict lines that preserve private life avoiding thus to be absolutely associated to determined movements, intelligence that allows to maintain lines of communication with more conservative parts of society. Thus, Dior falls into the caricature that just synthesizes the lack of behavior. Associating him to the third world does not mean the third world is that vulgar, it simply means that most of the third world countries are simply incapable of understanding these subtle differentiations that are the result of many hundreds of years of crashes inside of nations until everyone finds his proper place.Lagerfeld is even worse. His heavy homosexuality reminds more Nietzsche’s escapes to Italy prefiguring already holocausts and SS, megalomania and sexual excesses than fine and elegant distant lines. His underlying thought seems to be ‘elles sont toutes des putes, quoi faire’ (they’re all whores anyhow), which a wise Chinese would understand as rather pointing at himself than at anyone else. Chanel, who seems to have kept lines of protective simulation of anyone’s identity (as Piaf), falls into the Dead Sea.To my understanding, the only one able to keep distinguished lines (which is nothing but all that, as far as I see it) is Inés de la Fressange. She simply has no private life (to the public), she’s just … married. A social status without greater implications, flashy love demonstrations or known side steps. Of course I wouldn’t ask what reality’d look like, precisely, because it is none of my interest. The evident intelligence in the management of private life is already the warrant of elegance. This kind of elegance is to my understanding the warrant of financial success.

Deepest wisdoms resulting from many hundreds of years of dealing with flirts and hot love affairs, which differentiates always the Court of France from the Court of Spain, known for its almost extravagant austerity and lack of humor (French wife of Philip II dies young, is  said, completely incapable of understanding the different environment), defines lines taking lessons from ‘Les liaisons dangereuses’ and other dangers resulting of gossip and free morals. Incapable of thinking abstract thought and always jealous for that of the German, jealous also of England’s adoration and submission to the Crown and the Spanish imperial heaviness, France hides its intelligence and wisdom in lines of haute couture, which heavily under attack for the last 30 years, where jealousy taking upper hands, some currents of population do play the German pretending to abstract thought, others run blindly into England’s adoration of the throne by wanting to submit everyone to a new born concept of non monarchic state where ministers are princes and lords and others play Cortés and Pizarro wanting to conquer worlds without weapons and law. As these three nations do not have anything to thank France for, the very usurpation of character and identity finishes by eating up the proper French identity in its way of expression. Galliano for England through Italy, Prada and Rabanne for Spain and Lagerfeld for Germany, do consequently invade the weakened French reality.Finally, that’s the problem of a philosopher. He/she falls in love with a leave while observing the deep implications deriving of the design, and finishes up analyzing the international situation in its historical implications. That’s why there’s no place for me in the world, Madame de la Fressange.

The fact that I determine esthetical lines for myself marrying the hooligan image picker and the almost brutal reminder of reason and common sense, has no hat yet, which is to say, neither economical, nor social, nor national context except of a beautiful out of law card resuming the evidence: I’m very proud of myself.Of course, were it possible to think that some other may get interested by my almost sarcastic understanding of the serious and thus help to arrange the economical situation through the ironical imposition of flowy lines that may push the witches and repressed to marges until they definitely clarify their personal situation, I wouldn’t refuse the offer. Of course, I’m sure nobody can take this responsibility as it would condemn him to eternal laughter which would confuse a more serious determination of image. But what, shouldn’t we try?