Op. 123

 

OPUS POSTSCRIPTUM VOL.1–

A Re-examination of the Intercardinal Axes

 

Metaphysical Philosophy as

Revised and Reformatted Weblogs

 

Copyright © 2006-2010 John O’Loughlin

____________

 

CONTENTS

 

01. Positivity vis-à-vis Negativity in Sensuality and Sensibility

02. Gender Contrasts in Soma and Psyche

03. Female Advantage in Worldly Relations

04. Alpha and Omega of the Metaphysical Self

05. Nature and Philistinism

06. Understanding Culture and Civility

07. Man and God

08. Traditional and Contemporary Music

09. Understanding Homosexuality

10. Theory of Sartorial Polarity

11. Re-examining Philistinism and Culture in relation to Barbarity and Civility

12. Football’s Violent Traditions

13. Of Pediments and Domes

14. Concerning Educated Females

15. Free Will verses Free Soul

16. Re-defining the Left and the Right

17. Worldly and Post-Worldly Distinctions

18. Genuine and Pseudo Axial Antitheses

19. Comprehensively Non-Humanistic

20. Overcoming the World

21. Revaluations and Transvaluations

22. Metaphysics and Antimetachemistry

23. God and Heaven

24. Secular Freedom vis-à-vis Religious Conformity

25. A Revaluation of Meritocracy and Plutocracy

26. A Brief Examination of Religious Freedom

27. Freedom From vis-à-vis Freedom For

28. Concerning Noumenal Subatomic Wavicles and Particles

29. Concerning the Respective Phenomenal Subatomic Positions

30. On Irish and British Distinctions

31. On the Relationship between Righteousness and Justice

32. Divine and Other Laws

33. Space and Time

34. God out of Man

35. No ‘Fall of Man’

36. The Nature of the Age

37. An Earlier Oversight Corrected

38. Man’s Yearning for Eternity

39. Free Cross and Bound Star

40. Overcoming the Gender War in the Interests of Universal Peace

41. A Metaphysical Rejection of Brass

42. Across the Socialist Divide

43. Beyond Nationalist Politics

44. The Moral Necessity of Gender Discrimination

45. Falls and Counter-Rises vis-à-vis Rises and Counter-Falls

46. No Simple Right and Wrong

47. Re-examining the Axial Compass in relation to Right and Wrong

48. Getting the Life-force into Perspective

49. Exploring the Role of Percussion in Music

50. The Struggle between Opposite types of Sanity

51. Exposing the Antichrist Hype

52. The Alternative Patterns of Salvation and Damnation

53. Understanding Class

54. A Reappraisal of Salvation and Counter-Damnation in relation to Damnation and Counter-Salvation

55. From Phenomenal Particle Collectivity to Noumenal Wavicle Individuality

56. Contrasting Objectivity with Antisubjectivity and Subjectivity with Anti-objectivity in Noumenal and Phenomenal contexts

57. Envisioning the Supra-Christian Beyond

58. Understanding the Contrary Modes of Noumenal Saluting

59. Examining the Noumenal Antithesis between Space and Time and the Phenomenal Antithesis between Volume and Mass, together with their Subordinate Concomitants

60. More on the Relationship between Culture and Civility in both Noumenal and Phenomenal Contexts

61. The Duties of Social Theocracy

62. A Critical Look at the Resurrection

63. An Examination of Faithfulness and Faithlessness

64. An Investigation of Death in relation to Life, both Temporal and Eternal

65. Setting the Time/Antispace Record Straight

66. A Common Phrase Corrected

67. Another Look at Freedom

68. A Re-examination of Light and Darkness relative to Gender

69. The Tasks Lying Ahead for the Godly and the Antidevilish

______________

 

POSITIVITY VIS-À-VIS NEGATIVITY IN SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY.  Anyone who reads my mature aphoristic philosophy, which is to say texts written during the past few years, will know that I distinguish between female and male on the basis of free soma/bound psyche in sensuality and free psyche/bound soma in sensibility, so that the genders are forever at loggerheads as somatic/psychic antitheses in which either soma triumphs over psyche, as with sensuality, or psyche triumphs over soma, as with sensibility.  And this happens on both phenomenal and noumenal, corporeal and ethereal, terms, as between the planes of volume and mass for physics and chemistry, not to mention antichemistry and antiphysics, and the planes of space and time for metachemistry and metaphysics, not to mention antimetaphysics and antimetachemistry.  Hence the genders present us with an axial compass, as it were, which either descends/counter-ascends from metachemistry and antimetaphysics to physics and antichemistry or, conversely, ascends/counter-descends from chemistry and antiphysics to metaphysics and antimetachemistry, taking the first elemental term in each pairing as hegemonic irrespective of gender and of the modifying effects of inter-axial relativity across the noumenal/phenomenal 'class' divide.  The axes are a good deal more complicated than this, but I have gone into that often enough in my mature philosophical works and need not elaborate on them here.  Suffice it to say that if, when free, females are basically about free soma and bound psyche, free body and bound mind, and males, by contrast, about free psyche and bound soma, free mind and bound body, then females will be naturally more disposed to external, or somatic, calmness and males, by contrast, to internal, or psychic, calmness - at least when they are free to be either sensually hegemonic, as in the female case, or sensibly hegemonic, as in the male case.  For the converse of such antithetical hegemonies will of course be subservience or subordination to the prevailing gender, be it female or male (as in the case, for example, of antiphysics to chemistry at the southwest point of the axial compass or, indeed, of antichemistry to physics at its southeast point), and in those cases we can expect males to demonstrate more external aggression and females more internal aggression, since the converse of male psychic calmness, or passivity, will be male somatic aggression, while the converse of female somatic passivity will be female psychic aggression.  Hence while females are generally more externally calm than males they become, under male hegemonic pressure in sensibility, internally, or psychically, more aggressive, whereas males, though generally more internally calm than females, become, under female hegemonic pressure in sensuality, externally, or somatically, more aggressive.  Think of the sexual act.  Coitus is generally a context in which the female is sexually passive and the male sexually aggressive, and this is consonant with a female hegemony in sensuality in which somatic passivity is triumphant over somatic aggression, or activity.  Cheerleaders presiding at or, rather, over a male sporting context of a certain sensually-biased stamp are also indicative of this kind of sensual situation in which comparative female passivity is juxtaposed (hegemonically) with male activity of a somatically aggressive nature.  On the other hand, females are likely to become more internally, or psychically, aggressive under male hegemonic pressures in sensibility, since mental calmness in the male excites the female to psychic aggression and often serves to facilitate her maternal interests in respect of offspring.  The 'nagging wife' syndrome is significant here, and this is the other side of the matrimonial coin, if I can put it like that, which rather contrasts with coitus and male somatic aggression generally.  Females, in sum, are more mentally aggressive in sensibility than males but this, paradoxically, is due to male hegemonic pressure in sync with their gender reality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma in such fashion than psychic calmness is the norm.  Males, on the other hand, are more somatically aggressive in sensuality than females, and this, paradoxically, is due to female hegemonic pressure in sync with their gender reality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche in such fashion that somatic calmness is the norm.  The psychically aggressive female is no more representative of female gender freedom than is the somatically aggressive male of male gender freedom.  Each alike are at cross-purposes with their respective gender realities, but that is only because of hegemonic pressures stemming from the opposite gender.  Verily, life is a gender tug-of-war between class and/or axial manifestations of sensuality and sensibility, soma and psyche.

 

GENDER CONTRASTS IN SOMA AND PSYCHE.  If females are generally more externally, or somatically, calm than males and males, by contrast, more internally, or psychically, calm than females, does this mean that females are generally stronger than males in sensuality and males stronger than females in sensibility?  In a manner of speaking I guess it does, because somatic passivity is hegemonic over somatic activity, or aggressiveness, in sensuality, whereas psychic passivity is hegemonic over psychic activity, or aggressiveness, in sensibility, and one could argue that the female is accordingly stronger than the male in the one context and the male stronger than the female in the other.  But 'strong' is not a word I would care to use here, because of its antithetical association with 'weak', both of which, to my way of thinking, correspond to female realities in competition with a male antithesis, in corporeal phenomenality, between knowledge and ignorance, weakness chemically hegemonic over the antiphysicality of ignorance, knowledge physically hegemonic over the antichemistry of strength across the phenomenal axial divide of the southwest and southeast points of our axial compass (see preceding entry), both of which positions are subject, however, to inter-axial modification in respect of their northeast and northwest points respectively.  Therefore rather than arguing in terms of a strong/weak dichotomy between somatically calm females and somatically aggressive males in sensuality or, conversely, between psychically calm males and psychically aggressive females in sensibility, I shall contend that a sort of positive/negative distinction exists between the genders in both sensuality and sensibility, with females more somatically positive than their male counterparts in the one context but males more psychically positive than their female counterparts in the other case, neither of whom are 'true to themselves' when negative, or aggressive, because obliged to be negative under positive hegemonic pressures appertaining to the hegemonic gender.  Hence females and males can only be 'true to themselves' in opposite fashions, and this is why life remains a kind of gender tug-of-war between those whose positivity appertains to somatic calmness and those, by contrast, whose positivity appertains to psychic calmness, the respective extremes of calmness only possible independently of the opposite sex, whichever sex that may happen to be, since aggressiveness from the subordinate gender in either context takes its toll on the hegemonic gender's positivity even as that positivity is responsible for conditioning, in no small measure, such negativity as may somatically or psychically accrue in the opposite gender to its hegemonic sway.

 

FEMALE ADVANTAGE IN WORLDLY RELATIONS.  The fact that females are externally calmer than males and internally more aggressive means that, by and large, they have the sexual advantage over males and maintain it throughout life.  For the male is trapped in a kind of vicious circle in which his psychic calm is regularly warred upon by a less psychically calm and altogether more mentally aggressive female at loggerheads with her gender reality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche under male hegemonic pressure in sensibility.  Consequently he will incline to revert to somatic aggression in order to avenge himself in some degree on the female and become trapped in a situation the converse of hers as he struggles with her external calmness at loggerheads with his gender reality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma under female hegemonic pressure in sensuality.  Now obviously there are instances of direct retaliatory somatic aggression, whether sexual or otherwise, to female psychic aggressiveness, but, by and large, one can believe that arguments are not resolved in such brutal fashion and that each gender withdraws into its own position to start afresh, usually with a renewed commitment to coitus on the part of the male in consequence of a display of female somatic calmness and togetherness.  For sex, being sensual, more usually follows from a male response to the female position of somatic calmness rather than in consequence of anger with female psychic aggression.  The male who ‘loses his cool’ with a female in sensibility is in no position to enjoy sex or to properly satisfy his woman’s sexual needs.  He is more likely simply to make a violent fool, if not criminal, of himself.  But because females generally get the better of males in life, it follows that wisdom as a male preserve is keenly aware of this situation and knows that the only way to defeat it is to remain as independent of females as possible, since no male who has regular relations with females or even a certain female can possibly avoid having his psychic calm undermined by a creature whose calmness is somatic and therefore contrary to his.  This is what justifies certain enlightened males, like monks and philosophers and great artists, in living independently of females in the interests of enhanced psychic calm, of that calmness which will not be subject to the aggressiveness of females under male hegemonic pressure in sensibility but be able to maintain itself at or near peak levels of inner sanity, of self-realization and actualization in relation to psychic freedom.  But such psychic freedom is only possible as a metaphysical postulate, and therefore in relation to godliness and, most especially, heavenliness, which is the alpha and omega of the metaphysical self.

 

ALPHA AND OMEGA OF THE METAPHYSICAL SELF.  It has been said that God or godliness is both alpha and omega and, to be sure, there is some truth in this, albeit not necessarily in the way that many people would think.  For this is not the beginning and end of things per se, a cosmic ‘first mover’ and whatever may be yet to come.  Rather, this alpha and omega should be seen, as hinted at in the entry above, in relation to the self, and the metaphysical self most especially.  For it is only in the metaphysical self, which is a male preserve, that godliness and, more importantly, heavenliness is possible, and it is in respect of the ego of the one and the soul of the other, of a transposition, as it were, from the one to the other that we should think of the alpha and omega not so much of godliness as of godliness and heavenliness, the formal beginning and contented end of the self in question.  Therefore ego into bound will and bound spirit of the metaphysical not-self, say lungs and breath, is the methodology, mankind-traditionally, by means of which the ego may achieve unity with the soul and in becoming one with it lose any sense of otherness, of relativity vis-à-vis the relevant not-self, for the nonce, thereby achieving the bliss that is the sublime reward of self-unity.  God is the metaphysical alpha that finds His redemption in the metaphysical omega of Heaven, ego in soul, form in contentment, the knowledge of truth in the pleasure of joy, of which there is nothing more pleasing to the self.  Hence do not conceive of this alpha and omega solely in relation to God, still less to anything outside metaphysics, which is always the northeast hegemonic point of the intercardinal axial compass, whether in cosmos, where it exists to a least evolved degree, in nature, where it exists to a less (compared to least) evolved degree, in mankind, where it exists to a more (compared to most) evolved degree, or, to anticipate the future, in cyborgkind, where it will exist to a most evolved and therefore effectively per se degree commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’.  Verily the truth about religious alpha and omega is that it is both godly and heavenly, and that godly ego is the beginning of the metaphysical self which has one raison d’être and one raison d’être only: namely to get from ego to soul, godliness to heavenliness, through achieving, via whatever metaphysically not-self means are most appropriate to any given ‘life-stage’ of metaphysics, perfect self-harmony, a perfection, I teach, which is only going to be truly – because most – perfect in relation to the utilization of synthetically artificial procedures as germane neither to the West nor to the East, not to anything intermediate or anterior, but solely to global civilization as it comes into its sensibly cyborg own in the decades and centuries to come.

 

NATURE AND PHILISTINISM.  It has been said that philistinism is undesirable because too naturalistic or insufficiently cultural, and so, up to a point, it is.  But philistinism is not naturalism or the same as being too natural, since ‘the philistine’ is, thanks to inter-axial relationships of a church-hegemonic order, one who is fundamentally against nature even as he occasionally or even often indulges it in what he would regard, again under church-hegemonic pressures stemming from the northeast point of the axial compass, as sinful conduct, sin being consequent upon an acknowledgement, from a male standpoint, of the folly of freely somatic behaviour from a position that is committed, no matter how imperfectly, to the wisdom and, more importantly, grace of metaphysics, wherein psychic freedom has its throne.  Hence ‘the philistine’ is a cut above the merely heathen naturalist, for whom there is no concept of sin because no recognition of an independent cultural principle commensurate with metaphysics at the northeast point of the axial compass.  The heathen is simply naturalistic whereas the philistine is effectively antinatural in his rejection of somatic freedom from a standpoint centred in or, at any rate, theoretically committed to psychic freedom of a metaphysical order.  Philistinism is the precondition, for the catholic masses, of culture, even though, in priestly vein, culture can – and does – exist independently of nature and, hence, of philistinism when it is truly or even approximately metaphysical.  Therefore the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the southwest to the northeast point of the axial compass provides us with a polarity between philistinism and culture as far as the male distinction between antiphysics and metaphysics is concerned, with a secondary distinction, on both church and state terms, between what can be called pseudo-barbarity and pseudo-civility as far as the female distinction between chemistry and antimetachemistry is concerned, chemistry having less to do with sin or folly than with pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil, antimetachemistry less to do with grace or wisdom than with pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness.  But all this is the converse, after all, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria on the axis which stretches from the northwest to the southeast point of the compass in question, where we have every right to speak of the genuine barbarity and civility of metachemistry and antichemistry on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms but, by contrast, of the pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture of antimetaphysics and physics on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, the former polarity largely female in character and the latter one its male counterpart in what, with pseudo-folly and pseudo-wisdom coupled, in church-subordinate vein, to pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace, is a poor cousin to the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate distinction between antiphysics and metaphysics.  But even here we can speak of a further distinction between pseudo-philistinism, which at least acknowledges the existence and rights of pseudo-culture, and what could be called pseudo-nature in consequence of a rejection of such rights attendant upon a shift in emphasis from state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria to state-absolutist totalitarianism.  Such pseudo-nature is not even pseudo-meek but simply the pseudo-heathen male corollary of a more absolutist approach to vanity as an extrapolation less from antimetaphysics than from metachemistry in female-oriented state primacy.  It is the male equivalent of heathenistic naturalism within an axial context that had once been state hegemonic but was now, informally if not formally, state absolutist and hence overly totalitarian

 

UNDERSTANDING CULTURE AND CIVILITY.  One way or the other culture and civility are always on the sensible side of life, as of our axial divide, and barbarity and philistinism, if not naturalism in one form or another, on its sensual side, the side which combines either metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the axial compass or, alternatively, chemistry and antiphysics at its southwest point.  Culture and civility always appertain, by contrast, to either the southeast or the northeast points of the compass in question, though, once inter-class axial factors are taken into account, the point at which metaphysics is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry will be the only point at which culture can be genuine and civility, by contrast, somewhat pseudo in view of its subordinate status on both church and state terms.  The southeast point of the axial compass provides us, on the other hand, with the subversion of physics by antichemistry acting under the rule of metachemistry over antimetaphysics ‘back up’ what is, as a rule, a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, and therefore with a shift of emphasis from free psyche to bound soma in typically state-oriented and female-dominated vein, so that the paradoxical outcome has less to do with genuine culture than with pseudo-culture – and hence pseudo-righteousness – in subordination to genuine civility, wherein justice has her throne, even if such a position will normally co-exist with pseudo-righteousness to the exclusion, sensibly, of state-absolutist criteria of an overly social democratic nature.

 

MAN AND GOD.  Strictly speaking, prayer is not as religious, or metaphysical, as meditation from a mankind (as opposed to a natural or cosmic or even cyborgkind) standpoint, though there is certainly a sense in which prayer is more germane to man than to woman, the Devil, or even God, to take the respective alternatives into account.  Which is because prayer is egoistic, or centred in ego as a projection of knowledge, and therefore more germane to a creature for whom ego takes precedence over spirit, will, or soul.  In that sense prayer, being a form of intellectuality, is not really religious at all, because more ego than soul.  If true religion is metaphysical, then only that type of ego which wishes to escape itself into soul, as from godliness into heavenliness, is commensurate with God.  Any ego which subsumes soul into itself, on the other hand, will be manly and thus an earthly shortfall, in transcendent knowledge expressed through prayer, from godliness.  Man, to be sure, is distinct from God, or godliness, but that only confirms an alternative to godliness which man, as a certain type of male centred in physics rather than metaphysics, wishes to perpetuate at true religion’s expense.  Also, it must be said, at the expense of religions based in chemistry and metachemistry, and therefore contrary to anything physical or metaphysical, being closer, in effect, to philistinism, if not nature, and barbarity than to civility or culture.  Consequently when we say ‘man’ we do not intend to signify the entire human race, all of what generally passes for mankind, but only a certain type of human who is less godly, or for that matter womanly or devilish, than manly in his physical disposition for what, in previous entries, has been characterized as the southeast point of the axial compass.  Ego-centred religion in a sense excludes spirit, will, and soul at the southwest, northwest, and northeast points of the axial compass.  For it is religion centred on man as opposed to woman, the Devil, or God, and therefore its focus will always be egoistic, after the nature of prayer as a certain type of God-oriented intellectuality of a more subjective stamp.  But the godly individual, even when recognizably human, does not pray; on the contrary, he meditates, and thus uses ego as a starting point for an accommodation, no matter how imperfectly intermittent, or cyclical, with soul, which is to say, with a transposition of the focus of self from brain stem to spinal cord.  In that he passes from godliness to heavenliness he redeems his intellectual or egoistic self and attains, for a moment of perfect self-harmony, to the bliss of Heaven.  This is the raison d’être of true religion, which is always metaphysical, whether at its least evolved manifestation in the Cosmos, its less (compared to least) evolved manifestation in nature, its more (compared to most) evolved manifestation in mankind, or its most – and therefore definitively – evolved manifestation in cyborgkind (to anticipate the future), when, in all probability, even meditation of a transcendental order will be overhauled by a synthetically artificial approach to achieving an enhanced accommodation of the self which will surpass the, shall we say, less complete and more intermittent self-harmony typifying transcendental meditation as a mankind, albeit god-centred, approach to metaphysics which, being more rather than most evolved, will always leave something to be desired from a truly definitive religious standpoint.  Hence we come to distinguish what could be called global destiny from both Eastern and Western shortfalls and alternatives to such a destiny, not to mention whatever stands closer, within mankind, to woman and the Devil, to nature and the Cosmos, than to God and man.  For only with the overcoming and, in some sense, transcendence of mankind through the progressive cyborgization of life, as of the world, will godliness independently of mankind come to pass as that which not merely more but most perfectly achieves heavenliness through synthetically artificial means, thereby becoming increasingly heavenly the more godliness is subsumed into Heaven, as ego into soul.   If the beginning of religion signified most God and least Heaven, then its future culmination will most assuredly signify most Heaven and least God.  For God will have become One with Heaven to a degree that was never possible with mankind, nature, or the Cosmos, never mind with shortfalls or alternatives to metaphysics in those life-stage contexts which hyped either man, woman, or the Devil as God and were consequently less metaphysical than physical, chemical, or metachemical in character – the more prevalent types of civilized religion for contexts dominated by civility, philistinism, or barbarity, as germane to per se manifestations of man, woman, or the Devil.  Only when religion is characterized by culture to a metaphysical degree which surpasses anything cosmic, natural, or human will it be definitively true and thus concerned less with God, whether genuinely or falsely, than with Heaven, God’s sole raison d’être, wherein form is redeemed by and in content(ment), the sublime joy of heavenly bliss in perfect self-harmony with the soul.

 

TRADITIONAL AND CONTEMPORARY MUSIC.  Almost everywhere these days the distinction not only between West and East, Western civilization and Eastern civilization, but between each of those and global civilization rears its challenging head and obliges us to come to terms with it as best we can.  Take music.  It is common knowledge that there is a difference between Western music and Eastern music, though more of style than of kind, since in both cases we find a dichotomy, traditionally, between folk music and classical music, whether in relation to a distinction between harmony and melody on the one hand or, arguably where the East is concerned, rhythm and pitch on the other hand.  For it will not have escaped many people’s attention that the West is by and large more given, traditionally, to harmony and melody, those phenomenal, or corporeal, approaches to music, than to rhythm and pitch, their noumenal, or ethereal, counterparts.  Yet with all their respective forms of folk music and classical music, the West and the East remain distinct from what could be called the march of global music, which is neither specifically harmonic nor melodic, rhythmic nor pitchful, but a combination, in opposite ways, of all four ingredients to greater or lesser extents, thereby affirming a global dimension in which aspects of what one would have identified with Western music are combined with elements closer to the East in such fashion that the resulting form, whether with a bias for pitch and rhythm, as in the case of Jazz, or for harmony and melody, as in the case of Rock, signifies a marked progression over both folk and classical traditions which would not be intelligible except in relation to globalization.  But since globalization can be devolutionary or evolutionary, female or male, and we are as yet still in its devolutionary stage … from fascist totalitarianism to corporate liberalism on state-oriented terms, it is small wonder that global music reflects this regression in the overhauling, by and large, of Jazz by Rock and of the pre-eminence of the latter type of music to the contemporary global scene, a type of music which is more electronic than its global precursor but arguably of a lower overall calibre in its less noumenal and altogether more phenomenal presentation as a music biased towards, though not exclusively committed to, harmonic and melodic as opposed, with Jazz, to rhythmic and pitchful impulses.  Yet Rock could no more turn its back on rhythm and pitch and still remain credibly global than Jazz reject the more phenomenal elements, largely stemming from the West, of harmony and melody.  Neither would either music be quite as global without the benefit of electronic means – a factor applying no less to Modern Jazz than to Hard Rock or Rock ‘n’ Roll generally.  But if Rock is still at the cutting edge of contemporary global music, then that must indicate, whether we give it a folksy or a classical interpretation, depending, I guess, on the type of Rock music (something equally applicable to Jazz), that global music has yet to attain, on the heads side of the metaphorical coin, as it were, of global civilization, to a progression from Rock to Jazz in a kind of reverse order of its devolutionary regression that would signify an evolutionary advancement from pluralistic to monistic criteria, commensurate with a progression from liberalism to totalitarianism within a framework that was strictly global and probably Social Theocratic, meaning of a church-oriented character that revolved around societies founded in religious sovereignty as opposed to political sovereignty that could be expected, little by little, to encourage a gradual centro-complixification of society in line with evolutionary progress.  Then it would be a kind of progression, in reverse order, from Rock to Jazz that we would witness, as things climbed from the phenomenal towards the noumenal, from a bias, within a more comprehensive framework, towards harmony and melody to one favouring rhythm and pitch, albeit in both cases with a markedly centripetal rather than centrifugal disposition that contrasted each with whatever existed – and still exists – on the devolutionary side of the global divide as a manifestation, totalitarian or liberal, jazzy or rocking, of a centrifugal urge commensurate with particle-based and externalized criteria.  The coming forms of Rock and Jazz, some of which arguably already exist in a somewhat peripheral or informal capacity, will signify a switch to wavicle-centred and internalized criteria such that can only properly emerge in a stage of civilization, in this case global, committed, through religion, to inner values of an egoistic and, more importantly, psychoistic, or soulful, character.  Therefore we may anticipate a switch from manually performed instruments that require to be plucked or banged or blown or tapped or whatever to increasingly autonomous or synthetic instruments which will produce sound on a much more consistently subjective and interiorized string-like basis, whether on a pluralistic (New Rock) or a monistic (New Jazz) basis, with a corresponding advance from harmony and melody towards rhythm and pitch within a context which, being global, necessarily combines all elements to greater or lesser degrees, and this whether the type of global music in question be of a folk or a classical character within parameters broadly though not exclusively determined by ideological epoch.  For no less than Rock can be folksy or classical, without being equivalent to Folk music or Classical music, so, too, can Jazz show folksy or classical leanings without being in any way identifiable with Eastern or Western folk and classical traditions.  Probably this underlying dichotomy between folksy and classical tendencies in either type of global music simply reflects a more basic gender distinction between male and female such that is always to be found in society at one level or another, and which will probably continue to exist as global civilization switches, at some future time, from a devolutionary to an evolutionary stage of its advance, attaining to a classless/anti-upperclass dichotomy, in metaphysics and antimetachemistry, between folksy and classical, or anticlassical (Romantic), approaches to the reborn development of Jazz as it gradually supersedes its Rock counterpart in the evolution of global music from phenomenal to noumenal, corporeal to ethereal subjectivity in line with the centro-complexifying advance of religious values generally.  Hence the ultimate type of global music may well combine rhythm with pitchful or, more correctly, anti-pitchful ingredients to a degree which transcends anything we have heard before, and do so in completely the reverse fashion of how Jazz has hitherto been composed and performed, with a commitment, that is, to time and antispace as opposed, like its totalitarian antithesis, to space and antitime, the alpha and anti-omega beginnings of global civilization which has yet to be totally eclipsed, so to speak, by its omega and anti-alpha endings such that, far from literally ending, will signify an eternal culmination of values commensurate with Eternity.

 

UNDERSTANDING HOMOSEXUALITY.  If there is a distinction between so-called ‘assholes’ and ‘bums’ it must surely lie in the fact that the one is perceived as the nadir of subjective phenomenality and the other somewhat cynically disparaged as the zenith of subjective noumenality.  For if we make such a distinction it soon becomes evident that there are two different axes at stake here with correspondingly different points of the axial compass, an extreme south-eastern point on the one hand and an extreme north-eastern point on the other hand, both of which would more or less accord with sensibility.  To be an ‘asshole’ or, in English slang, ‘arsehole’ is in some sense to be beneath the pale of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate relativity in what transpires to being a state-absolutist position commensurate with social democratic totalitarianism.  It is to be neither parliamentary nor puritan, just nor pseudo-righteous, but effectively communistic in the extent to which one has parted company with such relativity in favour of a justice absolutism – always more antichemical than physical – which has the effect of eclipsing pseudo-righteousness and effectively subsuming the male position, corresponding to physics, into the female one in quasi-just vein, thereby transforming knowledge-centred polemic from a pseudo-transcendental position (humanistic) in relation to church-subordinate pseudo-righteousness to a quasi-antirealist position in relation to state-absolutist justice, making of it an apologist for such class partisanship as affirms the sole rights, in social democracy, of proletarian humanism at the expense of its bourgeois, or liberal, counterpart.  Hence an ‘asshole’ is in a very real sense someone who has forfeited even pseudo-righteousness to quasi-justice and now acts and thinks pretty much on the female level of absolute antirealism, in which bound soma takes absolute precedence over free psyche and everything revolves around the state.  But is this not commensurate with homosexuality of one kind or another – male or female – and therefore with the nadir of sexual phenomenality, of post-church-subordinate state absolutism which has the effect of making even males behave like females to the extent that they are prepared to regard other males in a homosexually somatic light, not as brothers in free psychic partnership but as quasi-sisters in somatic binding?  Therefore with the last bastion of state/church relativity swept away, these sexual degenerates behave like women or, more correctly, antiwomen, the antichemical corollary of what would have been a physical hegemony of men over antiwomen, masculinity over antifemininity, had not state-absolutist criteria, whether formally or informally, ensued at the expense of men.  Consequently it would not be an exaggeration to say that homosexuals are effectively sexual communists and that homosexuality is the sexuality of an extreme, or totalitarian, form of social democracy which reduces everything, men included, to the overly mundane parameters of somatic binding, a binding which cannot but strain at its own leash in the interests of somatic freedom.  But the irony is that such freedom can never be granted except to the ruling few of a communistic state-absolutist situation for fear of a general outbreak of evil and crime in neo-metachemical terms, the very terms which would be commensurate with a nazi-like revolt against Bolshevistic criteria and therefore with a fellow female-dominated opposition, based in absolute vanity at the expense of pseudo-meekness, to everything absolutely just, including, be it not forgotten, homosexuality itself.  Therefore the people – and males not least - of such a radical social-democratic nadir are trapped in a sexually totalitarian dead-end from which there is no escape except via a return to state/church relativity and the comparative liberality of heterosexual intercourse.  They may not be absolutely vicious, like the jerks of an absolutely vain disposition who, determined to keep their banners aloft, would goosestep them into the mud, but their virtue, affiliated to bound soma, is far from stable in relation to state-hegemonic criteria that acknowledges, even if it doesn’t always defer to, church-subordinate criteria and to the possibility of a pseudo-righteous ‘independence’ of justice.  For stripped of pseudo-righteousness, their quasi-justice will always be straining, on the back of a free tradition, towards somatic freedom and hence the utmost phenomenal vice, of which buggery is the epitome, if only as an expressly phenomenal mode of masturbation that still requires to be differentiated from its noumenal and, in some sense, more openly vicious counterpart.  Yet state-absolutist criteria degenerating off a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate tradition or axis are still quite distinct from anything appertaining to a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial tradition, and if the apex of this is often cynically disparaged, not least from the contrary axial standpoint, in respect of ‘bums’, it should not be forgotten that such ‘bums’ are a far cry from the ‘assholes’ or arseholes’ of phenomenal degeneracy, being, if anything, closer to ‘snogging’ than to ‘sodding’ and therefore of a category that transcends the cruder aspects of phenomenal degeneration from a standpoint oriented towards noumenal criteria of an intensely subjective order, of which chaste kissing between males may occasionally be an expression, if arguably of a no-less homosexual character than its phenomenal counterpart, albeit one conditioned by male hegemonic criteria and therefore far removed from anything crudely reductionist in overly somatic vein.  However that may be, it is extremely unlikely that such godly males would regard themselves as ‘bums’, and one feels, in spite of the requirement of a comprehensive assessment of the various points of the axial compass even in regard to slang or denigratory expressions, that metaphysical types are anything but ‘bums’ in the more vulgar or derelict sense, being the closest of all males to a godly disposition.  Neither, of course, are they ‘assholes’, for the noumenal can never be reduced to the phenomenal but must always be differentiated from anything corporeal in light of its ethereal status, whether in metachemistry or, across the axial divide, in metaphysics, the northeast point in question of the axial compass.  Only physical/antichemical types degenerate towards homosexuality of an overly phenomenal character, and they are less to be pitied than despised for their want of psychic fidelity, the dark seeds of which were sown even in what could be called the masturbatory heterosexuality of contraception-utilizing liberality.

 

THEORY OF SARTORIAL POLARITY.  People tend to distinguish, rather simplistically, between trousers, or pants, and skirts on the one hand and, well, let us say suits, or zippersuits, and dresses on the other hand.  That is, they distinguish on a kind of polar basis between skirts and trousers or dresses and suits, which is all very well.  But I believe it is rather more complicated than that, not least in respect of the phenomenal distinction, germane to corporeal relativity, between pants and skirts and, by contrast, the noumenal distinction, germane to ethereal absolutism, between suits, especially zippersuits, and dresses.  For it should not have escaped one’s attention that there is a kind of class distinction between pants and skirts vis-à-vis suits and dresses, both of which categories would logically lend themselves to our axial compass (see preceding entries) in which the noumenal and the phenomenal constitute polarities on either a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate basis or a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate basis, depending on the axis.  Therefore if, in relation to these axes, we distinguish between, say, space and antitime at the northwest point of the compass in question and, equally, between mass and antivolume at its southeast point where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria are concerned, it behoves us to likewise distinguish between, say, dresses and antisuits in the one case and pants and antiskirts in the other case, this being in effect a distinction between noumenal sensuality and phenomenal sensibility where the hegemonic factors (space/dresses and mass/pants) are concerned and, conversely, between what could be called noumenal antisensibility and noumenal antisensuality where the subordinate factors (antitime/antisuits and antivolume/antiskirts) are concerned, so that we could be distinguishing, in effect, between flouncy dresses and flared suits (antisuits) on the one hand and, conversely, between tapering pants and tapering skirts (antiskirts) on the other hand.  Likewise, if in relation to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria we distinguish between, say, volume and antimass at the southwest point of the axial compass and, equally, between time and antispace at its northeast point, it behoves us to likewise distinguish between, say, skirts and antipants in the one case and suits and antidresses in the other case, this being in effect a distinction between phenomenal sensuality and noumenal sensibility where the hegemonic factors (volume/skirts and time/suits) are concerned and, conversely, between what could be called phenomenal antisensibility and noumenal antisensuality where the subordinate factors (antimass/antipants and antispace/antidresses) are concerned, so that we could, in effect, be distinguishing between flouncy skirts and flared pants (antipants) on the one hand and, conversely, between tapering suits, or zippersuits, and tapering dresses (antidresses) on the other hand.  Therefore far from a simple distinction between, say, pants and skirts or, up above, suits and dresses, we find that, with state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial considerations, an unequivocally hegemonic dress in noumenal sensuality will correlatively justify an unequivocally subordinate antisuit in noumenal antisensibility, as between metachemical and antimetaphysical factors respectively commensurate with space and antitime, whereas equivocally hegemonic pants, or trousers/jeans, in phenomenal sensibility will correlatively justify an equivocally subordinate antiskirt in phenomenal antisensuality, as between physical and antichemical factors respectively commensurate with mass and antivolume.  Similarly, where church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria are at stake, we shall find that an equivocally hegemonic skirt in phenomenal sensuality will correlatively justify equivocally subordinate antipants in phenomenal antisensuality, as between chemical and antiphysical factors respectively commensurate with volume and antimass, whereas an unequivocally hegemonic suit in noumenal sensibility will correlatively justify an unequivocally subordinate antidress in noumenal antisensuality, as between metaphysical and antimetachemical factors respectively commensurate with time and antispace.  Therefore while flared suits, or boilersuits and/or zippersuits, are the type of the antisuit par excellence under the type of the dress par excellence, which is a flouncy affair, tapering skirts are the type of the antiskirt par excellence under the type of pants, or trousers and/or jeans, par excellence, which is a tapering affair.  Likewise while flared pants, or trousers and/or jeans, are the type of the antipants par excellence under the type of the skirt par excellence, which is a flouncy affair, tapering dresses are the type of the antidress par excellence under the type of the suit par excellence, which is a tapering affair.  Doubtless we can and should distinguish between straight with turn-ups and straight without turn-ups in pants and suits, as though between an intermediate realm moderately sensual in the one case and moderately sensible in the other case, as well, no doubt, as between straight with slit and/or pleats and straight without slit and/or pleats in skirts and dresses, with similar moderate sensual and sensible implications that would further complicate the above theories in respect of intermediate criteria coming in between flouncy and tapering antitheses.  But, that said, such straight alternatives would still qualify for estimation as either dresses/antisuits and pants/antiskirts on the one axial hand or, conversely, as skirts/antipants and suits/antidresses on the other axial hand, if to a proportionately less extreme degree.  Which would be typical of liberal criteria in between more radically sensual and sensible, outer and inner alternatives, just as relativistic suits, with jacket and trousers, are much less radical than zippersuits or even boilersuits from a properly noumenal, and therefore absolutist, point of view.  Could it be, I wonder, that the future will witness an increase in the use of tapering zippersuits or perhaps even velcrosuits in relation to tapering dresses as the most appropriate attire for the northeast point of the axial compass, the point commensurate, after all, with godliness and antidevilishness, according to gender, and hence with a distinction, elementally speaking, between metaphysical and antimetachemical criteria?

 

RE-EXAMINING PHILISTINISM AND CULTURE IN RELATION TO BARBARITY AND CIVILITY.  I have said it before and I shall say it again: philistinism is the precondition, for the redeemed phenomenally sensual, of culture, even though there are those who, as noumenally sensible, properly – and eternally – appertain to culture and are not, exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, to be thought of in terms of their co-gender antithesis.  But if one is avowedly philistine one is not, by definition, natural … in the sense of overly heathen or uncatholic by nature … and therefore one stands, as a self-confessed sinner, at a Christian remove from those who would indulge their naturalistic appetites without shame in consequence of a heathenistic disposition from want of axial interrelativity.  One also stands axially apart from those who, antimetaphysically subordinate to the noumenally sensual, are no better than pseudo-philistine in their state-hegemonic/church-subordinate want of genuine sinfulness under duress of a somatic emphasis in pseudo-folly, just as, from the opposite class standpoint, the cultural stand axially apart from those who, physically hegemonic over the phenomenally antisensual, are no more than pseudo-cultural in their parliamentary/puritan want of genuine grace by dint of a somatic emphasis upon pseudo-wisdom, their pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace subordinate, in secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vein, to the just, whose antichemical dispositions, as antiwomen, are polar to the metachemical freedoms (of soma) which keep them at a civilized disadvantage to the barbarous ‘privileges’ of their upper-class co-gender antithesis, not least in respect of state-hegemonic materialism.  No, if the philistine must be axially distinguished from the pseudo-philistine and the cultured from the pseudo-cultured, then so too must each of these be distinguished from their female counterparts, whether as pseudo-barbarous from pseudo-civil on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms or, across the axial divide, as barbarous from civil on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, and both alike from the naturalistic want of philistinism, whether genuine or pseudo, that typifies an absence of culture as an antithetical co-gender position to a philistine precondition (although in practice the cultural must precede the philistine for the philistine to arise out of nature).  For when philistinism is absent there is only naturalism, and such naturalism is the fruit of heathenistic licence, which is rooted in barbarism and the rule of barbarism, whether chemically pseudo or metachemically genuine, over both antiphysical and antimetaphysical male positions.  Verily, nothing short of male hegemonies in sensibility can transmute naturalism into philistinism and permit of salvation to culture, obliging barbarism to transmute, via philistinism, towards barbarity as the 'constitutional' precondition of civility, the female counterpart to culture, whether, according to axis, in genuine or pseudo terms.  For while the male church-hegemonic/state-subordinate will be saved from philistinism to culture and their female counterparts counter-damned from pseudo-barbarity to pseudo-civility, the male state-hegemonic/church-subordinate will only be counter-saved from pseudo-philistinism to pseudo-culture if their female counterparts are first damned from barbarity to civility, an eventuality unlikely to transpire to any significant extent if those in the former categories have not been sufficiently saved and counter-damned from their bound-psychic anti-omegaworldly sins and alphaworldly pseudo-crimes, not to mention correlatively free-somatic follies and pseudo-evils, to no longer provide a livelihood to those in the latter categories who would avail of their respective shortcomings to enhance their own freely somatic evil and pseudo-foolish, not to mention correlatively bound-psychic criminal and pseudo-sinful, dispositions, and do so, moreover, with the connivance, if not financial backing, of their good and pseudo-wise, if not punishing and pseudo-graceful, antitheses within the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, the latter of whom already exist at a civil and pseudo-cultural remove from all that is not damned or counter-saved in relation to themselves.

 

FOOTBALL’S VIOLENT TRADITIONS.  In England, in particular, there has long been a tradition of football violence and hooliganism which some might associate with yobbish behaviour generally and others with team tribalism and yet others with social deprivation and a symptom of overcrowding generally.  Doubtless these and other factors played and, to a lesser extent, still play a part in the perpetuation of this peculiar situation, but there were reasons enough, particularly in the late 1960s and 1970s, why football should be blighted with inter-tribal violence between supporters of opposing teams, the absence of seating on the terraces being a contributory feature if only because it permitted greater freedom of movement, paradoxically, within already crowded areas of bi-partisan support, enabling supporters of opposing teams to taunt one another and even clash or hurl objects in the general direction of the other team’s fans.  These days seating throughout grounds greatly reduces the chances of anything like that happening, though supporters can still clash – as they did before – outside the ground or in a variety of locations to and from the ground.  But, whatever the exact circumstances of this blight on English football, you have to remember that the game itself is English and therefore of a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial character which stands in an antithetical relationship to rugby, pretty much, I contend, as parliamentarianism/Puritanism to Monarchism/Anglicanism on a phenomenal-to-noumenal basis that would translate, in my overall philosophical paradigm, as southeast and northwest intercardinal points of the axis in question.  Therefore there was always, within association football, a liberal-humanist dimension that was vulnerable, particularly before the collapse of the Soviet Union and of communism in Eastern Europe, i.e. not least in the late ‘sixties through to the late ‘eighties, to proletarian humanist overtones and even aspirations of a character, commensurate with working-class allegiances, that would have led to a marked social-democratic bias in certain of the fans and perhaps in the perception of certain teams, especially those which played in red, and conversely of a nazi-type reaction to any such ‘bolshevistic’ orientation which, whether especially to be associated with teams that played in blue or not, would have been sufficient pretext, even if other factors hadn’t come into play, for crowd animosities and even outright violence between large gangs of opposing supporters whose perception of the opposition support would have fallen into either extreme left- or right-wing categories, depending on both team colour and league status, not to mention geopolitical traditions and presumptions.  Therefore much of this soccer violence, though partly susceptible to what happened on the field of play, would have stemmed from a bi-polar antagonism between extreme-left and extreme-right state-absolutist factionalism within a game which, then as now, was essentially liberal in character, if at the time with stronger democratic-socialist overtones.  It was not this so much as the perception of social-democratic radicalism in relation to the more pervasive existence, at that time, of Communism that played no small part, I believe, in igniting the fires of animosity which spread throughout English and, indeed, British football as the nazi-style reaction to this perceived aspiration on the part of certain fans and/or teams took its weekly toll on the game of football and effectively brought it into social disrepute, making the terms ‘hooliganism’ and ‘violence’ more or less synonymous with football to the detriment of the average, non-radical supporter.  Things have substantially changed since those dark days, thank goodness, and that is due, in no small part, to the dramatic changes in politics generally which have made social-democratic aspirations a thing of the past and accordingly invalidated the justification for any extreme-right-wing backlash to what was always, even within the axis in question, a flawed and deeply misguided predilection.

 

OF PEDIMENTS AND DOMES.  I have never been too keen on rectilinear pediments in the classical style, partly I suspect because of their association with autocracy. Yet until comparatively recently I did not bother to distinguish between squares within circles and circles within squares, so to speak, but tended to make a simple antithesis, more or less on an alpha/omega basis, between rectilinear pediments and domes; squares, if you will, and circles.  What I had still to learn, though the development of my philosophy duly rectified the situation, was that one needed to distinguish between rectilinear pediments independently of domes and those which could be, as it were, framed within the overall circumference of a dome, so that one had a fairly clear-cut distinction between autocracy, with or without a roundel within the pediment, and theocracy, with or without an accompanying pediment.  Hence, on a broader basis, one would have a distinction between autocracy and what I call antitheocracy where the rectilinear pediment with enclosed roundel was concerned and, across the axial divide, between theocracy and anti-autocracy where the curvilinear dome with enclosed or proximate pediment was concerned, the former approximating to metachemistry over antimetaphysics and the latter, by contrast, to metaphysics over antimetachemistry.  Although a clear-cut autocratic/theocratic distinction between rectilinear pediments and curvilinear domes could be found, it was usually the case that some degree of antitheocratic or, depending on the context, anti-autocratic feature would also play a part in the overall composition of such architectural complexes, and that this was not something to decry but, rather, to accept and even admire for its gender relativity or realism, using the word in the sense of acceptance of a variety of correlative factors which happen to constitute the overall nature of reality at any specific intercardinal point of the axial compass.  Hence one could no more dismiss autocracy because it embraced a subordinate antitheocracy in the form of the roundel within the pediment than dismiss theocracy because it embraced a subordinate anti-autocracy in the form of some minor pedimental ingredient that, in the past, one might have supposed to be autocratic in its rectilinearity.  The distinction between circles in squares and squares in circles, so to speak, was no arbitrary or haphazard matter but of the nature of the two antitheses, where some degree of justice had to be done to each gender irrespective of which gender was hegemonic and which subordinate.  Obviously, I would still, on comparative terms, prefer the antimetachemical subordination to metaphysics to its autocratic converse, but I could not reasonably expect metaphysics to stand completely independently of an antimetachemical factor and simply make a distinction between curvilinear domes as metaphysical and rectilinear pediments as metachemical, as though between theocratic and autocratic antitheses.  One had to take the overall composition into consideration, and if, in the case of preponderantly theocratic entities like certain great cathedrals, one found a degree of rectilinearity in respect of a subordinate pediment, that was no argument against the style or, indeed, the reality of things at the northeast point of the axial compass but, rather, the way they are and should, with due variations proportionate to cultural insight and development, remain.  There is no simple alpha/omega dichotomy.  Rather, alpha stands no less over what can be called anti-omega than omega over anti-alpha in the overall noumenal, or ethereal, distinctions between space and antitime at the northwest point of the axial compass and time and antispace at its northeast point, the former pairing commensurate with autocracy and antitheocracy, the latter, by contrast, with theocracy and anti-autocracy, which is equivalent, after all, to a distinction between classless and anti-upperclass criteria relative to a context in which, with metaphysics hegemonic over antimetachemistry, god gets the better of the antidevil, as the Celestial City of Anti-Vanity Fair, rather than to a context in which, with metachemistry hegemonic over antimetaphysics, the devil gets the better of antigod, as Vanity Fair of Anti-Celestial City, on the basis of an autocratic/antitheocratic distinction between upper-class and anti-classless criteria – the worst of all possible noumenal worlds.

 

CONCERNING EDUCATED FEMALES.  One thing for sure about education in relation to females is that it does not turn them into males or in any way make them second-class male citizens.  On the contrary, an educated female is simply a female who can intellectually express the female side of life more articulately and methodically than would otherwise be the case, rounding on male values with a vengeance as she preaches, effectively if not literally from a realistic and/or materialistic point of view, in favour of female freedoms and the abandonment of any kind of deference to the male sex.  But of course the only upshot of all this somatically liberated realism and/or materialism, coupled, be it not forgotten, to a degree of bound-psychic nonconformism and/or fundamentalism, is a world in which somatic freedoms are taken for granted, along with their bound-psychic corollaries, and psychic freedom is if not castigated as a legacy of male chauvinism, then conveniently or perhaps even inadvertently overlooked as a social irrelevance.  An educated female is usually someone who paradoxically works on behalf of female freedoms through the intellectual medium of her gender adversary, using words not to liberate from the flesh but to advocate and enslave to the flesh in as many ways as are compatible with one or another kind of somatic freedom.  Females do not, even when highly educated, struggle on behalf of the intellect or the soul but, on the contrary, in the name of the will and/or the spirit, which they use, as ever, to dominate males in the interests, more usually, of reproduction.  A liberated female will rarely be liberated from herself as a female, whether feminine or diabolic, chemical or metachemical.  On the contrary, she will be liberated from male domination and that sensibility which requires that females defer either from an antirealist/antinonconformist antichemical standpoint to the physicality of naturalism/humanism or from an antifundamentalist/antimaterialist metachemical standpoint to the metaphysicality of transcendentalism/idealism, depending on the axis and the corresponding emphasis upon either bound soma or free psyche.  Unfortunately, domination of the one gender by the other is not the exception but the rule of life and therefore if males aren’t sensibly engaged in dominating females from hegemonic vantage-points in physics over antichemistry or metaphysics over antimetachemistry, according to axis, females will be sensually engaged in dominating males from hegemonic vantage-points in chemistry over antiphysics or metachemistry over antimetaphysics, again according to axis and with all the inevitable vengeance of a more openly heathenistic disposition.  Such is the nature of life, which requires the domination of the weaker by the stronger whether the stronger happens to be objectively somatic, as in the female case, or subjectively psychic, as in the male case, and one has two opposite if not opposing systems of domination – state-hegemonic/church-subordinate female and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate male, with all the axial differentiation already described in my writings between northwest and southeast points of the one axis and southwest and northeast points of the other on both male and female terms.  Thus the metachemical-to-antichemical polarity of primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate values is coupled to the antimetaphysical-to-physical polarity of secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vales on the one axis and, conversely, the metaphysical-to-antiphysical polarity of primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate values is coupled to the antimetachemical-to-chemical polarity of secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate values on the other axis, the axis which, far from exemplifying overall female dominion, is indicative of the psychic bias of male dominion, the only dominion commensurate with the possibility of church-hegemonic salvation for males from antiphysical bound psyche (antihumanism) to metaphysical free psyche (transcendentalism) and of church-hegemonic counter-damnation for females from chemical bound psyche (nonconformism) to antimetachemical free psyche (antifundamentalism), as well, correlatively, as with the possibility of state-subordinate salvation for males from antiphysical free soma (antinaturalism) to metaphysical bound soma (idealism) and of state-subordinate counter-damnation for females from chemical free soma (realism) to antimetachemical bound soma (antimaterialism).  Such is the axis that will have to be overhauled from its Catholic and/or Buddhist, Western or Eastern past if it is to meet the challenges of modernity and stretch into an eternal future of global universality, a future in which there will be no liberated females but only males liberated from female dominion and able to lead godly lives in relation to metaphysics and its hegemonic transcendentalist/idealist control of antimetachemistry and, hence, of antifundamentalist/antimaterialist antidevility.

 

FREE WILL VERSES FREE SOUL.  When we contrast the two types of strength (in general terms) that are both gender  and moral opposites, metachemical and/or chemical free soma vis-à-vis metaphysical and/or physical free psyche, it soon becomes necessary to ask ourselves: which of the two is the strongest, that is, which tends to have most sway, traditionally or even contemporaneously, over life?  And the answer to that question must be: the female-based metachemical and/or chemical orders of freedom which have hitherto ruled the roost and, exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, generally continue so to do from the standpoints of will and/or spirit.  For when we look more closely into the distinctions between metachemistry and metaphysics, or devil and god, and also between chemistry and physics, or woman and man, we find that the female elements, corresponding to fire and water, are primary in their vacuous objectivity and the male elements, corresponding to vegetation (earth) and air, merely secondary in their plenumous subjectivity.  Verily, fire and water precede vegetation and air, as metachemical and chemical free soma in will and spirit precede physical and metaphysical free psyche in ego and soul.  That which is godly, or metaphysical, is not first but last in the overall chain of devolutionary and/or evolutionary events, even though, as metaphysical psyche, it precedes its metaphysically somatic counterpart, as, in metaphorical terms, father precedes son.  But on the female side of life mother precedes daughter, metachemical soma its psychic counterpart, and therefore before there is any prospect of grace in free soul there is a hellish amount of evil in free will, the free will, more specifically, of metachemical soma and thus of Devil the Mother (hyped as God).  Frankly free psyche is no match, in nature, for free soma, and God, in any genuine sense, is anything but the Almighty that the arrogation of divine attributes to what is fundamentally diabolic would tend to suggest.  On the contrary, godliness is as far removed from anything all-powerful, in metachemical free will, as it is possible for anything or, better, anyone to be, and therefore something or someone that only comes to pass by turning away from the rule of somatic freedom and shutting itself off, as far as possible, from the sway of evil and its criminal accomplice of metachemical bound psyche, pretty much as the exception to the general rule.  At least this has always been the monk-like case up till now; though we are living in an age, fortunately, which, thanks to synthetic artificiality in a variety of contexts, not least urban, is gradually turning the tables on all forms of naturalism and slowly but surely gaining the upper hand over nature, including, not least, its cosmic progenitor.  Therefore the prospects for free psyche having its way at the expense of free soma, of metaphysics at the expense of metachemistry, have never been brighter, even though metaphysics, like its physical lesser brother, corresponds to a secondary element in the overall spectrum of elements stretching from fire and water to vegetation and air.  This, however, is not something that need penalize it in an age which can turn things around from metachemical and/or chemical domination to physical and/or metaphysical liberation from such a naturalistic dominion, and precisely through the utilization of synthetically artificial means commensurate with one degree or another of civilization.  Even at the mankind stage of evolution (which after all succeeds both the cosmic and natural stages of devolution … from fire to water) physical liberation from chemical domination tends to be the salient aspect of the gender struggle, not least in respect of a certain puritanical opposition to anything catholic.  But that is, of course, to oversimplify, and we now live in a time which, superficially universal and therefore cyborgistic, demands a higher and altogether post-worldly, not to say post-Western, pattern of liberation, namely that of metaphysics from any outstanding metachemistry, whether traditional or contemporary, in order that godliness may get the better of devilishness, of any and all forms of Devil the Mother (hyped as God), in the interests of what properly appertains to God the Father, and the masses of those countries which are overwhelmingly antiphysical/chemical in their catholic antecedents be brought to salvation and counter-damnation in terms of metaphysical and antimetachemical deliverance from their specific types of worldly plight, whether phenomenally alpha or anti-omega, a plight that leaves them at the mercy of every kind of metachemical and antimetaphysical imposition from the noumenal alpha and anti-omega heights of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria as the last manifestations of free will and bound soul play themselves out to a devilish and antigodly tune which is really no music at all but a kind of barbarous and pseudo-philistine noise in which vanity and pseudo-meekness take centre stage.  The power is still there, that cannot be denied, but the time has come for that which pertains to contentment to sing its free psychic song as the expense of all manifestations of somatic freedom that would keep the world chained to evil/crime and pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin whether the world is as described above or, across the axial divide, simply that which, omega worldly in its physicality and anti-alpha worldly in its antichemistry, is financially in partnership with its metachemical/antimetaphysical axial poles in a Faust-like pact between antiwoman and the Devil and man and Antigod to the detriment not only of woman and antiman but, from a truly moral standpoint, God and the Antidevil, neither of which will be in a position to save and counter-damn from the anti-omega and alpha manifestations of worldliness until the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in question has been substantially overhauled and - given the extents to which its base is now quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate under external pressures - effectively resurrected in relation to what expectation would regard as ‘Kingdom Come’ but which I have all along associated with Social Theocracy and its promise of religious sovereignty in the event of a paradoxical utilization, in certain countries (not least Eire), of the democratic process to a profoundly theocratic end, an end in which, with a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, God the Father and the Son of God will be metaphysically hegemonic over Antidevil the Antimother and the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and, by extrapolation, Heaven the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit of Heaven hegemonic over Antihell the Unclear Spirit and the Unclear Soul of Antihell for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity in a classless/anti-upperclass partnership, at the northeast point of the axial compass, between the Celestial City of true godliness and the Anti-Vanity Fair of beautiful antidevilishness.  Verily it is for those who are chemically and/or antiphysically aloof from physics and antichemistry but victims of metachemical and antimetaphysical impositions to accept such a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process in due course and be delivered from their respective types of worldly shortcomings to the otherworldly and anti-netherworldly heights of a metaphysical and antimetachemical elevation which, according to gender, will be both salvation and counter-damnation, psychic liberation and somatic counter-enslavement, for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity.

 

RE-DEFINING THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT.  We have established an axial compass which stretches from northwest to southeast on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms and from southwest to northeast on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, thereby supporting the thesis of two separate and indeed opposite types of society, no less incompatible, in fact, than Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, or the UK and Eire.  At each point of the inter-axial compass we have paired hegemonic positions with their upended gender subordinate complements, whether as metachemistry with antimetaphysics at the northwest point or as physics with antichemistry at the southeast point, or, across the axial divide, as chemistry with antiphysics at the southwest point or as metaphysics with antimetachemistry at the northeast point.  We have also maintained that antithetical links tend to be formed between the same gender polarities, whether between metachemistry and antichemistry on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms or between antimetaphysics and physics on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms or, across the axial divide, between metaphysics and antiphysics on primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms or between antimetachemistry and chemistry on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.  These pairings have also been discussed, on such a polar basis, in relation to terms like upper class and anti-classless vis-à-vis anti-lower class and middle class where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria are concerned and, conversely, to such terms as classless and anti-upperclass vis-à-vis anti-middleclass and lower class in the context of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, as well as in relation to distinctions between, say, space and antitime vis-à-vis antivolume and mass or, conversely, time and antispace vis-à-vis antimass and volume.  We have even resorted, in Bunyanesque vein, to such terminological distinctions as Vanity Fair and Anti-Celestial City vis-à-vis Anti-Slough of Despond and Mr Worldly Wise or, from the contrary axial standpoint, Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair vis-à-vis Anti-Mr Worldly Wise and Slough of Despond.  One of my favourites was noumenal objectivity and noumenal anti-subjectivity vis-à-vis phenomenal anti-objectivity and phenomenal subjectivity on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity vis-à-vis phenomenal anti-subjectivity and phenomenal objectivity on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, where we had ascertained that the noumenal anti-subjective and phenomenal anti-subjective positions were contrary to noumenal subjectivity and phenomenal subjectivity respectively, while their anti-objective counterparts were contrary to noumenal objectivity if noumenal and to phenomenal objectivity if phenomenal, not to anything else.  In such fashion one could link autocracy and antitheocracy with antibureaucracy and democracy on the one (axial) hand, but theocracy and anti-autocracy with antidemocracy and bureaucracy on the other (axial) hand, thus establishing a polar antithesis between autocracy and antibureaucracy on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms and between antitheocracy and democracy on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, with a similar, if axially contrary, antithesis between theocracy and antidemocracy on primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms and between anti-autocracy and bureaucracy on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms.  So where does all this leave us with respect to such definitions as Left and Right, whether extreme (noumenal) or moderate (phenomenal), ethereal or corporeal?  It leaves us, I believe, with a fundamental dichotomy between sensuality and sensibility, left and right, female and male, objectivity and subjectivity, outer sanity and inner sanity, soma and psyche, since a definite distinction exists between a perception of the Left as sensual and in some sense anti-Christian and of the Right as sensible and if not Christian then of a disposition that favours religion and male-hegemonic values generally.  Hence if we follow our axial parameters and attach such distinctions to each of the polar pairings we shall find that, contrary to accepted wisdom or what convention may have led people to suppose, metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to noumenal and phenomenal modes of female hegemony, are of the left, if in objectively disparate ways, whereas metaphysics and physics, being respectively noumenal and phenomenal modes of male hegemony, are of the right, if in subjectively disparate ways.  For if metachemistry is autocratic upper-class and chemistry bureaucratic lower-class, then metachemistry is extreme left in its noumenal objectivity and chemistry merely moderate left in its phenomenal objectivity.  Conversely, if metaphysics is theocratic classless and physics democratic middle-class, then metaphysics is extreme right in its noumenal subjectivity and physics merely moderate right in its phenomenal subjectivity.  But, of course, nothing left or right, whether extreme or moderate, can exist without a subordinate gender complement, whether in sensuality (objectivity) or in sensibility (subjectivity), and therefore we have to address such a complement if each point of the axial compass is to be paired off with representatives of both gender positions and thus accord with axial relativity and indeed polar interdependence.  Therefore the male complement to the unequivocal female hegemony at the northwest point of the axial compass is of an extreme anti-rightwing disposition which is subordinate to extreme left-wing criteria (overlooking the hype of Devil the Mother as God and, hence, as Extreme Right), as antitheocracy to autocracy and anti-classlessness to upper classfulness, and this contrasts with the female complement to the equivocal male hegemony at the southeast point of the axial compass which is of a moderate anti-leftwing disposition subordinate to moderate right-wing criteria, as antibureaucracy to democracy and anti-lowerclassfulness to middleclassfulness.  Turning, on the other hand, from state-hegemonic/church-subordinate to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, we shall find that the female complement to the unequivocal male hegemony at the northeast point of the axial compass is of an extreme anti-leftwing disposition which is subordinate to extreme right-wing criteria (as properly germane to God the Father), as anti-autocracy to theocracy and anti-upperclassfulness to classlessness, and this contrasts with the male complement to the equivocal female hegemony at the southwest point of the axial compass which is of a moderate anti-rightwing disposition subordinate to moderate left-wing criteria, as antidemocracy to bureaucracy and anti-middleclassfulness to lowerclassfulness.  Hence a primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polar antithesis, female-wise, on the one axis between Extreme Left and moderate anti-left is juxtaposed with a secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polar antithesis, male-wise, between Extreme Anti-Right and moderate right, since that which is Extreme Left in the one case can only form a polar antithesis with moderate anti-left elements at the expense of the moderate right, its axial and gender hegemonic antithesis, while that which is Extreme Anti-Right in the other case can only form a polar antithesis with moderate right-wing elements in view of the irrelevance of the moderate anti-left to its gender position, whereas a primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polar antithesis, male-wise, on the other axis between Extreme Right and moderate anti-right is juxtaposed with a secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polar antithesis, female-wise, between Extreme Anti-Left and moderate left, since that which is Extreme Right in the one case can only form a polar antithesis with moderate anti-right elements at the expense of the moderate left, its axial and gender hegemonic antithesis, while that which is Extreme Anti-Left in the other case can only form a polar antithesis with moderate left-wing elements in view of the irrelevance of the moderate anti-right to its gender position.  Yet even here we have to distinguish between worldly and post-worldly forms of both left and right, whether moderate or extreme, corporeal or ethereal, since that which is genuine in a worldly age, namely the phenomenal points of the axial compass, will be pseudo in a post-worldly age (such as the present), whereas that which is pseudo in a worldly age, namely the noumenal points of the axial compass, will be genuine in a post-worldly age when, if not netherworldly and anti-otherworldly criteria (as arguably in the case of America), otherworldly and anti-netherworldly criteria will obtain, to the detriment of anything pseudo-noumenal and in the interests, certainly in the otherworldly/anti-netherworldly case, of the salvation and counter-damnation of the pseudo-worldly, with specific reference to its alpha and anti-omega, lower-class and anti-middleclass, manifestations, as properly germane to the southwest point of the axial compass.  Therefore we should really speak of the salvation of the pseudo-moderate anti-right by the Extreme Right and of the counter-damnation of the pseudo-moderate left by the Extreme Anti-Left … where the elevation of antiphysical to metaphysical and of chemical to antimetachemical elements are concerned, and contrast this with the possible damnation of the Extreme Left to the pseudo-moderate anti-left and of the counter-salvation of the Extreme Anti-Right to the pseudo-moderate right … where the collapse of metachemical to antichemical and of antimetaphysical to physical elements are concerned, in the event of a more genuine, and therefore properly extreme-right, order of theocracy coming to pass, in conjunction with a subordinate order of anti-autocracy, at the northeast point of the axial compass in response to a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in countries, like Eire, with a catholic or, more correctly in this post-worldly age, lapsed Catholic majority, the pseudo-moderate standings of which portend the more genuine extremism of the noumenal heights to which they would, in the event of ‘democratic’ endorsement, be saved and/or counter-damned, as described in these and other writings pertaining to the development of ‘Kingdom Come’ in relation to Social Theocracy and the fuller evolution of the northeast point of the compass in question, the only logical outcome to which would be the downfall of its northwest point as those at the southwest point were delivered from the evil and pseudo-folly, crime and pseudo-sin, which typifies that extreme immoral and extreme anti-moral northwest point in respect of both metachemistry and antimetaphysics, the Extreme Left and the Extreme Anti-Right.  Only the triumph of the Extreme Right and the Extreme Anti-Left over the pseudo-moderate anti-right and the pseudo-moderate left will bring about the downfall of all that is of the Devil and Antigod, and precisely into the judgemental clutches of pseudo-antiwoman and pseudo-man, who can be expected to make it over in their own image in the interests of their own future entitlements to axial conversion and, following southwest point make-over in pseudo-womanly and pseudo-antimanly terms, due salvation and counter-damnation to God and the Antidevil, to an Eternity of Extreme Right righteousness and an Anti-Infinity of Extreme Anti-Left counter-justice, the pseudo-justice of that which, in antimetachemistry, is forever subordinate to the metaphysical righteousness of God in ‘Kingdom Come’.

 

WORLDLY AND POST-WORLDLY DISTINCTIONS.  The distinction between worldly and post-worldly ages or types of civilization indicates that the pseudo nature of the noumenal in relation to a genuine phenomenal counterpoint, irrespective of axis, in the one context has to be contrasted with the pseudo nature of the phenomenal in relation to a genuine noumenal counterpoint in the other context, so that whatever is phenomenal or noumenal will always be in a contrary nature, whether genuine or pseudo, to that which is its axial counterpoint and effective antithesis.  Hence the Christian traditions of the West would indicate that a pseudo order of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, whether or not such a distinction has been consciously or even practically upheld, has tended to co-exist with a genuine order of chemistry and antiphysics in relation to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, just as, across the axial divide, a pseudo order of metachemistry and antimetaphysics has found itself antithetically ranged against, and yet supportive of, a degree of genuine physics and antichemistry, placing the hegemonic factors, whether unequivocal in the noumenal or equivocal in the phenomenal, first in each case.  Now all this would seem to have transpired because in a worldly age or stage of civilization the phenomenal, corresponding to whatever is corporeal, takes precedence over the noumenal, its ethereal counterpoint, which is obliged to constitutionally accept the rights of the phenomenal positions to exist if not independently then on terms which reflect the reality or actuality of a worldly situation, a situation much more corporeal than ethereal and, in a limited sense, lower class than higher class.  But in a post-worldly age all this changes, as first new manifestations  of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria and then, hopefully, new manifestations of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria reverse the order of precedence, so that the phenomenal positions become comparatively pseudo in relation to a more genuine or, at any rate, elevated manifestation of the noumenal, such that would suggest that, far from chemistry and antiphysics being genuine vis-à-vis metaphysics and antimetachemistry of a pseudo order or, equally, physics and antichemistry being genuine vis-à-vis metachemistry and antimetaphysics of a pseudo order, it is the noumenal positions which then take precedence over anything phenomenal in the overall polarities established between corporeal and ethereal antitheses.  Therefore one should be entitled to contrast pseudo-physical and pseudo-antichemical positions with a more genuine order of metachemical and antimetaphysical positions on the one hand, and, at the risk of anticipating the future, pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical positions - a consequence in large part of metachemical and antimetaphysical license - with a more genuine order of metaphysical and antimetachemical positions on the other hand, even if, in practice, the former axial polarities achieve something approaching a genuine noumenal antithesis to the phenomenal more on the basis of an overlap with pre-worldly criteria than on strictly post-worldly terms, since, while they may exemplify something of the former, they are still strictly post-worldly and, hence, a departure, if on parallel alpha-oriented terms, from the kinds of genuine metachemistry and antimetaphysics characterizing, both traditionally and even to a lesser extent contemporaneously, pre-worldly civilization, which is generally more Eastern than Western in character, and hence of an alpha-oriented disposition which fights shy of worldly, including Christian, criteria.  Nevertheless, even when the paradox of countries like America has been taken into consideration, there is arguably more post-worldly and therefore pseudo-noumenal criteria than anything pre-worldly about them, which drives them into opposition, both culturally and politically, with the remnants, both domestically and globally, of pre-worldly civilization, such that by its very existence can only detract from the claims of universality which post-worldly civilization is in the process, both unconsciously and even consciously, of making, and ultimately making – paradoxical exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - in the interests, be it not forgotten, of a more genuine order of metaphysics and antimetachemistry such that not only requires a pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical counterpoint to itself but the rejection, by such a pseudo manifestation of the world, of anything still pertaining to a genuine order of metachemistry and antimetaphysics in order that metaphysics and antimetachemistry may emerge into full maturity from out the shadow of their pseudo counterparts and bring the struggle for global universality to its logical resolution in complete independence of anything that would hold it back not merely from a pre-worldly standpoint but, more inveterately, in relation to what could be called the primitive roots of pre-worldly civilization which, whether monist or pluralist, of an Edenic or a tribal nature, were enslaved to cosmic pantheism and thus to a sort of untempered devil worship which is the born enemy of everything godly.  Therefore if in the future a more genuine order of metaphysics and antimetachemistry does democratically come to pass, it will be because the people have rejected the cosmos-based obstacles to this maturation and elected to part company, once and for all, with all forms of Creatorism, whether savage, polytheistic, or monotheistic, such that keep religion tied to Devil the Mother at the expense of God the Father even when and as Devil the Mother is hyped as God and that which is really autocratic is given a theocratic veneer.  We may be living in a post-worldly age as far as the leading nations of the globe, including America, are concerned, but it has not yet passed from the last manifestation of Devil the Mother hyped as God, which wears a superficially cyborg, or camera-oriented, face and is effectively the least somatically free manifestation of metachemistry (superimposed, as it invariably is, upon older and freer manifestations of Devil the Mother in mankind, nature, and the cosmos), to the first truly free manifestation, in metaphysical psyche, of God the Father, the manifestation which is not merely least metaphysically free in relation to a metaphysical aspect of the cosmos like Jupiter or Saturn, nor less (compared to least) metaphysically free in relation to a metaphysical aspect of nature like winged seed-pods on various trees, nor even more (compared to most) psychically free in relation to a metaphysical aspect of mankind like lung-based meditation, but most metaphysically free in relation to a metaphysical aspect of cyborgkind like respirator-based support of life in a post-human stage of evolution which has made the support and sustain of the self, the brain stem and spinal cord, of cardinal importance in the evolution of life to a truly godly stage of self-realization in which synthetically artificial self-illuminations will constitute the apex of eternity for all that is metaphysical, requiring correlative not-self sacrifices for all that is antimetachemical and therefore of anti-infinity, the antidevilish complement to godly resolve.  Far from a society in which the female side of life is somatically free and males bound to it, such a projection of post-worldly civilization into a universally global future envisages a society in which the male side of life is psychically free and females are bound to it in terms of the degree of somatic modesty which sensible cyborgization, as the synthetically artificial somatic complement to psyche, can establish and maintain in and as the counter-just complement to righteousness, the counter-damnation to salvation, the anti-Vanity Fair to the Celestial City which, far from being anti-infinite, will signify the essence of eternity throughout ‘Kingdom Come’.   However, I should add that free psyche and bound soma cuts both ways, for metaphysics as well as for antimetachemistry, and that no more than we can speak of metaphysics solely in terms of free psyche can antimetachemistry be reduced to bound soma.  It is rather that, with male criteria to bear in mind, free psyche precedes bound soma in metaphysics, as God the Father precedes the Son of God, and should establish a situation, vis-à-vis antimetachemistry, its female complement, whereby bound soma will be the precondition of free psyche, as Antidevil the Antimother of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil or, in simpler language, as Beauty of the beautiful approach to Truth which will be the antidiabolic female complement to both the Truth of God the Father and the truthful approach to Beauty of the Son of God, but only because of a divine male imposition from ‘above’ … in metaphysics.  No Truth, no truthful approach to Beauty.  Such is the rule of metaphysics.  But no Beauty, still less beautiful approach to Truth, in antimetachemistry without the truthful approach to Beauty of the Son which stems from the Truth of the Father.  For genuine Beauty is an attribute of antimetachemical bound soma, which is a consequence of the truthful approach to Beauty of its metaphysical complement.  No truthful approach to Beauty, no genuine Beauty.  And no genuine Beauty, no beautiful approach to Truth which will be the (secondary) church-hegemonic complement to Truth and thus the completion of the virtuous circle that, at the northeast point of the axial compass, begins with Truth, with God the Father who is the father, or author, of the Son of God whose truthful approach to Beauty not only stems from the Truth but establishes, by its very presence, the antimetachemical existence and authenticity of Beauty in Antidevil the Antimother, without which no beautiful approach to Truth of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil is possible, and therefore no antidiabolic complement to the divinity who is at the roots of all metaphysical and antimetachemical virtue, being the first rather than second, third, or fourth manifestation of virtue at the northeast point of the axial compass, the only point at which godliness and antidevilishness exist, a point, be it not forgotten, which is both metaphysically universal and antimetachemically antipolyversal, since eternity requires the support of anti-infinity, as time of antispace, if it is to rule the roost in the interests of Truth and the attainment, more importantly, of heavenly joy, the raison d’être, after all, of everything godly.

 

GENUINE AND PSEUDO AXIAL ANTITHESES.  Having distinguished between genuine and pseudo modes of the noumenal and the phenomenal in the previous entry, not least in respect of the distinction between worldly and post-worldly ages, I should add that this is in no way identical to the more intrinsic distinctions between genuine and pseudo which exist on an axial basis between church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria and, conversely, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, where, irrespective of era, a fundamental distinction between genuine sin and grace in relation, somatically, to genuine folly and wisdom has to be distinguished from its pseudo counterpart within the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, just as, conversely, the fundamental distinction between genuine evil and good in relation, psychically, to genuine crime and punishment has to be distinguished from its pseudo counterpart within the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.  For what is true of the one axis is manifestly not true of the other.  In other words, what is genuine on the one axis will be pseudo on the other, the distinctions between genuine sin and genuine grace and pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace where church-hegemonic and church-subordinate axial criteria are respectively concerned being a case in point, as, to reverse the axial standpoint, are the distinctions between genuine evil and genuine good and pseudo-evil and pseudo-good in relation to state-hegemonic and state-subordinate axial criteria respectively, neither axis being compatible with the other because antithetical in virtually every respect.  Therefore much as we have to allow for worldly and post-worldly distinctions between the genuine and the pseudo, these still exist in conjunction with the rather more fundamental distinctions inhering to either axis which are simply a reflection, after all, of the dichotomy between a genuine church coupled to a pseudo state and a genuine state coupled to a pseudo church, whether in the phenomenal or in the noumenal.  But, of course, the positions of the respective axes are modified by epochal or historical factors, as described in some detail in several of the mature texts in Opera D’Oeuvre, my collected writings.  For instance, the establishment of pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical positions at the expense of traditional chemical and antiphysical positions at the southwest point of the axial compass is due in large part to the impositions, from the northwest point of the compass in question, of metachemical and antimetaphysical liberties of a somatic nature which ensure that what was formerly antiphysically sinful and foolish becomes, under antimetaphysical pressure, quasi-pseudo-sinful and quasi-pseudo-foolish, pseudo-sin and pseudo-folly typifying the antimetaphysical position in respect of bound psyche and free soma, while likewise ensuring that was what formerly chemically pseudo-criminal and pseudo-evil becomes, under metachemical pressure, quasi-criminal and quasi-evil or, in quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vein, quasi-evil and quasi-criminal, evil and crime typifying the metachemical position in respect of free soma and bound psyche.  Therefore while the genuine sensually phenomenal positions at the southwest point of the axial compass have effectively been overhauled and eclipsed by their post-worldly pseudo successors, they are still distinct from anything either pseudo-foolish and pseudo-sinful in antimetaphysics or genuinely evil and genuinely criminal in metachemistry, being simply the quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate transmutation of genuinely church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria which, ever distinct from metachemistry and antimetaphysics, will be merely quasi-evil and quasi-criminal in relation to pseudo-chemistry, and quasi-pseudo-foolish and quasi-pseudo-sinful in relation to pseudo-antiphysics.  Yet it is precisely in that paradoxical straining towards the northwest point of the axial compass that the transmuted southwest point, now more democratically and somatically free than ever before, finds itself in a pseudo-worldly situation which requires to be delivered from its paradoxical predicament via an equally paradoxical utilization of those very same democratic freedoms which are not germane to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria but a consequence, in large measure, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate cultural imperialism from without, in order that the people concerned may be returned, progressively, to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and be delivered, in terms of salvation (males) and counter-damnation (females), from those who now prey upon them in such unabashedly metachemical and antimetaphysical vein, twisting them from the path of righteousness and, for females, counter-justice to the pit of vanity and, for males, pseudo-meekness or, in other words, to all that is unjust and unrighteous.  Only the application, within countries like the Irish Republic, of one paradox to the existence of another, one that is flagrantly at variance with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, can return the peoples concerned to the path of righteousness and counter-justice.  But only in respect of the Social Theocratic overhaul of outmoded and ineffectual Catholic traditions, so that the ensuing modes of salvation and counter-damnation that could only be encouraged and developed within the new ideological and religious framework really will be able to deliver them from their secular enemies and keep them up in the grace and wisdom for males and pseudo-punishment and pseudo-good, or counter-punishment and counter-good, for females of the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair of our projected overhaul of anything pseudo-otherworldly and pseudo-netherworldly, anything that, in High Catholic vein, would have pandered to a more genuine worldly tradition and is now irrelevant to the lapsed Catholic pseudo-worldly urban majority and to their paradoxical predicament, the deliverance from which can only be achieved on a radically new – and more genuine – theocratic basis commensurate with Social Theocracy.  For only a majority mandate for religious sovereignty can deliver the peoples concerned from the limitations of political sovereignty and the sorts of democratic freedoms that render them vulnerable to secular imposition and exploitation.

 

COMPREHENSIVELY NON-HUMANISTIC.  I do not speak in terms of the ‘exploitation of man by man’, for that is too facile and symptomatic of the kind of humanistic reductionism that, at the southeast point of the axial compass, would substitute proletarian humanism for bourgeois humanism, social democracy for liberal democracy, Marxism for parliamentarianism, and duly reduce life to the pseudo-righteousness-excluding justice of state-absolutist communism.  I have nothing but contempt for that kind of terminological reductionism, which has nothing even state-hegemonic/church-subordinate, never mind church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, about it.  Rather, I am conscious of how, in the broader and taller opening-out of our understanding of life in relation to the full-gamut of intercardinal points on our axial compass, the northwest point, which is divisible between metachemistry and antimetaphysics, has nothing whatsoever to do with humanism, still less antihumanism, but simply with a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate dichotomy, conditioned by gender, between devilish materialism/fundamentalism (free soma/bound psyche) and antigodly anti-idealism/antitranscendentalism (free soma/bound psyche), neither of which are anything but respectively antithetical, on a like-gender basis, to antiwomanly antirealism/antinonconformism (bound soma/free psyche) and manly naturalism/humanism (bound soma/free psyche), whether on genuine or pseudo terms, as well as being predatorily detrimental to antimanly antihumanism/antinaturalism (bound psyche/free soma) and womanly nonconformism/realism (bound psyche/free soma), and precisely in terms of their quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate transmutation in relation to what then becomes, on a like gender-to-gender basis, a quasi-metachemical and quasi-antimetaphysical corruption of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate antiphysical/chemical gender dichotomy in terms of pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical idolatrous strainings towards the predatory impositions of the metachemical and antimetaphysical somatic liberties at the northwest point of the compass in question.  But that which is antimanly and womanly or, in quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate corruption, pseudo-womanly and pseudo-antimanly is nonetheless quite distinct from both devilish and antigodly libertarian impositions, as well as from its phenomenal counterparts of antiwomen and men or, in post-worldly terms, pseudo-antiwomen and pseudo-men, across the axial divide, irrespective of the presence or absence of Bolshevistic extrapolations thereof.  It is also quite distinct, be it not forgotten, from anything appertaining to the northeast point of the axial compass, whether in godly or antidevilish vein, and thus from all forms of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, whether in relation to transcendentalism/idealism (free psyche/bound soma) or, on the female side of the gender divide, to antifundamentalism/antimaterialism (free psyche/bound soma).  And, as quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate corruption of an antimanly and womanly alternative to other types of worldly existence, it cannot be saved, much less counter-damned, by what, in Catholic tradition, are pseudo manifestations of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, since they only suffice for the genuinely antiphysical and chemical worldly positions of, for instance, uncorrupted rural Catholics, not for their latter-day ‘corrupted’ and effectively pseudo-worldly urban counterparts and democratized successors, who are already a little higher at the southwest point of the axial compass than would be compatible with such rural traditions, and require, in their almost heliotropic straining towards its northeast point, to be delivered from their paradoxical predicament by an altogether superior order of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, an order stretching beyond the mankind limitations of both the Catholic West and the Buddhist East alike, and therefore not held back from its ‘coming out’, in the full realization of what it is, by dint not only of a more genuinely worldly position ‘below’ but, noumenally antithetical to itself, the constitutional or other manifestations of a much older and altogether more genuine mode of metachemistry and antimetaphysics which, rooted in the Old Testament and all that is of the northwest point of the axial compass, hold the traditional northeast point back from any radical ‘coming out’ such that, in a manner of speaking, would be commensurate with messianic intervention and, hence, a repudiation of everything metachemical and antimetaphysical, everything devilish and antigodly, that would otherwise continue, by its very existence, to constrain the northeast point of the compass in question to what has been described, principally in relation to Roman Catholicism, as pseudo manifestations of metaphysics and antimetachemistry.  Even Celtic Christianity would have been constrained, in such fashion, from even approaching anything like a Buddhist degree of metaphysical and/or antimetachemical psychic freedom and somatic binding, notwithstanding the fact that Buddhism itself remains, for all its alleged atheism in relation to cosmic ‘first movers’ of a stellar/solar nature, hamstrung by older traditions, including Hindu, more deeply rooted, polytheistically, in cosmic materialism/fundamentalism (metachemistry) and anti-idealism/antitranscendentalism (antimetaphysics).  No, this new and not merely more but most genuine mode of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, commensurate with its definitive manifestation, can only be advanced independently of all religious traditions, Eastern or Western, if it is to fulfil its global potential and assume true universality, and such a mode of transcendentalism/idealism (metaphysics) and antifundamentalism/antimaterialism (antimetachemistry) has always been associated, by me, with Social Theocracy and the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process in certain countries, not least those with a Catholic tradition like Eire, by a movement offering a religiously sovereign alternative to political sovereignty in the interests, in the event of a majority mandate for such an ultimate sovereignty, of deliverance of the peoples concerned from their worldly or, rather, pseudo-worldly predicament to that otherworldly and anti-netherworldly situation at the northeast point of the axial compass which will be commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’ and, hence, with the right to universally enhanced orders of metaphysics and antimetachemistry such that would not be possible without a repudiation, democratically, of all metachemical and antimetaphysical obstacles to that ‘coming out’ and, indeed, fuller development of all that is genuinely godly and antidevilish, a development which would be given every encouragement within the paradisiacal context of a religiously sovereign people.  For what was formerly pseudo-womanly and pseudo-antimanly would, in the event of a Social Theocratic church-hegemonic/state-subordinate transformation of society, become the pseudo-antimanly and pseudo-womanly preconditions of godliness and antidevilishness, thereby being delivered from all that, in metachemically devilish and antimetaphysically antigodly vein, would otherwise continue to prey upon them netherworld without evil/criminal end in the one case and anti-otherworld without pseudo-foolish/pseudo-sinful end in the other case.  It is time, surely, for those who would traditionally have related to sinful/foolish (antiphysical) and pseudo-criminal/pseudo-evil (chemical) worldly positions at the southwest point of the axial compass to be given the opportunity to turn away, in their lapsed Catholic dilemma, from all quasi-evil/quasi-criminal (quasi-metachemical) and quasi-pseudo-foolish/quasi-pseudo-sinful (quasi-antimetaphysical) corruptions at the hands of their metachemical and antimetaphysical exploiters and opt, via the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process, now less church-hegemonic/state-subordinate than quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate, for deliverance from both their own shortcomings and those who prey upon them to what, in the event of a Social Theocratic revolution, would be the radically overhauled northeast point of the axial compass wherein the blessed righteousness of genuine grace/wisdom (free psyche/bound soma) and, for females, the counter-cursed pseudo-justice (counter-justice) of pseudo-punishment/pseudo-goodness (free psyche/bound soma), will prevail for all eternity and anti-infinity, eventually bringing all that pertains to infinity and anti-eternity in metachemistry and antimetaphysics crashing down its own state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis into the worldly or, rather, pseudo-worldly justice and counter-righteousness (pseudo-righteousness) of those who are already germane to the southeast point of the axis in question but would no longer have any reason to finance the libertarian freedoms of their axial antitheses when such freedoms could no longer command an audience for want of any audience to speak of in respect of its removal, as prey to somatic licence, from its own pseudo-worldly predicament in the aforementioned pseudo-womanly and pseudo-antimanly terms, terms which salvation and counter-damnation would reverse in relation to the salvation of pseudo-antimen to God and of the counter-damnation of pseudo-women to the Antidevil, that the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair of ‘Kingdom Come’ could reign On High for ever more, blessed otherworldly freedom and counter-cursed anti-netherworldly binding without metaphysical or antimetachemical end.

 

OVERCOMING THE WORLD.  With Social Theocrats like us, for whom the world-affirmation of a Nietzsche is anathema, the world is decidedly something that should be overcome, but not in the sense that one is thinking, at least initially, about the world in general, which is both alpha and omega, sensual and sensible. On the contrary, only about the kind of worldliness appertaining to the southwest point of our axial compass, the type that has been identified with alpha worldliness or, rather, pseudo-alpha-worldliness in pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-anti-omega-worldliness in pseudo-antiphysics, the ‘pseudo’ being the contemporary ‘lapsed Catholic’ manifestations of sensual worldliness that owe much to freely somatic libertarian impositions from the northwest point of the compass in question, which has been identified, in previous entries, with metachemistry and antimetaphysics.  Thus the kind of ‘worldliness’ that has to be overcome from a divine, not to mention (for females) antidiabolic, standpoint is precisely that which is not, on any account, an ideal in itself, whether falsely or otherwise, but a sensual limitation which is subject to the sorts of predatory exploitations characteristic of metachemistry and antimetaphysics, not least in their contemporary, or synthetically artificial, guise.  Being pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical is not the same as being chemical and antiphysical in traditional alpha-worldly and anti-omega-worldly vein, since beyond any kind of worldly per se in terms of a degree of post-worldliness which is nevertheless distinct from anything supra-worldly, whether on netherworldly or anti-otherworldly terms.  The pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical manifestations of post-worldliness may be straining, in respectively quasi-metachemical and quasi-antimetaphysical vein, towards the metachemical and antimetaphysical impositions stemming from the northwest point of the axial compass, but they are neither supra-worldly on those terms nor, more importantly, supra-worldly in respect of otherworldly and anti-netherworldly criteria which, in the event of its coming to pass, would save and counter-damn them, according to gender, from their pseudo-chemical or, rather (with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria), pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical limitations to a more exalted metaphysics and antimetachemistry commensurate with the messianic overhauling of the northeast point of the axial compass in relation to ‘Kingdom Come’.  They are trapped in a kind of intermediate realm which is neither properly worldly, in traditional Catholic fashion, nor supra-worldly in terms of a new order of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, and therefore they remain the playthings of those who would prey upon them from metachemical and antimetaphysical heights, reducing them, for all their paradoxical straining at a pseudo-worldly leash, to a sort of idolatrous worship of whatever it is that the netherworldly and anti-otherworldly can synthetically create and commercially foist upon them.  Thus they have need of deliverance from this paradoxical situation, and in that sense they correspond to what, as pseudo-alpha-world and pseudo-anti-omega-world, should be overcome in the interests of elevation to such metaphysics and antimetachemistry as would stand in a noumenally antithetical relationship to their predatory exploiters and constitute their salvation (in the case of the pseudo-antiphysical) and counter-damnation (in the case of the pseudo-chemical) from the pseudo-anti-omega-world and pseudo-alpha-world to all that was genuinely otherworldly and anti-netherworldly in its sensibly supra-worldly removal from the world.  No, we do not make a point, in Nietzschean vein, of affirming the world, least of all in respect of that which is manifestly the victim of both its own sensual shortcomings and of the freely somatic liberties which reign down upon it from ‘above’, i.e. the northwest point of the axial compass, but conceive of the need of delivering such a manifestation of worldliness or, rather, pseudo-worldliness from itself in order that it may be delivered from those who would continue to exploit its limitations and grow famous and wealthy on its gullibility and moral helplessness.  In that respect we are categorically opposed to any ‘world affirmation’, particularly since it would more accord with the omega worldly or, increasingly in this day and age, pseudo-omega-worldly and pseudo-anti-alpha-worldly positions at the southeast point of the axial compass whose sensible disdain, both traditionally and contemporaneously, for anything phenomenally sensual across the axial divide keeps it in cahoots, more usually in respect of financing the somatic liberties of their axial counterparts, with all that is metachemically and antimetaphysically ranged against the possibility and, indeed, desirability of metaphysics and antimetachemistry from standpoints rooted to the northwest point of the axial compass.  Thus the reign of the world or, rather, of the sensible pseudo-worldly in this post-worldly and even alpha-supraworldly (netherworldly) and anti-omega-supraworldly (anti-otherworldly) age, is commensurate with the phenomenal reign of pseudo-man and pseudo-anti-woman in relation to the noumenal reign of devils and antigods (not to mention their ‘pseudo’ counterparts) at the expense not only of pseudo-women and pseudo-antimen across the phenomenal axial divide but, more shockingly, at the expense of genuine godliness and antidevilishness at the northeast point of the axial compass which is precisely the point that needs to resurrect itself and overhaul its traditional manifestations if those at the southwest point of the axis in question are to be more efficaciously saved and counter-damned from all that would hold them down and keep them enslaved to pseudo-anti-omega-worldly and pseudo-alpha-worldly criteria, sensual post-worldly limitation without exploitable and exploited end.  The pseudo-world that affirms itself, in relation to the (indirect) exploitation of those whose pseudo-worldly predicament across the axial divide is anything but desirable, is not our world but the world of those who have made peace with worldliness and, in so doing, signed a Faustian pact with the Devil and the Antigod (no matter how paradoxically and irrationally hyped as God and denigrated as the Devil) to exploit, in predatory fashion, the pseudo-alpha-worldly and pseudo-anti-omega-worldly for their mutual somatic benefit, the secular product, in large part, of schismatic heresy in axial terms.  We, who struggle on behalf of genuine godliness and (for females) antidevilishness, are not of this sensible world, and therefore our appeal is to its sensual victims whom we wish to deliver from the clutches of all who, in state-hegemonic/church-subordinate vein, would prey upon them, and deliver, more specifically, to the metaphysical and antimetachemical heights of the otherworldly and anti-netherworldly salvation and counter-damnation of God and the Antidevil at the overhauled northeast point of the axial compass.  And we firmly believe that this can be done and that it is commensurate with ‘world overcoming’ in the truest and religiously best sense, taking what is already pseudo-antimanly and pseudo-womanly and transforming it into the supra-human godliness and antidevilishness of what most accords with heavenly and antihellish criteria for all eternity and anti-infinity in the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair of ‘Kingdom Come’ which, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in certain countries entitled to counter one paradox – the paradox of quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate criteria – with another – the paradox of an election in which religious sovereignty was very much on the table in the interests of a progressive restoration of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria – would be commensurate with the messianic transformation of the northeast point of the axial compass in relation to metaphysics and antimetachemistry of a universally and anti-polyversally definitive order, beyond, in its synthetic artificiality,  both Western and Eastern shortfalls alike, and therefore truly reflective of the triumph of culture over counter-civility in global civilization.

 

REVALUATIONS AND TRANSVALUATIONS.  I have doubtless been guilty, from time to time, of confounding Nietzsche’s ‘revaluation of all values’ with a transvaluation of all values.  Yet, in point of fact, such terms are not synonymous but as distinct as, say, physics and metaphysics, or man and God, or knowledge and truth, or, in a certain literal sense, philosophy and theosophy.  For to revaluate is not to transvaluate in the sense that I turn things around from noumenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility, Devil the Mother to God the Father, renouncing all that would devaluate, but simply to counter the feminine tendency to evaluate from a masculine standpoint that would owe more to the earth, and hence earthiness, than to anything purgatorial, much less divine and/or diabolic.  With Nietzsche there is certainly much earthiness, much German continental land-mass physicality which fights shy of both wateriness and, up above, airiness, even as, in time-honoured earthy fashion, it defers to fire, not least in respect of the ‘beast-of-prey’ mentality which Nietzsche, glorying in all things upper class, fatalistically esteems, and esteems, be it not forgotten, if not at the expense of the earthy then most certainly of the watery and anti-earthy positions which I have identified, all along, with the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, thereby confirming what would have to be interpreted as a protestant (in Nietzsche’s case Lutheran) mentality and bias that fights shy of catholic norms.  Frankly, Nietzsche’s revaluations are not to be mistaken for anything divine and transcendentalist, since his superman is, for him, the ‘meaning of the earth’ [my italics], and such a ‘meaning’ has no bearing on ‘world overcoming’ in the sense of otherworldly faith in a godly transvaluation such that would save ‘the meek’, meaning principally anti-earthy males of a phenomenally anti-sensible (antiphysical) disposition, from their worldly plight to noumenal sensibility of an altogether transcendental departure from anything subject, in anti-earthly and (for females) purgatorial fashion, to the predations of those who reign, in metachemical fieriness and antimetaphysical anti-airiness, at the northwest point of the axial compass and make it their business to prey upon the aforesaid anti-earthy and purgatorial, antiphysical and chemical, positions in heathenistic defiance of anything moralistic in Catholic or, better, supra-Catholic terms.  It is well known that Nietzsche had no time for ‘world overcoming’ in that sense, and therefore his revaluations smack of the triumph not of God, nor even of God’s female partner, the Antidevil, but of man and, hence, of a certain earthy refusal to contemplate any heights which are not, in time-honoured protestant fashion, metachemically ranged against metaphysics in what I have all along described as Devil the Mother hyped as God.  Of course, Nietzsche is also famous or, depending on your point of view, infamous for the phrase ‘God is dead’.  But this phrase is literally a contradiction in terms, since what properly appertains to godliness can never die, being commensurate with eternal life even as such life evolves through successive life stages, as it were, from a least evolved level of psychic freedom in metaphysical cosmos to – in anticipation of the future - a most evolved level of psychic freedom in metaphysical cyborgkind via less (compared to least) and more (compared to most) evolved levels of psychic freedom in metaphysical nature and mankind, as described in several of my mature philosophical writings (See Opera D’Oeuvre).  The usual interpretation, almost invariably Protestant, of this paradoxical notion of the ‘death of God’, notwithstanding the death of Christ on the Cross, is with regard to ‘the Creator’, i.e. the so-called Father, who can be identified – and often is – with Jehovah, and hence with something Old Testament in character deemed responsible for all of Creation, including much of the cosmos itself.  But this interpretation normally leads to humanism and, hence, to the substitution of the reign of man for the reign, ostensibly, of God; though, unbeknownst to its rejecters, this alpha 'divinity', rooted, in noumenal sensuality, is not really God at all but Devil the Mother hyped as God.  Hence far from turning away from God, such deluded humanists have simply rejected Devil the Mother hyped as God without realizing it, with the unfortunate consequence, for them, that they take humanism for granted, never realizing that the rejection of Devil the Mother is anything but commensurate with the rejection of God the Father whom they refuse, in their blind humanism, to contemplate.  Besides, as Protestants of a puritanical cast, they are on the wrong axis to attempt any ‘God building’, any aspiration towards God or, better, response to a godly intervention approximating to the Second Coming which could result in a higher order of salvation (and counter-damnation for females) to anything Catholics have known in the past.  No Second Coming equivalent (and I use the term in a very approximate and provisional manner) could do anything for these blind humanists, whether liberal democratic or social democratic, the latter of course being the more radically atheistic offshoots of the former, but only for those whose axial orientation was approximately Catholic in its church-hegemonic/state-subordinate integrity, an integrity which, no matter how twisted and undermined by countervailing axial pressures, was still ethnically distinct from anything deriving, in contemporary secular fashion, from the various manifestations of schismatic heresy which have dominated the West for the past three-four centuries, and sometimes, as in the case of Eire, nationally distinct as well.  However that may be, Nietzsche was no friend of godly transvaluations, he did not, like myself, expose the so-called Creator for Devil the Mother hyped as God, nor indeed, for all his talk of the ‘death of God’, did he turn away from noumenal sensuality and reject the ‘beast-of-prey’ mentality which derives from metachemistry, since his commitment to humanism or, what he would have preferred to call, the triumph of man over God was provisional upon the self-overcoming of this man in favour of the Superman, and the Superman, as we now know, can be given rather unpleasant state-absolutist (not merely state-hegemonic) twists of either a Bolshevistic or, more usually, a Nazistic character, making it commensurate with the oppression, either directly or indirectly, not merely of man (out of whom it is expected to emerge) but of antiman and, via him, woman at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, neither of whom can be expected to attain to God and the Antidevil while those responsible for financing, despite their ostensible atheism, the Devil and Antigod continue so to do, even though the Devil is still officially identified with God (as Devil the Mother hyped as God) and the Antigod still officially identified with - and done down as - the Devil (as the Antison of Antigod).  Frankly the death of the possibility of God occurred a long time before Nietzsche for those who went on to become affiliated, as Protestants of one persuasion or another, with the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis; though for Catholics, no matter how lapsed under contemporary corrupting pressures, the possibility of godliness and, for females, antidevilishness once more prevails, if now on terms which, being Social Theocratic, require the democratic abandonment of Catholicism at some future time in order that a more efficacious order of salvation and counter-damnation may be developed and offered to them such that, unlike their Catholic traditions, really would be able to deliver them from their predatory enemies and, in the process, deliver such predators into the hands of those who, whether pseudo-manly (supermanly) or pseudo-antiwomanly (super-antiwomanly) are now financially hand-in-glove with them but who, in the event of their damnation and counter-salvation, would be obliged to ‘make them over’ in their own image as a precondition of their own subsequent entitlement to salvation and counter-damnation in the event of an axial transposition of the sort that would allow them to step into the places vacated by the pseudo-antimanly Saved and pseudo-womanly Counter-Damned, call them anti-supermanly or superwomanly, as you prefer, but always bearing in mind that what, under predatory pressures from the northwest point of the axial compass, is now a ‘new’ anti-earth and a ‘new’ purgatory portends that most genuine heaven and antihell which, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, will be the touchstone of ‘Kingdom Come’.

 

METAPHYSICS AND ANTIMETACHEMISTRY.  When we conceive of God and Heaven in relation to metaphysics, which is the only elemental context properly germane to God and Heaven (a male context I have all along identified with the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass and contend to be unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry, its female complement), it transpires that not only does one have God and Heaven in relation to the transcendentalism of metaphysical free psyche, God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul in terms of metaphysical ego and soul, but also God and Heaven in relation to the idealism of metaphysical bound soma, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven in terms of metaphysical antiwill (bound will) and antispirit (bound spirit), psyche taking precedence over soma in the elemental context in question, since psyche precedes and preponderates over soma as a male actuality and, in this case, as a metaphysical male actuality the ratio of which preponderance should be in the region of 3:1.  But, of course, not only is there metaphysical psyche and soma; there is also the soma and psyche of antimetachemistry, with the Antidevil and Antihell in relation to the antimaterialism of antimetachemical bound soma, Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit in terms of antimetachemical antiwill (bound will) and antispirit (bound spirit), and the Antidevil and Antihell in relation to the antifundamentalism of antimetachemical free psyche, the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and the Unclear Soul of Antihell in terms of antimetachemical ego and soul, neither of which would be capable of deferring, in secondary church-hegemonic vein, to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul without the secondary state-subordinate precondition of Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit having been established in consequence of the subjective influence of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven directly stemming, in primary state-subordinate vein, from the church-hegemonic primacy of God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul.  For the deference of what may be called the beautiful approach to Truth (the Antidaughter of the Antidevil) and the loving approach to Joy (the Unclear Soul of Antihell) to what properly appertains, in God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, to Truth and Joy would not transpire were Antidevil the Antimother not constrained to Beauty and Antihell the Unclear Spirit not constrained to Love via the truthful approach to Beauty of the Son of God and the joyful approach to Love of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, both of which, being idealistically metaphysical, directly stem from the Truth of God the Father and the Joy of Heaven the Holy Soul, the prime movers in metaphysics and the basis of the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry which constitutes the order of the northeast point of the axial compass as that in which God is triumphant over the Antidevil as the Celestial City over Anti-Vanity Fair or as metaphysical classlessness over antimetachemical anti-upperclassfulness or as Eternity (repetitive time) over Anti-Infinity (spaced space, or antispace).  Therefore God and Heaven, though primarily of metaphysical transcendentalism, are also to be thought of in relation to metaphysical idealism, albeit as the state-subordinate corollary of a church-hegemonic – and therefore strictly religious – precedence which is properly of God and Heaven.  Likewise, if conversely, the Antidevil and Antihell, though primarily of antimetachemical antimaterialism, are also to be thought of in relation to antimetachemical antifundamentalism, albeit as the church-hegemonic corollary of a state-subordinate – and therefore strictly political – precedence which is properly of the Antidevil and Antihell.  For whereas psyche precedes and preponderates over soma as male actuality, whether absolutely (3:1) as above or relatively (2½:1½) in relation to physics (and hence to man per se), the converse situation of soma preceding and predominating over psyche happens to coincide with female actuality, whether on the 2½:1½ ratio of chemistry or, indeed, on the 3:1 basis of metachemistry, something that doesn’t cease to obtain under male pressures in sensibility, even though, paradoxically, such pressures, germane to the opposite gender actuality, will result, contrary to chemical or metachemical norms based in sensuality, in bound soma and free psyche, whether with an emphasis upon the former (antichemistry) or upon the latter (antimetachemistry), as determined by the overall axial situation (as described by me in several of my mature philosophical texts, not least those included in Opera D’Oeuvre).  However that may be, that which is metaphysical will ever differ from the antimetachemical (as, indeed, the physical from the antichemical) in terms of this fundamental gender differentiation which no amount of male pressure can substantially modify or undo, though confound and undermine it most certainly can, especially in the metaphysical context which, being unequivocally hegemonic, does not have to compete, like physics, with an unequivocal metachemical hegemony over antimetaphysics back up its state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which has the effect, in linking the two female elemental positions (metachemistry to antichemistry), of subverting the equivocal hegemony of physics to a bound somatic emphasis, despite the overall male conditioning of the female position in antichemistry to free psyche and bound soma, and all because the free soma of metachemistry is able to determine the terms of primary state-hegemonic criteria on the basis of an antithesis between metachemical free soma and antichemical bound soma.  But if physics must accept such a paradoxical twist of emphasis under female hegemonic (metachemical) and subversive (antichemical) pressures such that preclude genuine righteousness (or complete male gender sync with its underlying actuality) for the males so twisted from what might otherwise be a psychic emphasis, no such fate characterizes the unequivocally hegemonic metaphysical, and therefore far from a pseudo-righteous (counter-righteous)/just dichotomy between the genders one will find a righteous/pseudo-just (counter-just) dichotomy germane to the northeast point of the axial compass in what must be regarded, in overall axial terms, as a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate orientation traditionally more characteristic, in the West, of Catholic nations than of their Protestant (and state-hegemonic/church-subordinate) counterparts, irrespective of how imperfect the Catholic approximation to anything metaphysical and antimetachemical is compared not only to the Buddhist East but, even more so, to any definitive working out of such a dichotomy in something approaching properly universal terms with the coming of global civilization in ‘Kingdom Come’.  But either way, whether Catholic West or Buddhist East, holiness is only possible, for metaphysical males, in relation to the correlative existence, institutionally upheld, of unclearness for the antimetachemical, as the female of the species is confounded and somatically undermined in the interests of psychic freedom.  You do not have holiness without unclearness, whether on genuine (metaphysical) or pseudo (physical) terms, and you can take it as axiomatic that the existence of genuine holiness in metaphysics will require the correlative co-existence of pseudo-unclearness (counter-unclearness) in antimetachemistry, whereas the existence of pseudo-holiness (counter-holiness) in physics will be in consequence of the correlative co-existence of genuine unclearness in antichemistry, the latter of which is no counter-damnation (up the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) but the product of damnation (down the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis), damnation, one might say, from free to bound soma in primary state-hegemonic terms and from bound to free psyche in primary church-subordinate terms.

 

GOD AND HEAVEN.  As I believe I have mentioned before, God and Heaven not only exclusively appertain to metaphysics, with particular reference, in transcendentalism, to metaphysical free psyche, but can be said to evolve, depending on the evolutionary context, from least evolved, or psychically free, in cosmic metaphysics to most evolved – to anticipate the future – in cyborg metaphysics via less (compared to least) evolved in natural metaphysics and more (compared to most) evolved in mankind metaphysics, as though from planets like Saturn in cosmic metaphysics  to some synthetically artificial mode of cyborg metaphysics in the coming ‘kingdom’ via winged seed-pods on tall trees in natural metaphysics, or the metaphysical aspect of nature, and verbal absolution for penitential contrition (Catholic West) and/or transcendental meditation (Buddhist East) in mankind metaphysics, all of which would be of a noumenally sensible order of evolution that contrasted with anything noumenally sensual and, hence, devolutionarily metachemical, never mind phenomenally sensual or sensible in devolutionary chemistry and evolutionary physics, the devolutionary elements of course being somatic and hence female, their evolutionary counterparts psychic and hence male.  I say nothing, however, of the upended gender positions in relation to each of these four principal elemental positions, which would of course complicate the overall picture in terms of an antimetachemical corollary of metaphysics, an antimetaphysical corollary of metachemistry, an antiphysical corollary of chemistry, and an antichemical corollary of physics.  But let us confine ourselves, for the moment, to metaphysics, the elemental context of God and Heaven, which is solely male in its transcendentalist basis in free psyche and idealist requirement of bound soma in the state-subordinate offshoots of a church-hegemonic primacy, whether in respect of the bound will (antiwill) of the Son of God or the bound spirit (antispirit) of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, neither of which, however, are properly germane to God and Heaven in terms of the free ego of God the Father and the free soul of Heaven the Holy Soul.  But if God and Heaven can be said, in overall contextual terms, to evolve from least psychically free in one metaphysical context (cosmic) to most psychically free in another metaphysical context (cyborg) via less (compared to least) and more (compared to most) psychically free in the intermediate metaphysical contexts of nature and mankind, then it should also be said that the relationship or, rather, ratio of ego to soul in relation to God and Heaven changes proportionately and with an emphasis, moreover, upon soul irrespective of the metaphysical context, whether in terms of most God and least Heaven with the least evolved manifestation of free metaphysical psyche (cosmic), of more (compared to most) God and less (compared to least) Heaven with the less (compared to least) evolved manifestation of free metaphysical psyche (natural), of less (compared to least) God and more (compared to most) Heaven with the more (compared to most) evolved manifestation of free metaphysical psyche (mankind), or of least God and most Heaven with the most evolved manifestation of free metaphysical psyche, which can only be the definitive manifestation still to come with the sensible cyborgization of life in ‘Kingdom Come’ in the event of the spread of global civilization in relation to the ‘overcoming of man(kind)’, to use a kind of Nietzschean expression, following majority mandates for religious sovereignty in countries that were ethnically and ideologically capable of furthering a genuinely godly (coupled, for females, to antidevilish) resolve in the interests of global universality and the full maturation of metaphysics.  For metaphysics will not have attained to its peak, its goal, until what, with mankind, is metaphysically less (compared to least) God and more (compared to most) Heaven becomes, with cyborgkind, least God and most Heaven, thereby evolving beyond the best that mankind has achieved in respect of transcendental meditation (Buddhist East) into what, the other side of secular modernity and of anything Eastern or Western, will be its definitive realization, a situation that cannot be achieved without recourse to the relevant synthetically artificial substances coupled to a correlative degree of cyborgization to render such substances viable long-term.  Thus if ultimate metaphysical godliness and heavenliness is to come to pass in terms of the most evolved manifestation of metaphysics, not only will it have to be at the expense of anything mankind may have achieved in the past, and then not universally, but at the expense of mankind itself, so that the ensuing cyborgization of life in relation to certain synthetically artificial substances  can be given due encouragement and take over from where metaphysics left off in both the West and the East, as well as counter all forms of secular modernity such that owe little or nothing to Catholicism or Buddhism but largely derive from Protestant preconditions in the West and Hindu if not Judaic preconditions in the East.  However that may be, metaphysics will not have attained to its goal and definitive manifestation until there is a situation, necessarily supra-human, in which there is least God and most Heaven, least brain-stem ego and most spinal-cord soul, a situation that can only materialize in relation to a progression from visionary experience of a synthetically artificial order to mystical or unitary experience of a synthetically artificial order, and thus over a protracted period of time within ‘Kingdom Come’, or the context of a religiously sovereign people, as though from a super-catholic phase centred in visionary experience to a super-puritan phase centred in unitary experience of a no-less synthetically artificial order, and all because one cannot legalize and make institutionally available, within the context of the Centre, the institutional framework, so to speak, of Social Theocracy, certain substances before  cyborgization is at a sufficiently advanced stage to permit their widespread and protracted use.  If we begin with substances of a visionary order it will not be because we disbelieve in unitary experience but because the capacity to handle that unitary experience at a suitably – for contemporary and especially future global civilization – synthetically artificial level over a protracted period of time and in meaningfully stimulating quantities will not be there until such time as cyborgization is sufficiently advanced as to permit of their use.  You cannot ‘jump the gun’, as it were, and allow for wholesale unitary experience of a synthetically artificial order, the order necessary to global civilization, before you have developed the cyborg capacity to handle such experience and render it relatively safe, safe, that is, for a supra-human godly creature who will be able to ingest it with absolute impunity because any not-self obstacles that may have stood in the way of self-realization of a more – indeed a most – complete order will have been systematically replaced by their synthetically artificial counterparts in what would amount to a sensible cyborgization of ‘human’ life, of those who, as pseudo-antimen and pseudo-women at the southwest point of the axial compass were entitled to godly and antidevilish deliverance from their respective pseudo-worldly predicaments to the most genuinely otherworldly and anti-netherworldly salvations and counter-damnations at the northeast point of the axial compass in what I have all along described as the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, the axis that alone has any reference to godliness and antidevilishness in contrast to any devilishness (hyped, in Old Testament fashion, as God) and antigodliness (‘done down’, in Old Testament fashion, as the Devil) at the northwest point of the axial compass or, indeed, in contrast to any manliness and antiwomanliness, whether traditionally genuine or contemporaneously pseudo, at the southeast point of the axial compass such that between them amount to a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate opposition to anything Catholic, whether genuine or ‘lapsed’, and thus to all forms of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate society.   No, if man is to be ‘overcome’, to use the Nietzschean expression, it will not simply be man in that physical, parliamentary/puritan sense which we have identified with the southeast part of the axial compass, least of all initially, but those who, as lapsed Catholics, are effectively pseudo-antimanly in their antiphysical distinctiveness, at the southwest point of the  compass in question, from anything physical, or phenomenally sensible, and who are accordingly in axial line for the possibility of genuine godliness ‘On High’ in the event – with female entitlement to antidevilishness for pseudo-women to also bear in mind - of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a paradoxical election conducted in countries with, like Eire, a Catholic majority resulting in the institutional establishment of ‘Kingdom Come’ as that in which the people had certain rights proportionate to their religious sovereignty, not least, for metaphysical males, the right to move beyond less God and more Heaven in Roman Catholicism to least God and most Heaven in Social Theocracy, coupled, for antimetachemical females, to a departure from less Antidevil and more Antihell in Roman Catholicism to least Antidevil and most Antihell in Social Theocracy, as the subordinate gender position was brought into line with the supremacy of metaphysics and accorded its own right to synthetically artificial substances in relation to what would become an antidiabolic approach to cyborgization, one upon which the emphasis, for all the rhetoric of a free-psychic order coming from above, i.e. the metaphysical hegemony, would have to be on binding soma in order to ensure that what actually takes precedence with females (soma preceding and predominating over psyche) is granted due emphasis, if on a necessarily restrictive basis that ensures that soma, once bound, will continue to facilitate a secondary – compared to metaphysical males – order of psychic freedom in the interests of harmony between the genders and the perpetuation, in consequence, of a virtuous circle of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria at the northeast point of the axial compass.  Therefore even females will have to be granted a new and higher deal in respect of the Antidevil and Antihell than anything they may have known in the Catholic past, one that is no less synthetically artificial than that appertaining, in godliness and heavenliness, to their male counterparts and therefore no less germane to global universality, if on an antimetachemical as opposed to a metaphysical basis and thus with reference to Anti-Vanity Fair rather than to the Celestial City which it would be the male prerogative to both establish and realize to the maximum of their – and the heavenly system’s – transcendental ability.  Only when, for them, least God and most Heaven becomes an established norm can it be said that the reign of man will have come to an end and the reign if not of God then of God-in-Heaven truly begun, a reign that, seemingly mimicking man, will begin with godliness and culminate in heavenliness as synthetic artificiality slowly progresses from brain-stem visionary to spinal-cord unitary orders of self-realization in conjunction with the gradual evolutionary progression, in global civilization, of centro-complexification.

 

SECULAR FREEDOM VIS-À-VIS RELIGIOUS CONFORMITY.  Open societies, by which I mean societies rooted in alpha materialism/fundamentalism (coupled, for the male gender, to anti-idealism/antitranscendentalism) but extending into worldly naturalism/humanism (coupled, for the female gender, to antirealism/antinonconformism) in democratic fashion, do not and cannot endorse the concept of religious coercion, or, to speak less bluntly, of religious conformity to the path of Truth (for males) and (notwithstanding the state-subordinate significance of Beauty) the beautiful approach to Truth (for females), and for the simple reason that they are irreligious if not antireligious and therefore in no position to encourage everyone – or as many people as possible – to toe-the-religious-line and conform to ecclesiastical requirement.  Such societies, while they might uphold erroneous and fundamentally false notions of God, whether in respect of Devil the Mother hyped as God at the state-hegemonic metachemical level of religious materialism (I say nothing of the Daughter of the Devil at the church-subordinate metachemical level of religious fundamentalism) or of the Son of Man hyped as God at the state-hegemonic physical level of religious naturalism (I say nothing of Man the Father at the church-subordinate physical level of religious humanism), are ethnically incapable – ethnic minorities notwithstanding – of upholding or advancing anything even approaching, in traditional Catholic fashion, a true concept of God such that is removed from anything axially state-hegemonic/church-subordinate in its relevance to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria.  Consequently they do not believe in any kind of institutional enforcement or, shall we say, encouragement of people to conform to ‘the will of God’ (though this is a problematic term that owes much to the conventionally false association of God, even by many Catholics, with Devil the Mother hyped as God in creatoresque Old Testament vein).  They believe, lacking any true sense of religion, in allowing people to decide for themselves and make up their own minds as to how much, if at all, they are willing to conform to religious precepts or, indeed, prefer to go against the whole grain of religion in blatantly secular, atheistic, scientific terms.  Of course, there are valid reasons, even in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate societies, why some people may want to do that, not least the difficulty of adhering to anything genuine godly when even the nearest approximation to Truth is manifestly false and somehow corrupted by criteria owing more, in Bible-punching fundamentalist vein, to what I would call state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, not least in respect of Devil the Mother hyped as God.  Still, no secular society, whether contemporary or decadent, protestant or catholic, will endorse widespread religious conformity or devotion at the expense of what it upholds as freedom, which includes the freedom to opt out of religious conventions and be as irreligious if not anti-religious as one likes.  At least such societies have a certain inherent honesty and paradoxical logic to them which is in keeping with their fundamentally secular if not exactly atheistic natures.  But a society that really was determined to establish and maintain a commitment to genuine godliness (coupled, for females, to antidevilishness) would have a duty, sooner or later, to encourage conformity to religious practices or norms, if only to safeguard the new order of religion against reaction and ensure that obsolete institutions, including those pertaining to religious traditions, were undermined and systematically removed from society.  In a society that does know what Truth is, any refusal to endorse it by reactionary or traditional powers would be subject to censure and judged contrary to the interests of the people, meaning, in that context, a religiously sovereign people who had rights in relation to their sovereignty, including the right to be protected from reactionary subversives and any kind of entrenched adherence to ungodly practices.  In that kind of society, which is essentially an ideal society, one would not be free to please oneself and do what one wanted irrespective of its moral nature.  The people, on the contrary, would be given every encouragement to do what was morally in their best interests and simultaneously be protected, as a corollary of this, from those who would thwart them from fully enjoying their religious rights by dint of continuing to adhere to some alternative principle, one either humanistic, naturalistic, or cosmic.  In such a society the development of religious freedom would entail the reduction if not elimination not only of political freedom but, no less significantly, of economic and scientific freedoms as well.  If God is to triumph, and hold sway over the Antidevil, which is antimetachemical female binding, woman, man, and the Devil must be defeated, since the noumenal reign of God over the Antidevil can only be achieved at the expense of the reign (phenomenally) of woman over antiman, and that in turn will have grave implications for both the noumenal reign of the Devil over Antigod and, subsequently, the reign (phenomenally) of man over antiwoman, neither of which latter types of reign has anything to do, in any case, with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria but, rather, with their converse.

 

A REVALUATION OF MERITOCRACY AND PLUTOCRACY.  I have long associated autocracy with aristocracy as metachemical free soma and bound psyche, associating, by contrast, anti-aristocracy with anti-autocracy as antimetachemical free psyche and bound soma.  Likewise I have long associated theocracy with technocracy as metaphysical free psyche and bound soma, while associating, by contrast, anti-technocracy with anti-theocracy as antimetaphysical free soma and bound psyche.  Thus autocracy and aristocracy would line up over anti-technocracy and anti-theocracy as metachemistry over antimetaphysics in free soma and bound psyche respectively.  Conversely, theocracy and technocracy would line up over anti-aristocracy and anti-autocracy as metaphysics over antimetachemistry in free psyche and bound soma respectively.  On the one hand, the upper-classfulness and anti-classlessness of the northwest point of the axial compass; on the other hand, the classlessness and anti-upper-classfulness of the northeast point of the axial compass.  Noumenal sensuality and noumenal anti-sensibility vis-à-vis noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality.  So much for the noumenal positions.  Turning now to their phenomenal counterparts, I had long associated bureaucracy with plutocracy as chemical free soma and bound psyche, associating, by contrast, anti-plutocracy with anti-bureaucracy as antichemical free psyche and bound soma.  Similarly, I had long associated meritocracy with democracy as physical free psyche and bound soma, while associating, by contrast, anti-democracy with anti-meritocracy as antiphysical free soma and bound psyche.  Thus bureaucracy and plutocracy would line up over anti-democracy and anti-meritocracy as chemistry over antiphysics in free soma and bound psyche respectively.  Conversely, meritocracy and democracy would line up over anti-plutocracy and anti-bureaucracy as physics over antichemistry in free psyche and bound soma respectively.  On the one hand, the lower-classfulness and anti-middle-classfulness of the southwest point of the axial compass; on the other hand, the middle-classfulness and anti-lower-classfulness of the southeast point of the axial compass.  Phenomenal sensuality and phenomenal anti-sensibility vis-à-vis phenomenal sensibility and phenomenal anti-sensuality.  So much for the phenomenal positions.  But even though I would still strongly argue in favour of the antiphysical subversion of chemistry to a bound-psychic emphasis at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry and, by axial contrast, of the antichemical subversion of physics to a bound-somatic emphasis at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, I do not now think in terms of the coupling of bureaucracy with plutocracy or, conversely, of anti-plutocracy with anti-bureaucracy but, rather, of the coupling of bureaucracy with meritocracy and, conversely, of anti-meritocracy with anti-bureaucracy.  Likewise, I have ceased to think in terms of the coupling of meritocracy with democracy and, conversely, of anti-democracy with anti-meritocracy, but, rather, in terms of the coupling of plutocracy with democracy and, conversely, of anti-democracy with anti-plutocracy.  Hence, to rephrase the phenomenal antitheses, bureaucracy and meritocracy would line up over anti-democracy and anti-plutocracy as chemistry over antiphysics in free soma and bound psyche respectively.  Conversely, plutocracy and democracy would line up over anti-meritocracy and anti-bureaucracy as physics over antichemistry in free psyche and bound soma respectively.  For it seems to me that there is a close association, in chemistry, between bureaucracy and meritocracy which contrasts, as feminine to masculine, with the equally close association, in physics, between plutocracy and democracy.  In religious/political terms it could be said that the meritocracy and bureaucracy of chemistry would contrast with the democracy and plutocracy of physics as feminine Catholicism, or the feminine (nonconformist/realist) aspects of Catholicism with masculine Puritanism, or the masculine (naturalist/humanist) aspects of Puritanism, bearing in mind the gender subversions in overall axial terms that conduce to bound-psychic emphasis (paradoxically) in the one case and to bound-somatic emphasis (no less paradoxically) in the other case.  However that may be, I am now as good as logically convinced that the hegemonic factors of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, whether unequivocally (noumenally) or equivocally (phenomenally) so, are theocracy/technocracy in the case of metaphysics and bureaucracy/meritocracy in the case of chemistry, theocracy linking, however, with anti-plutocracy and technocracy with anti-democracy to bring off the paradoxical psychic emphasis which characterizes primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in terms of the salvation of antiphysics to metaphysics, with the counter-damnation  (for females) of chemistry to antimetachemistry entailing the link of anti-aristocracy with meritocracy and of anti-autocracy with bureaucracy.  Likewise I am now as good as logically convinced that the hegemonic factors of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, whether unequivocally (noumenally) or equivocally (phenomenally) so, are autocracy/aristocracy in the case of metachemistry and plutocracy/democracy in the case of physics, autocracy linking, however, with anti-bureaucracy and aristocracy with anti-meritocracy to bring off the paradoxical somatic emphasis which characterizes primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in terms of the damnation of metachemistry to antichemistry, with the counter-salvation (for males) of antimetaphysics to physics entailing the link of anti-technocracy with democracy and of anti-theocracy with plutocracy.  In broad hegemonic axial terms, however, the former axis would seem to indicate a contrast, in positive terms, between bureaucratic politics and theocratic religion, whereas the latter axis, ever antithetical to it, would appear to indicate a contrast, positively, between autocratic science and plutocratic economics.  Hence my distinction, the other day, between economics and science in relation to the respective reigns of man (the civility of civilization) and the Devil (a Faustian pact with barbarity), but between politics and religion in relation to the respective reigns of woman (nature) and God (culture).  Woman is not, strictly speaking, a ‘breadwinner’ but, rather, one who bureaucratically distributes to each (in the family) according to their meritocratic needs.  That is less economic than political, for the plutocratic money-making, which hinges upon democratic rights, is traditionally the preserve of man.

 

A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  Although I believe I invented the concept of religious sovereignty as the ultimate form of peoples, or ‘mass’, sovereignty, I could not have done so without the benefit of having lived in a country with a long tradition of political freedom and, hence, democratic sovereignty behind it.  Certainly I am no democrat, in the usual essentially parliamentary/puritan sense, and have never felt myself to be other than an Irishman living in English exile.  But I am aware that, in the broader sense, religious freedom is a stage beyond political freedom, and that religious, or theocratic, freedom would be inconceivable without political freedom as its necessary precondition.  The one kind of freedom could be said to precede the other, since freedom from political tyranny is what makes democracy democratic, and if you are to be free from political tyranny there is always going to come a time when you have to be free from religious tyranny as well, not simply in the Protestant and especially Puritan sense of being free from Catholic or Anglican persecution, but, more generally, in terms of taking freedom to its logical conclusion, which is freedom from all forms of tyranny, including arguably the oldest form of tyranny as that which wears a religious mask.  But at bottom such religious tyranny is less theocratic than autocratic, and therefore less germane to God the Father conceived in metaphysical terms than to Devil the Mother hyped as God in relation, fundamentally, to metachemistry.  Even with the relative religious freedom that accompanies the relative, or worldly, political freedom of parliamentary democracy, namely the freedom of Puritanism to dissent from State religion, we do not have a situation in which Devil the Mother hyped as God has been both exposed and, finally, rejected … in favour of a truer, more genuine (compared to anything traditional) concept of and relationship with God the Father.  On the contrary, even Puritanism retains some links, no matter how much the more radical elements may deny it, with the Old Testament and, hence, with the Bible in general, which in England has come to be known as the King James Bible.  Such a Bible may be more Anglican than Puritan, but few Puritans would be so exclusively New Testament as to be bereft of any association with the Old Testament, even if their concept of the Bible would favour the New Testament, as in relation to the Gideon form of it.  Protestantism, neither in its Anglican nor Puritan manifestation, provides a mandate for the rejection of the Bible in toto, and therefore it remains affiliated with both the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God and the Christic extrapolation from this lie which finds its fulcrum in the New Testament.  Catholicism, too, despite its unique postulate of a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ which, particularly in Ireland, lends itself to axial criteria at variance with those of England and even of Great Britain and the UK in general, is also hamstrung by Biblical norms, both in relation to the Old Testament and the New Testament, and falls demonstrably short, in consequence, of the kind of religious freedom which would be commensurate with a more developed sense of metaphysics coupled, for females, to antimetachemistry at the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass.  It is both freer and less free than its Protestant counterparts, for while it may lay special claim to some degree of association with the northeast point of our axial compass which is completely alien to Protestantism, it is still tied to Old Testament criteria and in no position to affirm religious freedom independently of such criteria, including from the acceptance of Devil the Mother hyped as God which, in time-honoured paradoxical fashion, has passed muster for God the Father in the sense of loosely equating, within a Christian context (necessarily at variance with Judaism), with Jehovah as cosmic First Mover and effective Creator.  Even Puritans have more freedom to the extent that their relationship with the Bible would favour the New Testament at the expense of the Old, much as they would be affiliated with parliamentary democracy rather than with constitutional monarchy in the axial distinction between the Monarchic/Anglican northwest point of the compass and the Parliamentary/Puritan southeast point of the said compass, both of which antithetical positions, taken in the round, constitute the basis of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in Britain.  Therefore even with greater religious freedom than Anglicanism, Puritanism does not provide a template for religious freedom taken to its logical metaphysical conclusion, being, if anything, merely physical and antichemical in character.  There is freedom vis-à-vis Anglicanism, but such freedom parallels the political freedom of Parliament vis-à-vis the Monarchy which, in Britain, is of course constitutional and in no position, therefore, to preclude the relative kind of freedom which typifies the generality of the British people whether as parliamentarians or puritans, parliamentary democrats or democratic theocrats.  But, of course, many ordinary British are also Anglicans, even if not all Anglicans are Monarchist rather than Parliamentary.  Logically speaking, they should be, though the traditional class structure of British society also compels one to differentiate the Few from the Many largely on a Monarchist/Parliamentary and, correlatively, Anglican/Puritan basis, as between noumenal sensuality/noumenal anti-sensibility and phenomenal sensibility/phenomenal anti-sensuality, whether or not, in practice, many Anglicans ‘of the people’ would not, in their heart of hearts, be more pro-Monarchist than pro-parliamentary.  After all, the English Civil War was not exactly a struggle between the Few and the Many, though it can always be portrayed in such terms in the interests of logical expedience.  Many Anglicans would have fought for the King and Royals without being in any way of the Few themselves, and such has it always been.  Nowadays there may be Anglicans who play football and even Puritans who play Rugby, but one would hesitate to regard football as an Anglican game or rugby as puritan.  And yet, in general axial terms, a distinction nevertheless exists, in Britain, between rugby and football which parallels that between Monarchism/Anglicanism at the northwest point of the axial compass and Parliamentarianism/Puritanism at its southeast point, contrasting, as both points must, with anything church-hegemonic/state-subordinate in the Irish Catholic tradition, wherein we are conscious, British imperial influence notwithstanding, of a distinction between hurling and Gaelic football which is indicative not only of the axial and therefore cultural differences between Britain and Ireland (Eire) but of the greater religious freedom which Catholicism enjoys as religious freedom rather than simply, in the Puritan manner, as freedom from Anglican persecution or proscription.  Freedom from tyranny smacks much more of democracy, and hence of parliamentarianism/Puritanism, than of religious freedom per se, even if the degree of religious freedom enjoyed by Catholicism still leaves much to be desired from a genuinely metaphysical and, by extrapolation, antimetachemical standpoint such that would be more than just an Eastern, or Buddhist, alternative to Western religious limitations, but the full maturation of religious freedom within an ideological context, necessarily Social Theocratic in character, that was determined to advance religious freedom to a level commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’ as something genuinely universal and, hence, global.  For the next logical stage from a politically sovereign people, as in the Irish Republic, is a religiously sovereign people, and only a people who had some prior sense of religious freedom per se, no matter how imperfect such freedom may be, rather than merely of freedom from autocratic tyranny in both political and religious terms, could be expected to endorse it and to accept the paradoxical terms by means of which it could be brought to pass, terms that, being less democratic/plutocratic than anti-plutocratic/anti-democratic in the male case of antiphysical worldliness and less anti-bureaucratic/anti-meritocratic than meritocratic/bureaucratic in the female case of chemical worldliness presaged, with their pseudo-worldly transmutation under American-type pressures from the northwest point of the axial compass, that more genuine – indeed, that most genuine theocratic/technocratic and, for females, anti-aristocratic/anti-autocratic elevation which we have identified, in previous entries and, indeed, throughout my mature oeuvre (See Opera D’Oeuvre) with salvation and counter-damnation from anti-omega  and alpha pseudo-worldly positions to otherworldly and anti-netherworldly positions properly commensurate, in Social Theocracy, with ‘Kingdom Come’, and thus with the lead of Anti-Vanity Fair by the Celestial City in what must become the final stage of noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality with the triumph of metaphysical Eternity and antimetachemical Anti-Infinity.  But such a triumph could not come to pass without a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a paradoxical election, or series of elections, which only a people with a traditional sense of religious freedom, like the Irish, could be expected to endorse, and at the expense, needless to say, of provisional political freedoms within a country which was anything but democratic/plutocratic, never mind (in antichemical vein) anti-bureaucratic/anti-meritocratic, in the British manner, and therefore hardly inclined to exaggerate the significance of democracy as an end-in-itself.

 

FREEDOM FROM VIS-À-VIS FREEDOM FOR.  Freedom from religious and/or political tyranny, which is the freedom par excellence of Parliamentarianism/Puritanism, and hence in England of New-Testament-oriented Puritanism from the clutches of Old-Testament-oriented Anglicanism, is potentially a dangerous trend if a certain respect for what it is in revolt against does not continue, as in Britain, to prevail and to constrain, in some degree, the relative freedom from Monarchic/Anglican tyranny of the Parliamentarians/Puritans from turning into an absolute freedom from tyranny of those who would not merely oppose state-sponsored religious tyranny but oppose religion itself in the interests of (scientific) freedom from religion.  For it is just one more degenerative step from that which demands to be free from religious oppression at the hands of Monarchic/Anglican tyrants of an Old Testament persuasion to that which insists on being free from all religion, whether of the Old or the New Testaments, in the interests of a scientific license to take humanism one stage further down the road that leads to Bolshevism and to an atheistic denial even of Christ.  One can see, from a British perspective, just how important the retention, constitutionally, of Monarchism/Anglicanism was – and in some sense continues to be – in precluding the freedom from religious tyranny of Parliamentarianism/Puritanism from turning, as though by a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde transformation, into a freedom from religion per se, even without a significant number of extra-parliamentary unbelievers to contend with who, in the nature of these things, tend to be in the unofficial vanguard of atheistic degeneration and social democratic humanism.  But, of course, all that is by way of the fatality, potential or otherwise, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society and, hence, of an axial integrity stretching from the northwest to the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass that we have continuously used to illustrate the distinctions between, for instance, British and Irish society, the latter of which would traditionally have adhered to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in keeping with a phenomenal/noumenal antithesis between the southwest and northeast points of the said compass.  Doubtless that is still to some extent the case, else we would not have a dichotomy between, for instance, hurling and Gaelic football that axially contrasts with the British dichotomy between rugby and association football.  Consequently, in the Irish case, no such freedom from religious persecution or tyrannical overlordship ever presented itself as an indigenous predilection but, rather, in relation to the Protestant character of British imperialism, since adherence to Roman Catholicism guarantees, for the Irish, a degree of religious freedom per se, which accordingly has less to do with freedom from (tyranny) than freedom for self-realization through grace, albeit more in terms of verbal absolution for penitential contrition than in relation to the practice of transcendental meditation, or anything of the kind.  It is in a sense not the free from so much as the free for of Nietzschean paradox that characterizes the generality of Irish catholics, insofar as grace is vouchsafed to the confessee via a priest acting as intermediary between the penitent and the almost uniquely Catholic concept of a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ who is the sole embodiment of metaphysical transcendentalism or, at any rate, idealism, as germane to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.  To be sure, the so-called Father of a Christian extrapolation from Jehovah still exists, falsely, at the northwest point of the axial compass, as does the Old Testament, but rather more as an aside to the chief focal-point of religious devotion and faith than as a principal figurehead in Judaic-to-Anglican fashion, wherein not church-hegemonic but state-hegemonic and therefore church-subordinate criteria have long been the political and religious norms, to the detriment not only of Catholics, not least in England, but of those who, as Puritans, have chosen the path of freedom from religious tyranny or, rather, who had the path of freedom from axially mapped out for them by the nature of British society following the Reformation and the Anglican dethronement, schismatically, of Roman Catholicism, and were therefore not in a position to endorse the freedom for religious self-realization that requires, at the Christian level of mankind, adherence to the northeast point of the axial compass in what is, to repeat, a uniquely Catholic commitment to grace via penitential contrition with the intercession of a priest acting as a direct link between the confessee and the concept of a post-resurrectional Christ ‘On High’ who embodies all that is of metaphysics and therefore of the context of grace and wisdom, a provisional context pending the Second Coming and the return, in a manner of speaking, of Christ, or the messianic destiny, to the world in the interests of its final overcoming and redemptive resurrection to ‘Kingdom Come’ following what I have described as a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in countries, like Eire, which should still be capable, in their fundamentally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial integrity, of responding to the call for redemption in relation to the freedom for of self-realization, and this in spite of or, perhaps, because of the extent to which they have been turned from the path, the axial integrity, of Catholic tradition by newfangled pressures of a somatically free nature emanating from the northwest point of the axial compass and are now sufficiently quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate in relation to those pressures as to require the redemptive intervention of messianic criteria in order to bring them back into line with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria on a radically new basis that owes less to Catholic tradition than to Social Theocratic revolution and, hence, to the democratically-mandated institution of a new church and a new state which, as the Centre, will not be just another church or state, in puritan/parliamentary fashion, but a church to end all churches and a state to end all states, twin aspects of the Centre which I have hitherto described as Social Transcendentalist and Social Theocratic, and maintain to be commensurate with the requirements of ‘Kingdom Come’.

 

CONCERNING NOUMENAL SUBATOMIC WAVICLES AND PARTICLES.  Although I have described the evolution of metaphysics, and hence of God and Heaven, as proceeding from a context of most God and least Heaven in the Cosmos to one of least God and most Heaven in cyborg universality via more (compared to most) God and less (compared to least) Heaven in nature and less (compared to least) God and more (compared to most) Heaven in mankind, I would not be so foolish as to equate such a progression, unique to the metaphysical aspects of each of the aforementioned contexts, with a shift from most particles and least wavicles to most wavicles and least particles via intermediate ratios of particles to wavicles, and for the simple reason that I know from philosophical experience that elemental particles are not to be equated with God, even if, by contrast, elemental wavicles are most certainly to be equated with Heaven.  No, God, being germane to the Truth, and hence to a species of universal knowledge germane to metaphysical ego, can only be equated with molecular wavicles, since metaphysical ego and soul, the contexts of God and Heaven, are always wavicle-equivalents germane to the psyche and, hence, to transcendentalism.  For the particle, whether elemental or molecular, of the will or of the spirit, one must turn to soma, and in this instance to the metaphysical soma of bound will, or antiwill, and bound spirit, or antispirit, which have less to do with God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul in metaphysical transcendentalism than with the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven in metaphysical idealism, as though state-subordinate corollaries of a church-hegemonic lead.  Thus if, in metaphysics, we equate molecular wavicles with God the Father and elemental wavicles with Heaven the Holy Soul, we should be careful to associate elemental particles with the Son of God and molecular particles with the Holy Spirit of Heaven, thereby avoiding the error of making a simple particle/wavicle distinction between God and Heaven.  In truth, God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul prevail, as molecular and elemental wavicles, over the elemental and molecular particles of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, pretty much as Truth and Joy over the truthful approach to Beauty and the joyful approach to Love of that which, being somatically subordinate to a psychic lead, indirectly connects transcendentalism to antimaterialism via its own idealism in the interests of an antifundamentalist completion of the virtuous circle of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the latter of which manifests as the Beauty and Love of Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit on the plane of antimetachemical antimaterialism and as the beautiful approach to Truth and the loving approach to Joy of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and the Unclear Soul of Antihell on the plane of antimetachemical antifundamentalism, so that not only is there a connection – indeed, a direct connection - between metaphysical idealism and antimetachemical antimaterialism in primary and secondary state-subordinate terms but, more importantly, such a connection can be inferred to exist between antimetachemical antifundamentalism and metaphysical transcendentalism on secondary and primary church-hegemonic terms.  However, that has little to do with the fundamental distinction between molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles in relation to psyche, whether metaphysical (transcendentalist) or antimetachemical (antifundamentalist) and, by state-subordinate contrast, between elemental particles and molecular particles in relation to soma, whether metaphysical (idealist) or antimetachemical (antimaterialist).  Such subatomic distinctions, on the other hand, typify the disparity that properly exists between psyche and soma, wavicles and particles, whether in relation to elemental or to molecular subdivisions of each.  Now in the case of metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, I think we are alluding to a distinction, subatomically, between protons and photinos, conceiving of the former as properly metaphysical and of the latter as their antimetachemical, and therefore anti-photonic, counterparts in what is, after all, a distinction, at this point of the axial compass, between essence and anti-appearance, classless and anti-upperclass criteria germane to the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair.  If previously, many years ago, I made a simple distinction between the sensuality of ‘tons and the sensibility of ‘tinos, as in protons vis-à-vis protinos or photons vis-à-vis photinos, I have since come to re-evaluate my position in relation to the rather more complex interaction between the hegemonic and subordinate or, rather, subservient factors at any given point of the said axial compass, which strongly suggests to me that the hegemonic factor will always be a ‘ton, whether photon or proton at the noumenal planes of metachemical sensuality and metaphysical sensibility, and the subservient factor a ‘tino, whether protino or photino at the noumenal planes of antimetaphysical sensuality or, rather, anti-sensibility, and antimetachemical sensibility or, more correctly, anti-sensuality.  Thus we would come to the conclusion that the protino of antimetaphysics was an antiproton in its subservience to a metachemical hegemony favouring the photon, an antiproton that was both pseudo-protonic in respect of bound psyche and quasi-photonic in respect of free soma, neither of which would accord with what, in metaphysical sensibility, was properly protonic and therefore free to be true to its essence as a free psychic and bound somatic entity which required a subservient photino in antimetachemistry, an antiphoton that was both pseudo-photonic in respect of bound soma and quasi-protonic in respect of free psyche, neither of which would accord with what, in metachemical sensuality, was properly photonic and therefore free to be ‘true’ to its appearance as a free somatic and bound psychic entity which required, as noted above, a subservient protino in antimetaphysics.  Therefore whether at the northwest point of the axial compass in which metachemistry rules antimetaphysics, as upper-classfulness over anti-classlessness, or at the northeast point of the said compass in which metaphysics leads antimetachemistry, as classlessness over anti-upperclassfulness, we should logically conclude that the hegemonic factor is undivided and therefore either a  photon or a proton, negatively clear in noumenal sensuality or positively holy in noumenal sensibility, whereas the subservient factor is ever divided and consequently either a protino (divisible, antiprotonically, between pseudo-protonic and quasi-photonic proclivities) or a photino (divisible, antiphotonically, between pseudo-photonic and quasi-protonic proclivities), anti-positively unholy in noumenal anti-sensibility and quasi-negatively unholy in noumenal quasi-sensuality or anti-negatively unclear in noumenal anti-sensuality and quasi-positively unclear in noumenal quasi-sensibility.  In the case of metachemistry, the Ugliness and Hatred of metachemical materialism vis-à-vis the ugly approach to Falsity (Illusion) and hateful approach to Woe of metachemical fundamentalism constitute the negative clearness of noumenal sensuality.  In the case, however, of antimetaphysics, the Falsity (Illusion) and Woe of antimetaphysical antitranscendentalism vis-à-vis the false approach to Ugliness and woeful approach to Hatred of antimetaphysical anti-idealism constitute the anti-positive unholiness of noumenal anti-sensibility and quasi-negative unholiness of noumenal quasi-sensuality respectively.  Turning from the northwest point of the axial compass, wherein we are conscious of the prevalence of a kind of vicious circle, to its northeast point, which is the head of a separate axis altogether, we shall find that in the case of metaphysics, the Truth and Joy of metaphysical transcendentalism vis-à-vis the truthful approach to Beauty and joyful approach to Love of metaphysical idealism constitute the positive holiness of noumenal sensibility.  In the case, however, of antimetachemistry, the Beauty and Love of antimetachemical antimaterialism vis-à-vis the beautiful approach to Truth and loving approach to Joy of antimetachemical antifundamentalism constitute the anti-negative unclearness of noumenal anti-sensuality and quasi-positive unclearness of noumenal quasi-sensibility respectively.  Photons over protinos vis-à-vis protons over photinos – such is the antithetical reality of the mutually exclusive noumenal heights, the heights, in general terms, of Vanity Fair and the Anti-Celestial City vis-à-vis the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, neither of which can or ever could have anything to do with the other, since the one is infinitely ruled by photon negativity in noumenal sensuality, whereas the other is eternally led by proton positivity in noumenal sensibility - the alpha and omega of sensual barbarity and sensible culture.

 

CONCERNING THE RESPECTIVE PHENOMENAL SUBATOMIC POSITIONS.  Much of what has been said above in relation to photons/protinos and protons/photinos can be said of their phenomenal counterparts, which I would equate with electrons/neutrinos and neutrons/electrinos, or something to that effect.  For I have long identified the electron with chemistry and the neutron with physics, thereby ascribing to the one a feminine cast and to the other a masculine cast, neither of which would have anything in common with diabolic or divine criteria, irrespective of hype or of pseudo manifestations of evil and/or crime and grace and/or wisdom.  For if the southwest point of our axial compass is to be identified with chemistry and antiphysics, then it should be subatomically identified with electrons and neutrinos, regarding the latter as antineutrons in the sense that antiphysics is antimasculine and antihumanist in its phenomenally anti-sensible disposition under an equivocal female hegemony (feminine) in the phenomenally sensual guise of chemistry.  Contrariwise, if the southeast point of the said compass is to be identified with physics and antichemistry, then it should be subatomically identified with neutrons and electrinos, regarding the latter as anti-electrons in the sense that antichemistry is antifeminine and antinonconformist in its anti-sensual disposition under an equivocal male hegemony (masculine) in the guise of phenomenally sensible physics.  Consequently in the case of electrons and neutrinos we would have a chemical/antiphysical parallel with lower-class and anti-middleclass criteria, whereas in the case of neutrons and electrinos across the (phenomenal) axial divide we would have a physical/antichemical parallel with middle-class and anti-lowerclass criteria.  These positions are therefore mutually exclusive and ethnically incompatible, as would be Roman Catholicism and Puritanism or, in political terms, Irish Republicanism and British Parliamentarianism.  And they interact with and are conditioned by different axial factors ‘on high’, whether in terms of metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the axial compass or, conversely, in relation to metaphysics and antimetachemistry at its northeast point, the point that offers - or has the capacity to offer if fully developed - salvation and counter-damnation to whatever accrues, as chemistry and antiphysics, to the southwest point, thereby first of all subverting and then transmuting that which would be closer to electrons and neutrinos towards the possibility of photinos and protons, albeit in terms of a metaphysical-to-antiphysical link of protons to neutrinos (antineutrons) and, secondarily, in terms of an antimetachemical-to-chemical link of photinos (antiphotons) to electrons, thereby ensuring a male lead in the salvation of antimen to God, of antiphysics to metaphysics, and correlatively in the counter-damnation (up the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) of women to the Antidevil, of chemistry to antimetachemistry, so that the actual subatomic transmutation would be somewhat along the lines of neutrinos to protons and of electrons to photinos, with a corresponding change of class from anti-middleclass to classless for males and, in the female case, from lower-class to anti-upperclass, thus allowing for the paradoxical upending of the female as the necessary unclear concomitant of male holiness in the ascendancy of metaphysics over antimetachemistry.  Notwithstanding the need to differentiate between genuine antimen and women vis-à-vis pseudo-godliness and pseudo-antidevilishness in the case of a worldly/pseudo-otherworldly and/or pseudo-antinetherworldly age or society on the one hand, and pseudo-antimen and pseudo-women vis-à-vis genuine godliness and genuine antidevilishness in the case of a pseudo-worldly (post-worldly)/genuine otherworldly and/or anti-netherworldly age or society on the other hand, with corresponding subatomic contrasts, the principle of saving and/or counter-damning from the southwest point of the axial compass to its northeast point remains valid either way, even if, in the pseudo-otherworldly and/or anti-netherworldly case the ‘above’, or northeast point, is less than genuine and therefore apt to fudge and short-change, as it were, the context in question, making, in the Catholic instance, for the subsuming of metaphysics into antimetachemistry (sacred heart-wise) and for the placing of the Christic ‘cart’ (of a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’) not only before but, in this instance, to the effective exclusion of a Fatheresque ‘horse’ (of metaphysical psyche preceding and preponderating over metaphysical soma as, in metaphorical terms, ‘father’ over ‘son’ as male reality), and all because a Catholic extrapolation from Jehovah which is called ‘the Father’ – but actually exists down a plane from Jehovah-to-Saul in Old Testament cosmic-to-natural vein by dint of the inevitability of a metachemical ‘first mover’ accruing to the postulate of a ‘Risen Virgin’ – acts as effective anchor to that which, as post-resurrectional Christ, sits ‘on the right-hand side’ of this so-called Father precisely in terms of somatic binding at the northeast point of the axial compass vis-à-vis somatic freedom at its northwest point, whether this freedom is identified with metachemistry (a female element corresponding to the so-called Risen Virgin) or with antimetaphysics (its male concomitant and effective ‘fall guy’ for diabolic denigration which, ironically, should correspond to the so-called Father of Catholic anchor and triangular decadence).  Therefore Catholicism, for all its confessional commitment to the northeast point of the axial compass, has never properly differentiated metaphysics from antimetachemistry but allowed such pseudo-metaphysics as exists in relation to ‘the Son’ – the Christian fatality - as post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ to be both subsumed into pseudo-antimetachemistry (sacred heart-wise) and held back and compromised by extrapolations from the Old Testament that, even without a paradoxical reversal of positions, also exist in relation to the Old Testament and to unequivocally metachemical and antimetaphysical postulates like Jehovah and Satan in relation to the Cosmos and King Saul and David in relation to nature.  Only Social Theocracy has the logical and ideological wherewithal to rectify this shortcoming and institute criteria properly commensurate with genuine metaphysics and antimetachemistry as germane to the development, beyond Western and Eastern criteria alike, of global universality and, hence, with the coming of ‘the Kingdom’ in terms of the Centre which Social Theocracy, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in certain countries capable of utilizing democracy in such paradoxical fashion, would be empowered to institutionalize, to the detriment of pseudo-otherworldly and pseudo-antinetherworldly criteria and in the interests of the salvation and counter-damnation of the pseudo-worldly, whether pseudo-antiphysical or pseudo-chemical, pseudo-antineutronic or pseudo-electronic, to the otherworldly and anti-netherworldly heights of a protonic and antiphotonic deliverance not only from their own pseudo-worldly shortcomings but from those, no less significantly, who would continue to prey upon them from the netherworldly and anti-otherworldly heights of contemporary (synthetically artificial) somatic license at the northwest point of the axial compass and ensure, in the absence of revolutionary countermeasures of a Social Theocratic order, that they remained at a quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate removal from traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, adrift in an idolatrous limbo from which only the most genuine order of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria could deliver them – and precisely on the basis of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty under the aegis of Social Theocracy, the ideology, par excellence, of 'Kingdom Come'. 

 

ON IRISH AND BRITISH DISTINCTIONS.  Contrary to popular prejudice, it could be said that the Irish and British masses are axially so antithetical as to qualify for equation with extroversion and introversion on the basis of a sort of sensually centrifugal and sensibly centripetal dichotomy.  Hence the popular British notion that the Irish are somehow ‘thick’ would not hold water in relation to the actual intercardinal axial positions of the respective peoples as far as the phenomenal distinction between the sensual southwest and the sensible southeast of the said axis is concerned, even if many Irish and British people do not qualify for such a status in view of their noumenal elevation, in sensuality or sensibility, above the ‘world’ of the phenomenal alternatives.  Therefore it is really the British masses at the southeast point of our axis that qualify, in their parliamentary/puritan phenomenality, for equation with the notion of ‘thickness’ as a slang equivalent not merely for stupid – which, in any case, many if not most such persons are – but for a certain centripetal introversion which would not be incompatible with the popular British concept of the ‘stiff upper lip’, meaning a refusal to blabber or complain but to get on with life in a reserved manner irrespective of the vicissitudes that come one’s way.  Of course, being reserved in this way is anything but ‘loose’ or ‘open’, in the mass Irish manner, and one can see that those who are so reserved would not be particularly talkative or remonstrative or have what is called, usually in connection with the Irish, the ‘gift of the gab’, even if they would prefer to settle their disputes peaceably and verbally, like good parliamentarians and, in their phenomenal sensibility, would qualify for equation, in relation to the English Civil War, with the descendants of ‘roundheads’ as opposed, like Monarchists and High Anglicans, with the descendants of ‘cavaliers’, few if any of which, however, would be ‘cavaliers’ in the Roman Catholic sense of having been circumcised and thus bearing witness to a centrifugal phallic disposition in phenomenal sensuality which sets them forever apart from both Anglicans and Puritans alike.  Be that as it may, the phenomenally sensible British masses differ so much from their phenomenally sensual Irish counterparts that it is not to be wondered at if they tend to see themselves in a superior light, if only on phenomenally antithetical terms, and to despise what they would regard as an ignorant and weak want of knowledge and strength.  But even if the Irish masses are morally inferior in this respect to their British counterparts, it has to be said that the British of this phenomenally sensible ilk are almost unique, of all the peoples in this world, in the way they elevate their lowly mass position to a kind of ideal, democratically happy in the knowledge that they are sensible and somehow phenomenally virtuous while their opponents, whether axially ranged above them or contrary to them, epitomize all that is vicious in its wanton sensuality.  They are a people, par excellence, for whom man is God and antiwoman, one could say, the Antidevil, even though what they actually represent, in phenomenal sensibility, falls a long way short, on both class and axial terms in relation to plane, of anything remotely resembling godliness and antidevilishness.  They are smug, one might say, in their phenomenal virtues, whether in terms of goodness/punishment in antifeminine ant chemistry or of pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace in masculine physics, the latter of which is equivocally hegemonic, as mass vis-à-vis ant volume, over its ant chemical complement but subverted, nonetheless, by ant chemistry acting in conjunction with an unequivocal metachemistry over antimetaphysics, to somatic emphasis in defence of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial values, the sort of values that rebound upon the male as he exists under the domination of female criteria in respect of primary state-hegemonic values accruing to the antithesis between the evil of free metachemical soma and the goodness of bound ant chemical soma, with primary church-subordinate values likewise mirroring the female distinction between the crime of bound metachemical psyche and the punishment of free ant chemical psyche, neither of which can be anything but paradoxically subversive of the pseudo-wisdom of bound physical soma and the pseudo-grace of free physical psyche, which are the antithetical male positions to the pseudo-folly of free antimetaphysical soma and the pseudo-sin of bound antimetaphysical psyche and thus to that which can only be secondary, in both state and church, to the hegemony of evil and crime.  But therein, despite its vicious nature, lies the ideal from a female standpoint, the ideal, in other words, of metachemical free soma and bound psyche, of evil and crime, and not, by any means, in the bound soma and free psyche, conditioned by an equivocal male hegemony, of good and punishment.  Hence good or goodness, regarded in this gender-specific axial way, is anything but ideal from a female standpoint, even if it happens to be virtuous in its phenomenal sensibility.  There is nothing ideal about being good and punished through being at cross-purposes, as it were, with one’s gender actuality, as a female, of soma preceding and predominating over psyche.  State-hegemonic criteria are symptomatic of the rule of the female ideal of free soma in metachemistry, even if they defer to the virtue of bound soma in antichemistry and, by subversive extrapolation, in physics, from a standpoint rooted in free soma, the viciousness of which is forever dominant (sovereign), as female ideal, over virtue.  That is why, despite their incontrovertible virtues, the British masses are forever at an axial disadvantage to their Irish counterparts, who are not ruled, traditionally, by the female ideal of metachemical vice but, rather, led by the male ideal of metaphysical virtue, the virtue of grace in the free psyche and of wisdom in the bound soma of a metaphysics symbolized, no matter how imperfectly, by the concept of a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ (in noumenal sensibility) vis-à-vis their own phenomenally sensual want of sensibly noumenal elevation.  The Irish masses, for all their phenomenally sensual shortcomings or failings at the southwest point of the axial compass, have been traditionally, with Roman Catholicism, in an axial position to be delivered from their ‘sins’ to the ‘graces’ that await those who make their peace, through verbal absolution, with God.  Unfortunately, Catholicism did not and, in the circumstances of its dependence on a cosmic Creator of Old Testament providence, could not make anything like a proper approach to the northeast point of the axial compass, which requires, besides some vague and more or less Son-oriented somatic notion of metaphysics, both a full-fledged metaphysics embracing a non-alpha order of Father commensurate with free metaphysical psyche and, besides the correlative bound metaphysical soma of the Son (conceived as metaphor for the male actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma as ‘father’ over ‘son’), a complementary offering of antimetachemical bound soma and free psyche in relation to the Antimother and the Antidaughter, neither of whom would be entitled to equation with salvation from sin to grace in antiphysical bound psyche to metaphysical free psyche, nor even from folly to wisdom in antiphysical free soma to metaphysical bound soma, but rather with counter-damnation (up the church-hegemonic axis) from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment in chemical bound psyche to antimetachemical free psyche, coupled, in state-subordinate terms, with counter-damnation from pseudo-evil to pseudo-good(ness) in chemical free soma to antimetachemical bound soma.  Hence, had Catholicism the wherewithal to do proper justice to the northeast point of the axial compass, one could have spoken of the salvation of males from sin to grace (primary church-hegemonic) and from folly to wisdom (primary state-subordinate) coupled to the counter-damnation of females from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment (secondary church-hegemonic) and from pseudo-evil to pseudo-good (secondary state-subordinate).  Unfortunately, due to Old Testament factors acting as alpha-anchor to any omega pretensions on the part of Roman Catholicism, no such distinction can properly be made, the male position of metaphysics having been dovetailed into what I would regard as an antimetachemical position in terms of recourse to the term ‘Sacred Heart of the Risen Christ’ which not only falls short of what should, with metaphysical soma, be ‘Sacred Lungs of the Risen Christ’ but, by dint of the absence of a psychic ‘Father’ over the somatic ‘Son’ (such that would bear witness to a meditative resolve on the part of the ‘Father’), gets co-opted to metachemistry over antimetaphysics in perpendicular triangular fashion, specifically with regard to a Risen Virgin over a so-called Father (Creator-equivalent) where mankind Christian Catholicity is concerned, as in relation, for the sacred heart, to profane eyes over ears, none of which would be immune from Old Testament eclipse in the respective forms either of Saul over David aided and abetted by Mohammed, let us say, in nature (blossom over fruit aided and abetted by berries on tall trees) or of Jehovah over Satan aided and abetted by Allah in cosmos (stellar star over solar sun aided and abetted by Venus), or something to that more unequivocal triangular effect which could be said to characterize the pre-mankind – and hence pre-New Testament – bias of the Judaic Old Testament and equivalent Eastern texts.  However that may be, there can be no question that Roman Catholicism fudged the situation at the northeast point of the axial compass, and that is why it must be superseded by an altogether freer and truer order of religion with ‘Kingdom Come’, in order that the phenomenally sensual masses, now more quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate under American-inspired axial pressures stemming from the northwest point of the intercardinal compass, may be brought back into line with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria and be saved and counter-damned, according to gender, from the southwest point to the northeast point of the said compass, thereby bringing about the downfall, bit by bit, of those who would continue to prey upon them from an axis which, in its domination by female criteria, is heathenistically ranged against the possibility of salvation and counter-damnation from standpoints rooted in state-hegemonic/church-subordinate values, even, be it not forgotten, in relation to those who would now consider themselves antichemically and physically virtuous in their goodness/punishment (antichemical) and pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace (physical), their just and pseudo-righteous opposition, within state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society, to the vanity and pseudo-meekness, the evil/crime and pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin, of the somatically free Few most responsible for exploiting the weakness and ignorance of those at the southwest point of the axial compass who are in no position, as things stand, to be delivered from their exploiters to the aforementioned salvation and counter-damnation which only the revolutionary overhaul, through Social Theocracy, of the traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis can eventually bring to pass.  Thus the paradox of quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate idolatry must be countered by the paradox of an election for religious sovereignty if the peoples concerned – not least the Irish of Catholic Eire - are to be returned to the ‘Kingdom of God’ and, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, inherit the benefit of a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria on terms that will conduce towards a definitive mode of salvation and counter-damnation with Social Theocracy, a mode such that will overhaul both Western Catholicism and Eastern Buddhism alike as it strives to bring global civilization to its universal culmination and to institute the cyborgistic ‘overcoming of man’ (though, strictly speaking, we are dealing less with ‘man’ in relation to the southeast point of the axial compass than with his antihumanist adversary whom we regard as ‘antiman’ or, more correctly at this pass in time, as ‘pseudo-antiman’ who, in conjunction with ‘pseudo-woman’, is already in line, on a post-Catholic basis, for the possibility of God and the Antidevil) in the interests of the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair of an unprecedented degree, effectively definitive, of metaphysics and antimetachemistry such that, in conjunction with the aforementioned cyborgization, will require the synthetically artificial enhancement of free psychic subjectivity for the Blessed and of bound somatic anti-objectivity for the pseudo-Cursed, the Righteous of God/Heaven and the pseudo-Just of the Antidevil/Antihell for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity if the ‘Kingdom’ of God and the Antidevil are to achieve their maximum realizations of Heaven and Antihell respectively.

 

ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTICE.  I have consistently argued in my writings that righteousness and justice hang together as male and female principles of sensibility, whether this sensibility be in the phenomenal realm of physics and antichemistry at the southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass or, indeed, in the noumenal realm of metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the said compass, wherein we are not concerned with genuine justice and pseudo-righteousness (this latter a product, initially, of male counter-salvation) but, on the contrary, with genuine righteousness and pseudo-justice (the latter of which is the product of female counter-damnation).  Hence there are two orders of righteousness and two orders of justice, neither of which can co-exist with the other but only as expressions of entirely opposite kinds of society and, indeed, civilization – genuine righteousness and pseudo-justice being germane to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, pseudo-righteousness and genuine justice being germane, by contrast, to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria.  Therefore a society will be either partial to genuine righteousness at the expense of pseudo-justice or, conversely, to genuine justice at the expense of pseudo-righteousness.  But either way there can be no justice, whether genuine or pseudo, without the corresponding hegemonic entrenchment of righteousness as the male principle which is responsible, in some degree, for conditioning the corresponding female position towards a refutation of its natural condition, be that condition metachemical or chemical, noumenal or phenomenal, according to axis.  Hence without the free psyche and bound soma of the male sensible position in metaphysics or physics, there can be no upending of the female position towards a corresponding rejection of free soma and bound psyche in favour, contrary to sensuality, of bound soma and free psyche.  Without grace in free psyche and wisdom in bound soma of the respective male sensible positions, whether metaphysical (and genuine) or physical (and pseudo), there can be no punishment in free psyche and goodness in bound soma of the complementary female anti-sensual positions, whether antimetachemical (and pseudo) or antichemical (and genuine), and therefore no unclear complement of holiness for a creature who, whether noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, is more naturally disposed to free soma and bound psyche.  Hence righteousness is crucial to the establishment of justice, without which there will be a gradual slide towards injustice and even outright vanity.  But such a slide is more likely to transpire in relation to pseudo-righteousness than ever it is in connection with genuine righteousness; for the physical male, though hegemonic over the antichemical female, does not have the benefit of an unequivocal hegemony, and therefore is subject to the subversion of physics by an antichemistry acting in conjunction with metachemistry over antimetaphysics within the axial framework of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society.  Such subversion, as we have seen, results in a switch of emphasis, contrary to male gender actuality, from free psyche to bound soma, and therefore ensures that the fulcrum of authority is always with the state rather than the church in the interests of female-dominated state-hegemonic criteria.  Hence not only is the physical male rendered pseudo-righteous by dint of the emphasis being put on bound soma rather than free psyche, but his authority is undermined in proportion as the focus of attention remains with the state in relation to justice as the antichemical female counterpart to the vanity of metachemical free soma and bound psyche which rules over the pseudo-meekness of antimetaphysical free soma and bound psyche at the northwest point of the axial compass, obliging pseudo-righteousness to take a secondary position in both state (physical bound soma) and church (physical free psyche) as it links with the pseudo-meek complement to vanity as its male antithesis in the interests of secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria.  Now of course where the metachemical hegemony, necessarily unequivocal, over antimetaphysics is deeply entrenched, as in Britain, the prospects of justice breaking away from pseudo-righteousness at the southeast point of the axial compass must be pretty remote, since the vanity and pseudo-meekness of the northwest point of the said compass acts as an anchor to whatever is afoot below, in both physics and antichemistry, and precludes anything remotely resembling a social democratic state absolutism from emerging at its expense.  But state absolutism of a social democratic nature has emerged from such a combination of pseudo-righteousness and justice in the past, and precisely as a cry for absolute justice, the justice, that is, of proletarian humanism to have its way at the expense of bourgeois humanism and for social democracy to eclipse liberal democracy in the interests of a kind of Bolshevistic nadir of totalitarian justice.  And yet how just is the justice that wears a social democratic mask in the name of proletarian humanism?  Is it not the case, as history has shown, that such absolute justice is unworkable and quickly degenerates into its axial antithesis, becoming indistinguishable from neo-vanity for want of any kind or degree of righteous guidance?  For justice without righteousness is a contradiction in terms.  Justice without righteousness is a license to vanity to criminally acquiesce in evil, the freely somatic activity directed against such manifestations of bound soma as follow from a free psychic hegemony.  As soon as justice demands freedom for itself, it ceases to be just and becomes indistinguishable from vanity.  The old gods are toppled, no matter how corrupt or sham they may have been, in the name of the new devils.  The repudiation of the Church, no matter how puritanically pseudo, leads from a state hegemonic just ascendancy over pseudo-righteousness to a state-absolutist unjust independence of pseudo-righteousness.  Such pseudo-righteousness has paid the penalty, it could be said, of its sham nature, its coerced emphasis on bound soma at the expense of free psyche, but, even so, no such penalty would have to have been paid had vanity already been sufficiently hegemonic over pseudo-meekness at the northwest point of the axial compass as to preclude justice from having such ambitions in the first place or, more to the point, from carrying them through even in the not unlikely event of ambitions unbefitting its status as an adjunct to pseudo-righteousness.  For the guarantor against absolute justice on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis is not pseudo-righteousness but the constitutional entrenchment of vanity of a more traditional nature such that will not brook any alternative to its own metachemical rule directly over antimetaphysics and indirectly, down the said axis, over antichemistry and physics, both of which phenomenal positions it is able to hold to liberal political and religious account.  But this is far from contending, however, that state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society is ideal, at least from a male standpoint.  There is nothing ideal about the parliamentary/puritan positions, even if those affiliated to monarchy and the Anglican church have some connection with the ideal, and then less from an antimetaphysical point of view than from that appertaining to metachemistry and its free soma and bound psyche, the natural condition of metachemical females.  Yet that it entirely contrary to the male ideal of free psyche and bound soma, not least where metaphysics is concerned, and therefore to a society for which some approximation to genuine righteousness and pseudo-justice is the hallmark by which it is to be judged.  Such a society, being church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, is able to keep antimetachemistry subordinate to metaphysics in both church and state, and precisely through the unequivocal nature of the metaphysical hegemony allowing the emphasis to be placed on free psyche in keeping with the male actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, bound soma being its logical affiliate.  Such a society, however, will not encourage righteousness to develop totally at the expense of pseudo-justice, else one could end up with a situation that was no less unrighteous than state-absolutist justice was and remains unjust.  Such unrighteousness would doubtless owe more to meekness than to vanity, but it would still be an absolutist perversion of righteousness and no less counter-productive than was the emergence of vanity out of absolute justice with social democratic totalitarianism.  Therefore there can be no social theocratic totalitarianism in the sense of an absolute righteousness expanding at the expense of pseudo-justice.  Both metaphysics and antimetachemistry are equally necessary to the proper functioning of the northeast point of the axial compass, even if they are unequal in gender and attributes and therefore in their respective standings as manifestations of godliness and antidevilishness, heavenliness and antihellishness.  Just as in the alpha-ruled beginning there was no devilishness without antigodliness, no hellishness with antiheavenliness, whatever the conventional hype of Devil the Mother as God may have to say about the respective positions of metachemistry and antimetaphysics, so in the omega-led end there can be no godliness and heavenliness without antidevilishness and antihellishness, whether in psyche or in soma.  An absolute church is not the goal of Social Theocracy, but rather the establishment and maintenance of church/state relativity on a basis which favours the unequivocal hegemony, for all eternity, of metaphysical righteousness over antimetachemical pseudo-justice.  Holiness without unclearness in accompaniment is no more desirable than grace without pseudo-punishment or wisdom without pseudo-goodness where the respective relationships of metaphysical psyche to antimetachemical psyche and of metaphysical soma to antimetachemical soma are concerned.  The virtuous circle of the beautiful approach to Truth and the loving approach to Joy which antifundamentalistically complements the Truth and Joy of metaphysical transcendentalism is only possible because the truthful approach to Beauty and the joyful approach to Love which idealistically stem from the metaphysical church have made possible the Beauty and Love of that antimaterialism which is the secondary state-subordinate foundation, for all anti-infinity, of the secondary church-hegemonic deference to Truth and Joy which was have characterized in intermediate terms and know to be antimetachemically subordinate to metaphysics as the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and the Unclear Soul of Antihell to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, just as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven are deferential to Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit as they stem from above in order to inform the below which, once established in antimetachemical bound soma, is the platform from which that which completes the virtuous circle of metaphysics and antimetachemistry is launched, pseudo-justice and righteousness joining hands across the gender divide for all Anti-Infinity and Eternity in both the Anti-Vanity Fair and the Celestial City of ‘Kingdom Come’.

 

DIVINE AND OTHER LAWS.  Justice without righteousness, we have argued, is a contradiction in terms.  Justice takes its cue from righteousness, for only righteousness has the right to make or acknowledge laws, whether divine or human (civil), and justice, true to its subordinate nature, the duty to apply them.  But laws come in a variety of different guises, not just divine or civil but also criminal and natural, these latter being as distinct from each other as they are from anything contrary to them, whether of man or of God.  Yet much of what passes for divine law is really criminal, or diabolic, law dressed up as divine, pretty much as Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father), and therefore it is really anything but truly divine.  The ‘thou shall not kill’ commandment, which passes for divine law, is really a manifestation of criminal, or diabolic, law, as are commandments about not committing adultery or not stealing or coveting one’s neighbour’s goods, including his wife.  Divine law is not expressive of a prohibition but of an affirmation of divine principles, not least those appertaining to self-realization and to the soul, which it strives to honour and to attain to, thereby transcending the egoistic self in the interests of what I like to call the psychoistic self, the deeper manifestation of selfhood which lies more in the realm of the spinal cord than in that of the brain stem.  A law that forbids you to do this or to do that is not, in truth, divine but the product of an attempt by meekness to constrain vanity, and is, in effect, the converse of what issues from righteousness, albeit indirectly, as a just retort to vanity.  Either way, whether stemming from meekness or from righteousness, law is generally less female than male in character, but its application can be more female than male, as in the case of justice, which actively imposes judgement upon what is deemed to be criminal conduct.  Meekness, whether genuine or pseudo, is in no position to impose upon vanity, and therefore it differs quite demonstrably from justice in that it seems to reflect the male inability, under female hegemonic pressures in sensuality, to be as somatically free and as psychically bound as the female, thereby opposing, to a degree, the kind of criteria that make for vanity even as the male must bow to such criteria and acknowledge them from a subordinate standpoint.  He cannot, however, preclude them, and that is why meekness, by itself, is insufficient to counter vanity but requires the application of justice acting under the guiding light of righteousness, from which one can extrapolate an opposition, almost polar in character and analogous to a servant striving to protect her master from some evil assailant or general wrongdoer, to anything which would appear to run contrary to such righteousness and its positive intent.  On the other hand, a society which is insufficiently righteous or which may have turned against male-hegemonic righteousness under female-dominated decadent pressures – not least those stemming from feminism - will perversely use justice as a weapon to dethrone righteousness, thereby returning to a situation analogous to that in which meekness finds itself obliged to constrain an excess of vanity without being in a position to eradicate it.  Only righteousness, at the end of the day, can eradicate vanity, and precisely by bringing justice to bear on it from a position in which the meek have already been saved from any proscriptive opposition to vanity and no longer prop it up without being able to do anything about it.  With righteousness triumphant over meekness, justice is bound to bring vanity to account, though the axial complexities of all this go far beyond this sketch, as certain of my earlier writings would indicate.

 

SPACE AND TIME.  Prior to me, philosophers would glibly parrot such phrases as space and time and space-time continuum as though they had a purchase on truth and the final insight into cosmic or other reality.  Little did they realize how restricted and misguided they were!  For not only are space and time incompatible, but what accords with space in the so-called space-time continuum is not time but antitime, which I have described in my writings as the sequential mode of ‘time’ which stands in a subordinate relationship to the spatial mode of space, which is space per se.  Hence the space-time continuum betrays a predilection, one might say an ethnic fatality, towards metachemistry and antimetaphysics at what would be the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.  It is the point, par excellence, of the noumenal modes of scientific empiricism, wherein we find a distinction between the noumenal objectivity of space, or spatial space, and the noumenal antisubjectivity of antitime, or sequential ‘time’.  It is, in fact, the root position of the cosmos, as of nature, mankind, and cyborgkind (to come right up to date), and hence of all that is to be associated not with God and the Devil (another misconception on a par with those who conjoin space and time) but, on the contrary, with Devil the Mother hyped as God and the Antison of Antigod ‘done down’ as the Devil, to take but the freely somatic aspects of both metachemistry and antimetaphysics, and therefore with what properly accords, in any life-stage, with evil and pseudo-folly.  Clearly, this space-time continuum of the philosophical empiricists leaves much to be desired, not least its noumenal antithesis in what could be called the time-space continuum of repetitive time and spaced ‘space’, or time per se and antispace, the former no less noumenally subjective than the latter is noumenally anti-objective and thus the antimetachemical corollary of a metaphysical hegemony.  Now such a corollary of a metaphysical hegemony centred in what properly appertains to God … the Father … as psychic ‘first mover’ in the metaphysical context at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass should be thought of in terms of the Antidevil and, more specifically in relation to free psyche of an antimetachemical order, of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, the beautiful approach to Truth that complements the Truth … of God the Father in metaphysical free  psyche, just as the loving approach to Joy of the Unclear Soul of Antihell complements the Joy … of Heaven the Holy Soul … where the emotional concomitants of egoistic intellectuality, or consciousness, in both antimetachemistry and metaphysics are concerned.  Be that as it may, what can be called the time-space continuum is no less noumenally antithetical to anything the empiricists would equate with space-time as to be ‘beyond the pale’ of those who are rooted in metachemistry and antimetaphysics and incapable, in consequence, of stretching their criminal and pseudo-sinful minds into the realms of grace and pseudo-punishment, not to mention wisdom and pseudo-goodness, the bound-somatic complements of the metaphysical and antimetachemical modes of free psyche which stand antithetically apart, on noumenal terms, from anything pseudo-foolish and evil.  In fact, such fundamentally criminal and pseudo-sinful minds are so restricted that they have even failed, in the past, to do justice to volume and mass, whether on the basis of what could be called the volume-mass continuum of volumetric volume and massed ‘mass’, of volume per se and antimass, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, or, by phenomenal contrast, on the basis of what could be called the mass-volume continuum of massive mass and voluminous ‘volume’, of mass per se and antivolume, at the southeast point of the said compass, thereby restricting the scientific perspective to noumenal objectivity and noumenal antisubjectivity at the expense not merely of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity (which, from a scientific point of view rooted in empiricism is to be expected anyway) but, to all intents and purposes, at the expense of phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal antisubjectivity in chemistry and antiphysics and of phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal anti-objectivity in physics and antichemistry ‘down below’.  And yet mass-volume is very much a partner in the game which space-time plays with life, as with volume-mass to the detriment, if not exclusion, of time-space, as all that is metachemical and antimetaphysical preys upon the chemical and antiphysical with the financial support and encouragement of its physical and antichemical counterparts to the exclusion, where possible, of all that is metaphysical and antimetachemical, graceful and/or wise and pseudo-punishing and/or pseudo-good, thereby entrapping the chemical and antiphysical in a kind of triangular arrangement which places them at the mercy of predatory impositions stemming from space-time and mass-volume in what I have elsewhere described as a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis dominated by metachemical free soma.  Such a heathenistic arrangement is obviously to the advantage of the female-dominated predators, whether one regards them on an individual or on a collective, i.e. national, basis, and that is why, try as he might, a thinker who is not germane to their axial criteria but contrary to it will never be encouraged to air his views in public or receive the recognition that, objectively considered, his work might deserve.  And this is not because they know nothing of him or are incapable of understanding what he writes (though a cynic could argue with that), but because they operate on an ethnically predetermined basis that is not only responsible for establishing and maintaining their axial integrities in the first place but is actively instrumental in excluding from such integrities, whether noumenal or phenomenal, of space-time or mass-volume, all that would undermine or counter them from a standpoint centred in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, whether of a traditional or, indeed, a revolutionary order.  Hence their alleged openness to truth, or to whatever transcends the limitations of their system and ethnic bias, is a lie and a ruse which they exploit in the interests of self-preservation and seeming decency, never for a moment seriously entertaining the widening of the intellectual franchise, let us say, to include those who would expose their moral shortcomings and social machinations for what they are.  These people are fundamentally indecent and hell-bent on only one thing: the preservation of their exploitative freedoms against all objections, or possible objections, from without the axial integrities to which they subscribe.  Therefore anybody who wishes to free his people from such indecency, the secular fruit of schismatic heresy, must not rely on the likes of them but must go his own way and appeal to his people over the heads of those who would exploit them for immoral ends.  He is not of the recognized ‘scribes and pharisees’ of the exploiters and their educational systems but, rather, one crying against the wilderness of the desolation which they wreak upon the weak and ignorant to the detriment of all that is beautiful and true.  Fear not, the days of space-time are numbered!  The will or, rather, the ego of God is to further time-space, time and antispace, in the interests of the redemption of ego in soul, of truth in joy, and, for antimetachemistry, of the beautiful approach to truth in the loving approach to joy.  Such noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity cannot but draw that which is phenomenally anti-subjective and phenomenally objective towards itself and, one day, it will be great enough to draw both antiphysics and chemistry into itself, as antimass is transmuted towards time and volume towards antispace in the world-overcoming that will deliver the exploited from their exploiters and collapse the heretical axis down upon itself.  Then not only volume-mass, but space-time and, eventually, mass-volume will be on the rubbish heap of history, never to return to challenge the eternal supremacy and anti-infinite antiprimacy of time-space, of godly metaphysics and antidevilish antimetachemistry in the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair of the ultimate Omega Point and Anti-Alpha Point of  (repetitive) time and (spaced) antispace, all things having passed from the beginning to the end, from the so-called space-time continuum to its time-space antithesis, wherein Truth and Beauty will remain forever entwined on the basis of the most virtuous circle of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria.

 

GOD OUT OF MAN.  The other night I heard something about man being made in the image of God on the TV (some dreadful film I happened to be watching) and for a while I went along with the notion, automatically translating it into my philosophy whereby psyche preceding soma equals Father preceding Son in both metaphysics and physics, so that the same procedure applies to each of the sensibly male elemental contexts.  But then my philosophy started to kick-in and I queried to myself the concept of God preceding man, or metaphysics preceding physics, since in elemental terms it tends to be vegetation that precedes air, or oxygen, and therefore physics that precedes metaphysics.  But this whole business of man being made in God’s image is so false and contradictory that it warrants some critical attention!  After all, the result is some kind of humanistic stasis either way, whether you accept the idea of man being made in God’s image or, on the contrary, whether, as an atheistic humanist, you turn away from Devil the Mother hyped as God under the false impression that you have rejected God and are now left with nothing but man, who would be his successor.  But of course Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) is precisely what precedes everything else, pretty much as fire preceding water (not to mention vegetation and air), or metachemistry preceding chemistry, so that far from man being made in God’s image it is actually woman who is made in the Devil’s image, treating the Devil as synonymous with Devil the Mother hyped as God as cosmic ‘first mover’.  So there we have it!  Man, as male, is not made in God’s image.  It is woman, as female, who is made in the Devil’s image, and precisely as soma preceding and predominating over psyche, albeit to a lesser, that is, phenomenal degree of something like 2½:1½ as opposed to 3:1, which is nothing less than chemical relativity vis-à-vis metachemical absolutism, the actual noumenal elemental position commensurate with Devil the Mother.  Thus things on the tails side of the elemental coin are rather more germane to somatic freedom and psychic binding than ever they are to psychic freedom and somatic binding, and therefore we can reasonably argue that woman made in the Devil’s image (not Satan or anything of the equivalent ‘fall guy for slag’ kind) is anything but synonymous with the notion of man being made in God’s image, even though ‘man’ can and has been used loosely in the sense of ‘mankind’, and God falsely equated with what I have called Devil the Mother as metachemical ‘first mover’ in the cosmic or natural scheme of things.  But man, considered strictly in male terms, is a sort of by-product of woman, an adjunct to woman, just as vegetation (or earth) is an adjunct to water, which required a fiery precondition (metachemical), and out of vegetation, as we have seen, comes air or, at any rate, components of the atmosphere that are essential to life on earth.  Therefore it would be nearer the mark, once having dealt with woman being made in Devil the Mother’s image, to maintain that God is made in man’s image, and to be sure the resurrected Saviour was – and remains – a paradigm of such a concept to the extent that he was first man who ‘rose from the dead’ and ‘ascended into heaven’.  Thus one could regard the concept of a resurrected Saviour ‘On High’ as a crude manifestation of the emergence of God out of man, even though, because of Old Testament factors going all the way back to an unequivocal Devil the Mother hyped as God, such an emergence was bound, in mankind, to be imperfect and short of the required mark for true godliness, the so-called Father of noumenal sensuality in metachemistry holding anything germane to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass back from the possibility of full maturity by dint of its very existence or recognition as appertaining to the northwest point of such a compass.  Has it not been said that Christ, in rising from the dead, sat on the right-hand side of this so-called Father?  But that is hardly commensurate with being under Him as soma succeeding psyche as male actuality whether in metaphysics or, down below, in physics!  Such a resurrected Saviour, corresponding in crucifixion to bound soma, is hardly commensurate with free psyche of a metaphysical order, which, in Christianity, simply does not exist.  Even metaphysical bound soma, which should be identified with the concept of ‘sacred lungs’, gets dovetailed into the antimetachemical context, necessarily female, of ‘sacred heart’ and therefore is further done down from metaphysics to antimetachemistry in the interests of the subsuming of such antimetachemistry into a mankind, of Catholic, perpendicular triangularity in which some personification or emblematic representation of eyes over ears, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, takes sensual precedence over such truncated sensibility, and can be exchanged, with an ecclesiastical sleight-of-hand, for those unequivocal manifestations of perpendicular triangularity which, in Old Testament vein, accord with either nature or the Cosmos, being less a matter of heart-eyes-ears than of berries-blossom-fruit on trees or of Venusian-Stellar-Solar bodies in cosmic precedence of anything natural, never mind human or, to bring us up to date, cyborgistic.  Be that as it may, perpendicular triangularity is the enemy of anything metaphysical and capable of dominating antimetachemistry to the exclusion of metachemistry and antimetaphysics. And yet metaphysics is the sole context in which godliness exists, and not simply as bound soma, in Christ-like vein, but as free psyche, as psyche preceding and preponderating over soma as, metaphorically speaking, Father over Son, so that before you can have the cart of bound soma you must have the horse, so to speak, of free psyche, and precisely as a metaphysical principle that would utilize the ‘sacred lungs’ to a transcendent end.  Christianity, of course, by which I mean Roman Catholicism, falls woefully short of doing justice to what properly appertains to the Divine, and even Buddhism, capable of utilizing the lungs in terms of transcendental meditation, is still a mankind shortfall from genuine godliness and thus the globally universal transcendence of both West and East alike, a transcendence which, in sensual and hence heathenistically secular terms, is already well under way and therefore beyond religious traditions of a Catholic or Buddhist order.  But it has not, of course, reached its sensible goal, and until it does there can be no widespread emergence of God out of man, since the contemporary mode of Devil the Mother hyped as God will persist and constrain life to perpendicular triangularity as before, albeit on synthetically artificial as opposed to non-synthetically artificial or even pre-artificial terms.  But even the eventual emergence of God out of man, using man in male and, specifically, anti-masculine terms as germane to the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, will only be the provisional and inceptive manifestation of the process that results from the transcendence of earth, or vegetation, by air, since more applicable to the leaders of and strugglers for contemporary metaphysics than to the masses in general.  God made in the image of man can only be provisional.  Ultimately, God will become more His own product and creation on an increasingly communal basis that will transcend the notion of images altogether, thereby being properly germane to what God, in any ultimate context, should be.  And what applies to godliness in metaphysics will also apply, albeit on a necessarily separate basis, to antidevilishness in antimetachemistry, where the counter-damned females are concerned.  Their counter-damnation from chemistry to antimetachemistry or, more correctly, from pseudo-chemistry to antimetachemistry up what I have in the past called the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis will be in consequence of the salvation of males from pseudo-antiphysics to metaphysics, as the Americanized southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, now effectively quasi-state-hegemonic, is made subject to the control of its overhauled northeast point in the interests of the deliverance of both the pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical alike from their pseudo-worldly plight to both the otherworldly and anti-netherworldly realms of the metaphysical and the antimetachemical, the Blessed Saved and the Counter-Cursed Counter-Damned for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity.  Verily, God (and His female companion the Antidevil) is what comes to pass last in the overall compass of competing and rival factors.  The lie of man being made in God’s image has been adequately exposed and dismissed for what it’s worth.  The descent of woman from the Devil is one thing; the ascent of God from man … quite another, and we have yet to make a serious attempt on the heavenly citadel which is the end of everything else – everything, that is, apart from its antihellish corollary in Antidevil the Antimother and, more importantly, the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, the bound soma and free psyche of antimetachemistry which will accompany the free psyche and bound soma of metaphysics in terms of God the Father and the Son of God, not to mention their free soulful and bound spiritual concomitants which we have previously identified with Heaven the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, the former above the Unclear Soul of Antihell and the latter above Antihell the Unclear Spirit, as metaphysics is above antimetachemistry in both church and state.

 

NO ‘FALL OF MAN’.  Anyone who unthinkingly goes along with the notion of man being made in God’s image will almost certainly also accept the correlative concept of the fall of man.  Yet as I have attempted to demonstrate in the previous entry, it is not man that is made in God’s image but woman that is made in the image of Devil the Mother hyped as God, which tends to be the traditional or conventional religious norm where the concept of ‘Creator’ is concerned.  Therefore a devolution from the Devil (not Satan but something closer to the cosmic ‘first mover’ or, rather, to metachemistry as elemental ‘first mover’ in the cosmos, in nature, in mankind, and in cyborgkind) to woman would be from absolute free soma and bound psyche in metachemistry to relative free soma and bound psyche in chemistry, as from noumenal objectivity to phenomenal objectivity, and such a devolution would be equivalent to the fall of woman from the Devil or, more comprehensively, the fall of Woman the Mother from Devil the Mother in free soma and of the Daughter of Woman from the Daughter of the Devil in bound psyche, as from fire to water in what, objectively considered, are the primary elements.  But since fire and water precede, in overall elemental terms, vegetation (or earth) and air (with particular reference to oxygen), so it must transpire that the fall of woman from the Devil precedes the possibility of the rise of God from man, as of absolute free psyche and bound soma in metaphysics from relative free psyche and bound soma in physics or, more correctly, from relative bound psyche and free soma in antiphysics, since we have to consider such a rise less in relation to man per se than in relation to his antimasculine counterpart on what I have elsewhere described as the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis the respective poles of which are rather more southwest and northeast of an intercardinal axial compass than northwest and southeast.  However that may be, the general pattern would be that the fall of woman from the Devil has to be contrasted with the rise of God from man, as one would contrast devolution from fire to water with evolution from vegetation to air, and therefore one can no more speak of the fall of man than of the rise of woman.  If the female side of life, being objective, is devolutionary, then its male side, being subjective, can only be evolutionary, and it is this evolutionary dimension that equates with the notion of a rise, as, in general terms, of God from man.  Therefore I do not believe in the fall of man, any more than I believe that man (considered in male terms) was made in the image of God.  All that was made in the image of Devil the Mother hyped as God was Woman the Mother or, in plain parlance, woman, who therefore exists in a fallen state – phenomenal relativity of the chemical as against noumenal absolutism of the metachemical – from the Devil.  But man has yet to achieve his rise to God on anything approaching definitive or genuine terms.  The risen Christ was a foreshadowing of this potential and possibility, but one necessarily hampered, in the degree and nature of its rising, by the prior existence of Devil the Mother hyped as God, not least in relation to its root manifestation in the metachemical aspects of the Cosmos, which I have tended to identify with the stellar plane.  The test for the future will be to achieve definitive Godhead ‘On High’, at the northeast point of the axial compass, on the necessarily supra-human (cyborgistic) basis that will be commensurate with global universality, but this can only arise in the wake of what I have elsewhere described as a paradoxical utilization of the electoral process in certain countries for religious sovereignty and the outcome, sooner or later, of a majority mandate for such a sovereignty that will permit the relevant authorities – call them Social Theocrats - to encourage the development of cyborgization in conjunction with human life to levels that surpass anything man could achieve in respect of metaphysical perfection …  conceived in necessarily synthetically artificial terms.  And the corollary of the salvation of the male sex from antiphysics or, more correctly, pseudo-antiphysics in the ‘lapsed Catholic’ quasi-state-hegemonic ‘world’ to metaphysics, as from pseudo-antiman to God, pseudo-antiearth to Heaven, will be the counter-damnation of the female sex from pseudo-chemistry to antimetachemistry, as from pseudo-woman to the Antidevil, pseudo-purgatory to Antihell on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis that stretches from the southwest to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.  For if males are to be psychically free and somatically bound in sync with their gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, then females must be upended to follow suit, becoming, under male pressure, somatically bound and psychically free in contradiction of their gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche.  Hence holiness in psyche and soma, soul and spirit, for males is achieved at the price of unclearness in soma and psyche, spirit and soul, for females, who will be the antimetachemical corollary of a metaphysical hegemony, the Anti-Infinity that will be forever subordinate to Eternity as … Anti-Vanity Fair to the Celestial City.

 

THE NATURE OF THE AGE.  Every age has to go through itself in order to get beyond itself or, rather, in order that that which lies beyond it, whether as its confirmation or as its refutation, may come to pass.  Today we are still in an age which, despite its technological sophistication and inventiveness, is fundamentally and almost inexorably sad.  By which I mean that it is not a happy or contented or joyful age but one, on the contrary, in which the ego and the soul, as essentially male manifestations of psyche, are under assault from a variety of products and so-called services either rooted in or stemming from the cathode-ray tube and all that we would classify as the camera-based roots of contemporary society.  To be sure, we now have the benefit of technological extrapolations from the older and more basic media which tend to confirm a devolutionary drift, not incompatible with the enhanced democratization of society, away from autocratic tyranny towards more people-based media or presentations of life in general.  But, even with TFTs rapidly replacing CRTs, we are still caught up in the fundamental snag of contemporary civilization and its screen-oriented media.  We continue, on an ever-widening basis, to stare at a variety of different screens, from televisions and computers to mobile phones and mp3-players, and therein lies our dilemma.  For the more time you spend staring at screens of one sort or another, the sadder, in a correlatively proportionate manner, you become.  And why?  Because you are cultivating all that is most fundamentalist and even materialist in you under the aegis of the contemporary form of Devil the Mother (hyped, no doubt, as God), whose spectacular spell is extremely difficult to break even when it is not directly connected, as tends more usually to be the case, with film and thus with cameras.  Never before has there been such pressure on people to conform to screen-based media; for where previously there may have been one or two alternative media to choose from, there are now literally dozens of competing media clamouring for our attention via the utilization of both eyes and ears alike.  Some, of course, would interpret this as progress, not least technologically.  Others, possibly older and wiser, would only see evidence of a kind of regression or, to resort to a term alluded to above, devolution.  Few if any would, however, want to go back to the ‘good old days’ of CRT-dominated terrestrial television.  Doubtless it is better that people should have more control over what they watch or what they use, media-wise, than simply be the passive victims of state-sponsored impositions from ‘above’.  And yet, they are still watching and therefore staring at a variety of screens.  They are still cultivating a vacuous approach to life in response to what has more often hailed, in light, from a vacuum, and they are still paying the price, not only financially, for behaving in such a sensually fundamentalist manner.  Some of us are old enough to recall being told, as children, that it is rude to stare, especially at strangers, and that good manners demand that we mind our own business.  Be that as it may, it is not only rude to stare at others; it is detrimental to one’s peace of mind and emotional well-being to cultivate the habit of staring at electronic screens, televisions and the like, for hours on end, as though one had no life of one’s own outside the media which have a kind of synthetic life which now dominates one and renders one an accomplice, by default, of their activities.  And as all of us will know by now, rarely are those activities of a nature that one would associate with goodness or truth or virtue or reason.  On the contrary, television in particular is the source of much that is morally dark and even plainly wicked, whether in relation to violence, language, sex, ambition, avarice, crime, or what have you.  We become, if not careful, passively acquiescent in the most barbarously callous spectacles which glory in all that is ugly and false.  And, after a while, we become desensitized to it to a degree which allows us to take it all for granted and more or less accept the inevitability of a stronger ‘fix’ of evil as a matter of course, things becoming more, not less, ugly and violent as commercially-driven free enterprise pursues its relentlessly brutal way in the interests of cultural credibility and economic viability.  And even if we try to avoid as much of that as possible, still, even in front of a serious documentary or biography, we are still staring out of empty heads at the fruit of what cameras of one kind or another have provided.  We are only comparatively less foolish for staring at good things than for staring at what is demonstrably evil in its barbarous ugliness.  So there you are.  This is the age we are living in and it is, to repeat, a sad age, governed, in no small part, by female criteria to an extent which has allowed freedom to become identified with soma at the expense of psyche and to exclude, as far as possible, any attempt to establish freedom on an alternative basis such that, when sufficiently independent of somatic subversion, would reflect the sensible lead of society by male criteria.  And yet those of us who are male or sensible enough to require such criteria know that they can only be established at the expense of contemporary freedom and on the back of paradoxical elections, in certain countries, for religious sovereignty, so that we can begin to turn things around, not merely to attenuate or extrapolate from the most noumenally objective tyrannical roots, but to institute that which is most noumenally subjective and capable of standing up to and rivalling all that would constrain people to vacuous objectivity in front of a variety of electronic screens.  For until we do, we shall not cease to be sad.  Until the alternative is established, there will be no lasting contentment and therefore emotional fulfilment on the plane of joy for males and the loving approach to joy for females, never mind the truth and the beautiful approach to truth which are their intellectual concomitants and effective preconditions.  At least we can be confident that the future will rectify, in its evolutionary thrust, all that the present leaves to be desired, turning us from ‘the without’ to ‘the within’ in the interests of self ... conceived, needless to say, in relation to psyche.  But it will not happen without an immense struggle with the present, since the transformation from female-dominated to male-led criteria is not evolutionary but the consequence, if it happens, of an evolutionary alternative to the devolutionary norms which characterize contemporary civilization.  They are two sides, if you will, of the same coin, but the heads side differs so markedly from the tails side as to portend an entirely different approach to civilization, the evolutionary progress of which can only triumph if devolutionary regression has been rejected and outgrown.  It will be for the people to judge when and if such a rejection is to transpire, but it is what might be called the social theocratic leaders of the people who will have to encourage them in this respect if something more than a TFT-style reform of contemporary civilization is to emerge.

 

AN EARLIER OVERSIGHT CORRECTED.  How treacherous writing can be!  Not so long ago in these weblogs I was confidently making a case for definitive metaphysics being a context of most heaven and least god, forgetting my philosophical conclusion of some years ago when I had more or less categorically established a distinction between God and Heaven on the basis of more (compared to most) ego and most soul, contrasting this, in metaphysics, with less (compared to least) spirit and least will, the bound-somatic categories, in theological parlance, of the Holy Spirit of Heaven and the Son of God as opposed, in free psyche, to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul.  I had also established, I believe, a distinction between particles and wavicles on the basis of the dichotomy between soma and psyche, contending that particles adhered to soma whether in elemental or molecular mode, and wavicles, by contrast, to psyche, again whether in molecular or wavicle mode.  Hence an elemental particle/molecular particle distinction between bound will (the Son) and bound spirit (the Holy Ghost) in metaphysical soma would have to be contrasted with a molecular wavicle/elemental wavicle distinction between free ego (God) and free soul (Heaven) in metaphysical psyche, the church-hegemonic as opposed to state-subordinate aspect of metaphysics.  I still think all this is approximately correct, and that soma is more ‘particular’ than ‘wavicular’ and psyche, by contrast, more ‘wavicular’ than ‘particular’, even given the distinction between will and spirit on the one hand, and ego and soul on the other.  Are we to suggest, on the contrary, that spirit is ‘wavicular’ in a molecular fashion and ego ‘particular’ in such a fashion, so that the emergence of spirit from will is of molecular wavicles from elemental particles and the emergence of soul from ego is of elemental wavicles from molecular particles?  I would accept that this suggestion has a certain commonsensical appeal, not least in regard to a resolution of will in spirit and of ego as more objectivistic in its approach to soma, but I have to admit to a qualm with regard to the suggestion that because will is ‘particular’ spirit must be ‘wavicular’ or that because, on the contrary, soul is ‘wavicular’ ego must be ‘particular’.  Is not the fundamental dichotomy here between soma and psyche?  And is not soma the objectification of a subjective premise in free psyche, at least on the male side of the gender divide?  Can we therefore identify any aspect of psyche with particles and any aspect of soma, no matter how spiritual, with wavicles?  My answer had been to say that since, in overall elemental terms, will and spirit, accruing to soma, are primary elements and ego and soul, accruing to psyche, secondary, the ‘particular’ aspect of things would be somatic and their ‘wavicular’ aspect psychic.  Therefore I had distinguished between elemental particles and molecular particles in relation to soma, but molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles in relation to psyche, contending that metaphysics was a context in which God had to be equated with molecular wavicles and Heaven with elemental wavicles, since ego and soul were expressive, in their different ways, of psyche, and hence of the subjectivity of mind, whereas the Son of God should be equated with elemental particles and the Holy Spirit with molecular particles, since bound will and bound spirit were indicative, in their separate ways, of soma and hence of the objectivity of matter, in this case of metaphysical not-self.  I did not envision, for soma, a leap from elemental particles to molecular wavicles, nor for psyche a leap from molecular particles to elemental wavicles, both of which would have struck me as a contradiction in terms.  For how can you fall on the one side and rise on the other if it is simply a question of particles to wavicles rather than of elemental to molecular particles in the one case and of molecular to elemental wavicles in the other case?  Would a molecular particle be conscious of the desire for elemental wavicles, knowing nothing of wavicles except, indirectly, through a spirituality that was ‘wavicular’ in molecular terms?  I must confess to a certain scepticism on this point.  For how can one descend to something lower or ascend to something higher except on the basis of a kindred extrapolation of particles from particles or wavicles from wavicles in relation to either elemental or molecular distinctions?  And then, too, is not soma ‘particular’ and psyche ‘wavicular’, to revert to our basic metaphysical distinction between not-self and self, matter and mind, the former divisible and the latter indivisible?  Enough doubts!  The metaphysical extremes are fixed as elemental particles and wavicles, bound will and free soul.  The intermediate positions can only be molecular, whether as particles or as wavicles, as bound spirit or as free ego.  God is a context, in molecular wavicles, of more (compared to most) ego, and Heaven is His redemption in an elemental wavicle context of most soul.  He transcends molecular-wavicle ego in and through elemental-wavicle soul via elemental-particle will and molecular-particle spirit, taking a plunge into the not-self in order to rise anew in self, which is ‘wavicular’ in its subjective essence.  From molecular wavicles to elemental wavicles via elemental particles and molecular particles, as from free ego to free soul via bound will and bound spirit.  Otherwise one would have to argue from molecular particles to elemental wavicles via elemental particles and molecular wavicles, as though the plunge into the not-self by a molecular-particle ego was simply determined by the attraction of molecular wavicles in the spirit and had the effect of promoting elemental wavicles in the soul as though by default rather than predetermined conscious intent.  But I believe, on the contrary, that the plunge into the not-self by a molecular-wavicle ego intent on achieving heaven is only partially determined by the attraction of molecular particles in the spirit which then has the effect of promoting elemental wavicles in the soul for the self on the recoil from such an antithetical attraction, an attraction that cannot but repulse something which is fundamentally finer than itself, if only from a ‘wavicular’ standpoint, and which overcompensates for such a repulsion in the form or, rather, contentment of soul, of those elemental wavicles of metaphysics which are the heavenly reward for an abandonment not only of ego but, indirectly, of will and spirit as psyche climbs from ego to soul on the wings of its own ‘wavicular’ essence, God having already determined His final end in the peace that surpasses all egoistic understanding because it is of the soul and not of the spirit which, on the contrary, only surpasses – and then imperfectly in terms of a fall from elemental to molecular - all volition.  And understanding, like the peace of perfect self-contentment through complete self-harmony which is its reward, is essentially subjective, being of the psyche in its free, or metaphysical, manifestation such that does not have to subordinate itself to brute fact or, as in the case of physics, have such freedom, in knowledge, as it does possess subverted by somatic emphasis under female axial pressures, as discussed elsewhere.  Truth, finally, is a higher and freer type of knowledge altogether, and what it aims for is nothing less than the joy of perfect self-realization in the soul which is its psychic companion for all Eternity.  Therefore metaphysics will always be a context in which there is more (compared to most) ego and most soul, God being identified with the former and Heaven with the latter.

 

MAN’S YEARNING FOR ETERNITY.  Contrary to Hegel, who according to Camus, affirms that insofar as death is the common ground of man and animal, it is by accepting and even inviting death that the former differentiates himself from the latter, I maintain that it is precisely in the rejection of death … in favour of the prospect of eternal life … that man is distinguished from the beasts, since his consciousness is capable of a degree of subjectivity, in self-awareness, that transcends nature to such an extent that mere physical survival is not enough and neither, therefore, is physical death acceptable.  Hegel’s philosophy of course led to State absolutism and to alternative kinds of State worship on the part of both the Right and the Left.  There is little or no place for transcendence in such a philosophy, and therefore death is accepted as the legitimate province of man.  But this is hardly compatible with man’s yearning for eternity through that enhanced self-awareness which is his unique distinction over the creatures of nature, including those, be it not forgotten, who are less than fully or maturely human in their clinging, subhumanly, to natural and cosmic precedents, usually in consequence of environmental conditioning especially predisposing them to sex or astrology, or something of the heathenistic kind.  Now such a yearning has been granted institutional support through the Church and, most especially, in societies that one would traditionally describe as church hegemonic rather than either state hegemonic or, god forbid, state absolutist, where man, under woman, is less masculine than antimasculine and the corollary of a feminine (not antifeminine) counterpart which is capable of aspiring, according to gender, towards both divine and antidiabolic resolutions.  Doubtless the overhauling of traditional church-hegemonic norms by their revolutionary successors in times to come will enable this yearning, founded on a uniquely human capacity for enhanced self-knowledge, to be granted substance of a kind that no church hitherto has been able to provide, since it must take the form of a cyborgistic support and sustain, whether individually or collectively, depending on the circumstances, for what is most essential in human life, namely the brain and/or brain stem and spinal cord of the self conceived in terms of that which accords, physiologically, with ego and soul as the principal aspects of psyche.  Doubtless this supersession, by degrees, of the natural body, of the physiological not-self, by a kind of artificial one will take much time and effort, and be fraught with all manner of problems and even set-backs.  But we shall not achieve longevity of a character one would associate with eternity without the replacement, gradually and methodically, of that which, issuing from nature, holds our self ransom to mortality and, inevitably, to mortal death.  As creatures born of women, who are more inherently of nature, we die.  As creatures engineered, in increasing degrees, by science and technology, we shall be capable of transcending death and thus of living potentially for ever, give and take a replacement here and there of an artificial limb and/or organ or a new infusion of blood plasma or a change of oxygen provision as and when circumstances demand.  But I do not believe – and have never said – that such an investment in a synthetically artificial successor, no matter how piecemeal, to what nature has created for and imposed upon us should be developed for its own sake, independent of other considerations.  On the contrary, it must be a means whereby the self, physiologically reducible to the brain stem and spinal cord and psychologically reducible to the ego and soul, can attain to the maxim of its self-realization without fear of death and without dependence, somatically, on nature, including human nature.  For me, cyborgization, however broached, is simply the means that will enable the self to attain to its true end in eternal life on a basis that, in keeping with the global requirements of contemporary civilization, will be no less synthetically artificial than everything we would now recognize as properly contemporary and thus already effectively as much beyond man as mankind was beyond nature and nature, for that matter, beyond the cosmos.  We already live, believe it or not, in the age of the cyborg, as of the mechanization of life through technological innovation and development, but we have not yet gravitated, under messianic guidance, to that stage of cyborgization which will be no robotic parallel with or alternative to man but the means whereby he can transmute into godliness and, for females, antidevilishness, in the event of accepting a divine destiny for himself via paradoxical elections for religious sovereignty in a variety of countries predisposed, at this point in time, to that possibility because of their religious traditions and readiness to accept or, in the contemporary case, re-accept, on suitably revolutionary terms, a renewal of church-hegemonic criteria in the interests of enhanced self-awareness and, ultimately, of eternal life.  I have made no bones, in the past, about contending that such a life requires, in the West at any rate, a Roman Catholic predisposition, and I see no reason to revise my contention now.  Unless there is a predisposition, no matter how undermined by contemporary state-hegemonic impositions deriving from Protestant secularity, to church-hegemonic criteria there can be no overhauling, democratically and paradoxically, of those criteria in the future and therefore no development of the institutional framework that would make salvation to eternal life and, for females, counter-damnation to anti-infinite death possible on the basis of an ultimate metaphysics and antimetachemistry capable of developing truth and beauty, joy and love, to speak in general terms, to their logical conclusions in a framework that was both church-hegemonic and state-subordinate.  For only such a society can guarantee, contrary to Hegelian state death, that the ‘horse’, so to speak, of free psyche is put before the ‘cart’, as it were, of bound soma, and that cyborgization develops in response to, not independently of, the extents to which a religiously sovereign supra-humanity, whether divine or antidiabolic, wishes to develop a synthetically-enhanced sense of self-awareness with the aid of substances that, for humanity, could only prove unsustainable over a protracted period of time but, for their saved and/or counter-damned successors, would prove not merely sustainable but critical to the achievement of eternal life on successively more essential levels of self-realization, be that realization egoistic and visionary or, ultimately, psychoistic and unitary, requiring only the correlative enhancement of cyborgization for its long-term viability to be chemically and psychologically assured.

 

FREE CROSS AND BOUND STAR.  I have never liked stars.  Perhaps part of the reason for that is that they remind me of my experience at infants’ school of being awarded a star according to how one performed in one’s lessons or play or tasks or whatever.  The stars were of course different colours in order to allow for grading, and one was presented by teacher – usually female - with a particular colour star whenever one’s activities warranted reward.  But that would not be the whole answer to this problem of my dislike, bordering on intense aversion, to stars.  Doubtless I have come to see them in relation to heathenistic as opposed to Christianistic norms, as something more sensual than sensible, more ‘once born’ than ‘reborn’, in the Christian lingo, and therefore as unworthy of anyone who, especially when male, prides himself on being sensible and somehow removed from the glittering superficiality of show business and barbarous ideologies and political leftism and religious fundamentalism and all those things one would normally associate with the proximity of stars of one kind or another.  I don’t even like the Cosmos, which is so full of stars, and regard my own ideological standpoint as being antithetical to anything cosmic, pretty much as civilized mankind would be antithetical, lower down in the realm of phenomenal relativity, to nature and even, in an ethnic sense, to what could be called the ‘subhumanity’ of natural mankind.  However that may be, I take no pleasure in stars, least of all when used as an emblem for a political tendency or movement, and look forward to a time when a new kind of cross, call it centrecross or even supracross, will become more universally prevalent, as though on a basis of Social Theocratic Centrism or with regard to an ideological standpoint that was more transcendentalist than humanist and therefore committed to the development of metaphysics and, for females, antimetachemistry to their logical conclusions in what could be regarded as the closest approximation to ‘Kingdom Come’.  Such a ‘centrecross’ would signify psychic freedom more than somatic binding and would consequently differ quite demonstrably from the Christian cross, especially that upon which the ‘Son of God’ is depicted as though in illustration of bound soma, and not as a precondition so much as a consequence of free psyche which, in metaphorical terms, would appertain to the ‘Father’, albeit to a ‘Father’ who properly precedes the ‘Son’, as psyche precedes soma in male actuality, and has nothing whatsoever to do with an anterior Creator extrapolated out, in Old Testament vein, from some Jehovahesque ‘first mover’ in the Cosmos who, with Christianity, becomes a kind of ‘Father’ to a ‘Son’ who is successive to him like some kind of worldly mean to a netherworldly alpha, the root creative force behind everything else.  No such ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as God could ever make it as God for me, and therefore what properly appertains to God can only be first in the sense of psyche preceding soma in metaphysics, which is rather like the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as opposed, with Judaic Creation, to its northwest point, being, in elemental terms, closer to the last element (air) than to the first (fire).  Even the Romans, appertaining to civilization this side of the Mediterranean, had, as Europeans, more cosmic sensibility about them than would have been compatible with peoples more under the influence of its stellar and solar aspects in patently sensual fashion, and when the apostate Paul brought Christianity back across the Mediterranean from the Middle East, from ancient Palestine, it was as though with the one worldly, temperate step forward of the ‘Son’ one had to endure two netherworldly, untemperate steps back with a ‘Father’ who was less Jupiterian, much less Saturnian, than an extrapolation, arguably, from some stellar primacy more congenial to desert and arid lands than to anything West European.  Be that as it may, the populism of worldly succession to a primal creative force identified, falsely, with God is simply not relevant to any kind of religious transcendentalism, being a humanistic extrapolation from a more fundamentalist approach to religion, and we may be confident that Christianity has failed, even in Roman Catholicism, which, as the name might suggest, owes more to sensibility than to sensuality, to achieve anything like a consistently transcendentalist approach to religion that would lead to a repudiation, unequivocally, of all religious fundamentalism, including that which anchors humanism and is not even unequivocally Old Testament in character.  Such a repudiation can only be achieved, I have argued, with Social Theocracy following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in paradoxical elections held in certain nominally democratic countries which are yet, like Eire, more bureaucratic than democratic and, especially, heir to a Catholic tradition, and thus less economically of man and antipolitically of antiwoman than politically of woman and anti-economically of antiman, thereby being less given to humanistic freedom (which, at bottom, is the only freedom which Western civilization has really achieved … in puritanical defiance of Old Testament criteria) than to faith in the possibility of transcendentalist freedom and, for females, antifundamentalist freedom coupled, more especially, to antimaterialist binding, the state-subordinate corollary of idealist binding, in soma, for males.  Hence, in differentiating between metaphysics and antimetachemistry, transcendentalism/idealism and antifundamentalism/antimaterialism in this gender-based way, one would be allowing for a distinction between the free centrecross, or Social Theocratic emblem, and the bound star, between a cross that was not contiguously encircled and a star that manifestly was contiguously encircled, thereby signifying an antimetachemical retort to the un-encircled freedom of metachemical stars, under which, I fear to say, one can envisage the contiguously-encircled CND emblem as exemplifying the antimetaphysical subordination to a metachemical hegemony so typical of the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and therefore of every form of sensual subservience of males to females on the noumenal planes of space and time or, more correctly in this instance, antitime.  Thus the northeast point of the said compass, wherein metaphysics and antimetachemistry have their respective positions, is the exact opposite of this heathenistic state-of-affairs, being one in which the male is free (in psyche) and the female, though also free in psyche, bound (in soma), this latter contrary to her gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche.  Thus, in general terms, the ascension of the free cross requires the subordination of the bound star.  Classless metaphysics is only possible so long as it is accompanied, subordinately, by anti-upperclass antimetachemistry, the female counter-damned and counter-cursed through being at cross-purposes with her gender actuality under male hegemonic pressures, in metaphysics, such that constitute for males both the salvation and blessedness of being in sync with their gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma.  Only in metaphysics is this possible to the male; for in physics, which is the freedom of man (not God), such psychic freedom as exists is undermined by an emphasis on bound soma under duress of the antichemical (female) subversion of physics at the behest, diagonally back up the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, the antithetical link between metachemistry and antichemistry constituting primary state-hegemonic and even church-subordinate criteria on what are patently female terms.  Therefore only in salvation from antiphysics to metaphysics will the male achieve the blessedness of gender sync, obliging the female to be counter-damned from chemistry to antimetachemistry in the counter-cursedness of free psyche and bound soma for a creature who, left to her natural devices, is the other way around.  Such is the logical conclusion to the gender war which, at this point in time, is a long way from being won by males!  For even in antiphysics under chemistry, the male is upended to the extent of having to go along with free soma and bound psyche under an equivocal female hegemony, being foolish in the one and sinful in his consciousness of such folly in the other – at any rate, so long, traditionally, as Catholic criteria obtained with some kind of link between antiphysics and a degree, no matter how imperfect, of metaphysics such that, in male vein, permitted the emphasis at the southwest point of the axial compass to be switched from soma to psyche, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of unadulterated heathenism.  For such a switch would also affect females, as a chemical link with antimetachemistry established secondary church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria in terms of bound to free psyche and free to bound soma respectively.  But such terms, contrary to Catholic male-led reductionism, were not from sin to grace in the one context and from folly to wisdom in the other but, on the contrary, from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment in respect of church-hegemonic criteria and from pseudo-evil to pseudo-good in respect of state-subordinate criteria, thereby retaining a gender differential which characterizes both this and the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis at every turn, even if, as was evidently the case, such a differential was seldom recognized or institutionally upheld, much less acknowledged.  Therefore even the notion that we are born in sin is fallacious insofar as sin and, more pertinently to sex, folly, are contrary manifestations, bound psychic and free somatic, of antiphysics, the mass male catholic elemental position, and cannot be applied to females, for whom the pseudo-evil of chemical free soma and the pseudo-crime of chemical bound psyche would logically oblige us to infer some other stigma than that of sin – namely, that of pseudo-crime or, in somatic terms, pseudo-evil, not forgetting that what is pseudo on the one axis is genuine on the other and vice versa, so that genuine sin and folly in antiphysics and pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil in chemistry have to be contrasted with genuine evil and crime in metachemistry (female) and pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin in antimetaphysics (male), due attention being paid to the switch of emphasis from psyche to soma which characterizes state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria.  However that may be, whether born in sin or pseudo-sin, folly or pseudo-folly, males differ demonstrably from females in this respect, since while it is foolish for a male to be at cross-purposes with his gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma under female hegemonic pressures in sensuality, whether in phenomenal relativity or noumenal absolutism, the female in such a context is by no means acting foolishly but, rather, in keeping with her gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche, which is to say in terms of evil and/or pseudo-evil in free soma and crime and/or pseudo-crime in bound psyche, the difference again being one of class, since whereas metachemistry is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetaphysics, chemistry, as noted, is only equivocally hegemonic over antiphysics and is therefore subject, at least traditionally in Catholic countries, to psychic subversion at the behest of such metaphysics and antimetachemistry as can be religiously and anti-scientifically mustered to thwart heathen impulses and render spurious the forms of evil and crime that chemically obtain.  Such spurious forms of evil and crime, which we have equated with pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime, end up playing second fiddle, so to speak, to folly and sin or, more correctly within church-hegemonic/state-subordinate parameters, to sin and folly, being, as pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil, the secondary church-hegemonic and state-subordinate corollaries of that which leads to salvation, in grace and wisdom of metaphysics, for males and to counter-damnation, in pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness of antimetachemistry, for females, the counter-cursed counterpart to a blessed hegemony which is the rule of transcendentalism and idealism over the anti-infinity of antifundamentalism and antimaterialism for all eternity.

 

OVERCOMING THE GENDER WAR IN THE INTERESTS OF UNIVERSAL PEACE.  If the so-called ‘wise man’ prefers to avoid sex it is not because he is prudish or squeamish but because he has a strong conviction, born of logic, that it is not in a man’s interest to contribute, out of ignorance, towards the development of free soma when one is, in effect, a creature for whom psyche both precedes and preponderates over soma.  To fall into the female’s hands and play her game, setting soma free, is not the mark of a ‘wise man’ but of a fool, and therefore it will generally be the practice of sensible males to hold sex at bay as much as possible rather than to succumb to it under female pressures and effectively ‘sell out’ to the dominance, in one form or another, of evil and crime, becoming merely a foolish and sinful adjunct to a reproductive if not lustful female will which is implacably opposed to free psyche and to anything which would impede the liberty of soma to do its undamnedest, so to speak, in clear rejection of both unclearness and, for males, holiness.  Hence sex is fundamentally unholy from a male standpoint, since that which is contrary to the male grain of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma can only be contrary to the blessedness of being in gender sync with it.  But such unholiness, as we have seen, defers to the hegemonic sway of clearness, of female evil and crime in free soma and bound psyche, whether in the phenomenal or indeed the noumenal elemental contexts thereof, and invariably becomes ‘fall guy for slag’, or denigration of the subordinate position.  It is not males who most profit from sex but females, whether or not, though especially when, coitus leads to pregnancy and, hence, the prospect of reproduction, the offspring of which ‘firm up’ the female side of life at the expense of the male, and this irrespective of the gender of the children, since even male kids have something demonstrably female about them, irrespective of the fact, noted in the previous entry, that it behoves us to equate them with folly and sin rather than with evil and crime, after the fashion of that which, being female, will perpetuate, into the next generation, the strategies of seduction and conquest which accrue to a XX chromosomal integrity at the expense of the XY of their male victims.  Of course, such strategies may be artfully or skilfully disguised under a variety of complaisant ploys designed to impress the male, not least in relation to male virtues, but they cannot but persist in view of the tyrannical fundamentals of female existence which require to be placated come what may, since such fundamentals cannot be wished away or precluded.  Hence the XX will war on the XY integrity virtually until its dying day, though especially from the age of puberty into menopausal adulthood, after which its prospects, even if still pursued, can only be regressively less likely of success, the more so as the prospects of reproduction diminish.   For females are fundamentally reproductive creatures, not productive ones like males, and reproduction with them is not a choice but a virtual necessity born of natural causes, of which the persistence of menstruation from puberty is not the least.  Therefore the female will wage war against the male come what may, in virtually any circumstances, and that is why peace on earth is not characteristic of human life, but rather the exception to the general rule.  Males are capable of peace and of living peaceably, but the pressures of gender and, via that, of society are such that they are more usually co-opted to the triumph of war via what could be called the shame of antipeace, becoming merely the antiphysical or antimetaphysical adjuncts to a chemical or metachemical hegemony, depending on the class context.  But such antipeace, while it may differ from war as unholiness from clearness or folly and sin from evil and crime, whether of the pseudo or genuine varieties, is a far cry from peace and that which, in sensibility, would subordinate the opposite gender to antiwar, as though in an unclear deference to holiness.  Unless there is a stance taken for peace and, via that, antiwar, there can be no salvation of the male from antipeace to peace and no damnation, correlatively, of the female from war to antiwar.  The hegemony of grace and wisdom over punishment and goodness is crucial to the establishment of peace at the expense of antiwar and to the exclusion of war and antipeace.  But such a hegemony must be unequivocal and therefore metaphysical.  If it is merely physical, as with man, it will be subverted by antiwar to somatic emphasis under axial pressure of war over antipeace, and the female link between war and antiwar, metachemistry and antichemistry, will maintain, as at present in certain countries, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria on primary terms, relegating any correlative link between antimetaphysics and physics to a secondary status in both state and church.  Such a peace, while it may have the appearance of a solution to the dilemma of war or, more correctly from a male standpoint, antipeace, will be forever in the pocket of antiwar and its inescapable link to war.  It will be an equivocal peace no less than an equivocal antiwar which prevails with phenomenal relativity, and therefore peace will remain at the mercy of war.  Only the unequivocal peace of metaphysics can deliver peace from the clutches of antipeace and ensure that war is damned or, rather, counter-damned, to antiwar, being forever unequivocally subordinate to peace as antimetachemistry to metaphysics or, in specific psychic and somatic terms, pseudo-punishment (counter-punishment) and pseudo-goodness (counter-goodness) to grace and wisdom.  Therefore we return to the necessity of the revolutionary overhaul and, in some sense, resurrection of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria in certain fundamentally Catholic countries in order that peace may be established at the expense of antiwar to a degree, on the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, that surpasses anything achieved within a Western and mankind-oriented framework in the past, never mind its Eastern or Buddhist counterpart.  Mankind, even when oriented towards godliness and antidevilishness at the northeast point of such a compass cannot really achieve lasting peace and antiwar, because the gender war persists willy-nilly, and nothing the Church can do to palliate or soften this war actually succeeds in putting a stop to it.  The female will persist in her XX-based gender assault upon the male, and the male, more often than not, will succumb to it and become a familial adjunct to the reproductive will of females, thereby perpetuating the world or, at any rate, that aspect of it which can be identified with the southwest point of the axial compass as opposed, for instance, to its southeast point which, by any large, remains not only puritanically separate from but ideologically opposed to the Catholic Church, even as that Church is obliged, in the totality of Biblical traditions, to acknowledge and accommodate, as best it can, tendencies that run contrary to its own primary axial responsibility, including some which one would associate, in Old Testament vein, with the northwest point of the axial compass and, hence, with netherworldly rather than worldly criteria.  However that may be, peace and antiwar are only rather imperfectly established even by the metaphysics and antimetachemistry obtaining within Catholicism by dint of its effective overall subordination to a more genuine below which, with antiphysics and chemistry, effectively determines the fulcrum of things in favour of worldly criteria, the characteristic, after all, of Old World or Western civilization whether in its church-hegemonic or, indeed, state-hegemonic axial modes.  Only in a post-worldly age is this respective balance of powers reversed, as is already the case with state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in the New World, especially America, which is less Western than universal, and things therefore are engineered in such fashion that the ‘above’ truly calls the shots, as it were, for the ‘below’ and so transforms society that, in the event of a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate retort to the contemporary post-worldly state of affairs, more efficacious procedures of salvation and counter-damnation could be effected which would eventually remove from their antiphysical or, rather, pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical positions under metachemical and antimetaphysical pressures those who now continue to languish in quasi-state-hegemonic apartness from both traditional church-hegemonic and the prospect of revolutionary church-hegemonic criteria, and bring them, by degrees, to metaphysical salvation and antimetachemical counter-damnation at the overhauled northeast point of the axial compass which would be commensurate, under Social Theocracy, with ‘Kingdom Come’, and thus with a more genuinely universal and antipolyversal retort to pseudo-worldly criteria.  Only then, with synthetically artificial implications in both psyche and soma, will it be possible to put an end to both the lower forms of antipeace and war as the higher forms of peace and antiwar take their place with the supersession of pseudo-antiphysics and pseudo-chemistry by metaphysics and antimetachemistry.  And only after that will there be any chance that the metachemistry and antimetaphysics of the northwest point of the axial compass will collapse into pseudo-antichemistry and pseudo-physics for want of pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical prey at the southwest point of such a compass, thereby being damned and counter-saved down to their phenomenal counterparts (at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) as a matter of course.  We who relate to the revolutionary northeast point of the said compass have no love, in our elevated and essentially noble hearts, for those who appertain to pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-antiphysics, since we are forever distinct, in our minds and in our attitudes, from the mass of pseudo-worldly humanity whose sinfulness and (pseudo)criminality, folly and (pseudo)evil, we morally despise.  But it is not necessary that we should love those whom we would save and counter-damn, according to gender, to a universal mode of metaphysics and an antipolyversal mode of antimetachemistry.  The important thing, from our point of view, is that those who now keep us out in the cold and who deride our ‘idealism’, those, in other words, who appertain to the northwest point of the axial compass in their metachemistry and antimetaphysics, should be brought low and undone, so that it is godliness and antidevilishness which triumphs not merely at the expense of pseudo-antimanliness and pseudo-womanliness but, no less significantly, to the exclusion of devilishness and antigodliness, and those who can be damned and counter-saved, according to gender, are damned and counter-saved to those who now play some role, whether directly or indirectly, in financing their somatic license.  For until they are damned and counter-saved, the people who are already damned or counter-saved will not be eligible for any kind of salvation or counter-damnation in the wake of their pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical counterparts across the axial divide, and will therefore continue to remain in the pseudo-physical and pseudo-antichemical positions that they already, in post-worldly terms, occupy.  But only the efficacious salvation and counter-damnation of the pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical to metaphysics and antimetachemistry can bring about the downfall, for worse or better, of the metachemical and antimetaphysical, and therefore it behoves us to ‘get our own [axial] house in order’ before we can have the luxury of looking forward to a time when those who now ‘rule the [noumenal] roost’ from the northwest point of the axial compass are no longer able to do so, and divine righteousness and antidiabolic pseudo-justice take their place at the northeast point of the said compass for all eternity and anti-infinity, ushering in the age of permanent peace and antiwar, and then only because reproduction will no longer be an issue within a cyborged-up supra-humanity of divine and antidiabolic intent that are no longer subject to the war-like impositions of females, whether diabolically metachemical or femininely chemical, but have transcended such impositions in the interests, more importantly, of synthetically-artificial self-realization and notself-curtailment, as germane to what would, in effect, be the psychic raison d’être of a society given to bound soma as a matter of course, and therefore divisible between church-hegemonic free cross and state-subordinate bound star, as between metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, as described in previous entries.  Universal peace and antipolyversal antiwar are possible, but only on a supra-human and therefore effectively cyborgistic basis that has got beyond the human need to reproduce because it can never die and does not need to accommodate war in gender or indeed any other fashion in consequence.

 

A METAPHYSICAL REJECTION OF BRASS.  What especially fails much so-called classical music and even jazz for me … is the prevalence of brass, whether in relation to silver or bronze, to metachemistry or antimetaphysics, as a kind of instrumental paradigm of conventional theism, not to say autocracy and antitheocracy, at what might be described as the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.  No one who rejects Devil the Mother hyped as God in what, compared to convention, must seem an atheistic stance … can possibly be complacent about brass instruments in music, since there is assuredly a correlation between brass, as a fiery order of wind, and metachemistry and/or antimetaphysics, the fiery and anti-airy elements par excellence.  Whether this brass is strictly a metachemical parallel in starry silver or a kind of solar antimetaphysical parallel in sunny bronze, the fact remains that it accords with a musical exemplification of autocracy and antitheocracy such that is at the roots of all societies that defer to Creatorism in the sense of Devil the Mother hyped as God and, again in free soma, the Antison of Antigod ‘done down’ as the Devil.  Thus there is something Old Testament-like about the utilization of brass, especially trumpets, and one feels that no composition with brass in it could possibly appeal to someone who was significantly metaphysical and thus committed, transcendentally and idealistically, to what properly appertains to God the Father and, in bound soma, to the Son of God.  Even those who, in female vein, would approximate to antimetachemistry should, one feels, have an aversion to brass, not least in respect of trumpets or horns, that may yet manifest in paradoxically bound somatic terms through the utilization of a muting device coupled, it may be, to some other parallel, perhaps physiological, to a contiguously encircled star.  For bound brass, as it were, must be the corollary of free wind, in the sense of woodwind without mutes or other constraining devices … at least up to and including mankind-centred music, which would have been overhauled, alpha-wise, by free brass of an electronic or synthetic order in typically contemporary vein which, if it didn’t spurn woodwind altogether made sure it was relegated to a subordinate position that was effectively psychically bound, like some contiguously-encircled cross.  Across the sensual/sensible divide of contemporary civilization, however, we are really talking synthesizers rather than synthesized brass or woodwind, and therefore music would be beyond the utilization of brass or woodwind of any description, making use of samples or original synthetic tones that could create a wind or brass or, more correctly, antibrass effect without having to compromise with a mankind-like shortfall from cyborgistic requirement, the sort of requirement that characterizes global civilization at the expense of both Western and Eastern civilizations.  Therefore one would be beyond brass altogether, even more so than those rock groups that are guitar-based rather than synthesizer-led and yet keen to avoid, for reasons best known to themselves, any connection with brass.  I must say that I respect their integrity in this matter and feel that there is a common bond between radical ‘men of the people’ and what might be called revolutionary intellectuals that unites them in opposition not only to the utilization of brass but to all types of music, including some so-called rock music, that are either based in or oriented towards brass.  No atheist in our sense of the word could possibly enjoy such music, and that is why those of us who are consciously, if not unconsciously, oriented towards transcendentalism and idealism, which requires in the female an antifundamentalist and antimaterialist corollary, more usually try to avoid such music and to reject it as symptomatic of all that stands in the way of a metaphysical and antimetachemical revolution such that would save theocracy from the autocratic clutches of Devil the Mother hyped as God and allow what properly appertains to God … the Father to transcendentally reign over the antifundamentalism of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil in unequivocally church-hegemonic vein, just as in state-subordinate terms the Son of God must take idealistic precedence over the antimaterialism of Antidevil the Antimother if justice is to be done to both metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the axial compass for all eternity and anti-infinity, God and Antidevil without end.

 

ACROSS THE SOCIALIST DIVIDE.  Although I would not claim, as a self-professed Social Theocrat, to be a socialist, it is incontrovertible to me that socialism comes in different guises and that it can be as antithetical in character as the southwest and southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass that I am always going on about.  By which I mean that socialism can be either bureaucratic or democratic, political or economic, and therefore conditioned either by the equivocal hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics in the one case or by the no-less equivocal hegemony of physics over antichemistry in the other case, so that one is obliged to posit a gender dichotomy between lower-class politics and anti-middleclass anti-economics in the case of the southwest point of the axial compass and, conversely, between middle-class economics and anti-lowerclass antipolitics in the case of the southeast point of the said compass, the former naturally making, in its political bias, for bureaucratic socialism, the latter, in its economic bias, for democratic socialism, whether or not we extrapolate social bureaucracy or social democracy from each of the ethnically antithetical positions.  For certainly such extrapolations can be made, if on the paradoxical basis of political vanity taking precedence over anti-economic meekness in the case of social bureaucracy and of economic righteousness taking precedence over antipolitical justice in the case of social democracy.  Hence the distinction between the political and economic forms of socialism, the one conditioned by vanity and the other by righteousness, is such that it is inconceivable that they could co-exist in the same party or movement, even if, in practice, vanity is duly overturned by meekness as male values begin to encroach upon the female hegemony the more bureaucratic socialism is displaced by social bureaucracy and, across the axial divide, righteousness is duly overturned by justice as female values begin to encroach upon the male hegemony the more democratic socialism is displaced by social democracy, neither the one nor the other living up or, rather, down to its name but displaying symptoms at cross-purposes with itself in relation to either antidemocracy in the case of social bureaucracy or antibureaucracy in the case of social democracy.  Therefore meekness in the former and justice in the latter become the paradoxically totalitarian terms upon which politics and economics rear social bureaucratic and social democratic heads, to the detriment of vanity and righteousness respectively.  Each sinks to the lowest-common-denominator, but in diametrically antithetical ways such that display male and female divergences from what, in bureaucratic socialism, would have been a female hegemony and, in democratic socialism, a male one.  Bureaucratic politics fuels antidemocratic anti-economics in the one case, while democratic politics fuels antibureaucratic antipolitics in the other case.  The antihumanistic meek put on military boots and stomp over their democratic neighbours, while the just don the garments of economic righteousness from a standpoint rooted in proletarian humanism and an antipathy to politics which breeds totalitarian opposition to bureaucratic freedom.  Whereas social bureaucracy is the anti-economic corruption of bureaucratic socialism, social democracy is the antipolitical corruption of democratic socialism.  The former co-opts politics to an anti-economic crusade against democracy.  The latter hijacks economics in its antipolitical struggle with bureaucracy.  Neither of them can lead to anything worthy of lasting respect, for they bring politics and economics down to the crass level of their respective forms of anti-economic and antipolitical state totalitarianism, which is the nadir of all things socialist, whether on a nationalistic male basis or on an internationalistic female basis.  For, of course, the male is more centripetal than centrifugal in his subjectivity and the female, by contrast, more centrifugal than centripetal in her objectivity.  Male subversion of the one (from out a catholic tradition) and female subversion of the other (from out a non-catholic tradition) breeds the respective perversions of bureaucratic socialism and democratic socialism that we have identified with the great totalitarian divide of so-called social bureaucracy and so-called social democracy, neither of which, as we have seen, have anything particularly bureaucratic or democratic to commend them.  For, as we have also seen, the eclipse of bureaucracy by antidemocracy and the eclipse of democracy by antibureaucracy is what gives them their respective anti-economic and antipolitical cutting edges, at least until the time those edges blunt themselves on their mutually-assured totalitarian opposition.

 

BEYOND NATIONALIST POLITICS.  Although I could not, as a self-professed Social Theocrat, endorse the social bureaucracy of radical republicanism in the Republic of Ireland, I am not against it, in the sense that anything to the left of liberal republicanism is bound, sooner or later, to encourage something to the right of it, whether in the form, traditionally, of the so-called Blue Shirts or in some other, more contemporary pro-Catholic guise.  I do not identify with an extreme left/right dichotomy within Irish politics traditionally or, indeed, contemporaneously, since that would be Western and uniquely of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate traditions in Ireland which encourage such divisions either side of liberal republicanism, or of that which eventually emerged from the Irish Civil-War clash between Free Staters and hard-line Republicans.  On the contrary, my beef, so to speak, is with that which preys upon the lapsed Catholic masses of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass from the noumenally sensual and noumenally anti-sensible heights of its northwest point, more usually, these days, in the guise of American-inspired cultural productions of a photographic or filmic or musically synthetic nature which have the effect of causing them to idolatrously defer to what are in effect the cultural offshoots of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria from an effectively quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate point of view.  Thus my opposition to what might be called the Americanization of Irish life is something which transcends the axial poles or parameters of Irish traditions within Western civilization, being as it were of a global or universal character that finds its fulcrum in relation to the concept of an overhauled northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass whose destiny it would be to save and counter-damn (according to gender) the lapsed Catholic masses from their plight at the southwest point of the said compass to this radically new position in the hope, eventually, that they will not only be delivered from the worst aspects of that which currently preys upon them from the northwest point of the compass in question, but be upgraded in such fashion that they will cease, by degrees, to identify with their former position, becoming increasingly godly and antidevilish (according to gender) the more they accept the synthetically artificial sensible culture that would not only turn them around from what they had previously been deferring to under pressure from noumenal sensuality and noumenal anti-sensibility, but require their progressive cyborgization in order to sustain that ‘rebirth’ at a necessarily intense and persistent level.  For unless they are sufficiently ‘reborn’, through a combination of chemical inducements and technological refinements of a cyborgistic character, they will not remain saved and/or counter-damned for long, and those who had formerly preyed upon them would still be able to do so or, at any rate, would be back in business, doubtless with a vengeance!  But our hope is that by sufficiently saving and counter-damning the lapsed Catholic masses from the southwest to the northeast point of the axial compass not only in Eire but, eventually, in a variety of other kindred or related countries too, the scope for heathenistic predation of the northwest point of the said compass will be considerably reduced, even to the degree, ultimately, of being put out of business altogether, so that the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis collapses into itself for want of economic viability.  Unfortunately, that day is a long way off at present.  But I do not despair of it ever happening; for I am convinced that the kind of opposition to it that I represent from a Social Theocratic standpoint is morally and ideologically valid and can be implemented on a gradualist basis in the coming decades.  It is not the bogey of radical republicanism the other side of the liberal republic that bothers me, for I have already seen through it and know where it ultimately leads, in the event of a social bureaucratic/social democratic antagonism subsequently coming to pass in relation to the fatality of the lowest-common-denominators.  I am no ‘blue shirt’ defender of the Catholic faith who would pounce on social bureaucratic tendencies before they got out of hand and threatened just such a long-term scenario, but a revolutionary theocrat who wishes to see the traditional faith, no longer able to stem the rising tide of American secular encroachment, superseded (in the event of a majority mandate for what has been called religious sovereignty ever transpiring in consequence of the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to counter the quasi-state-hegemonic paradox which currently has the majority of Catholic or lapsed Catholic persons in its secular grip) by Social Theocracy and faith in its ability to deliver the masses in question from their plight at the southwest point of the axial compass to the divine and antidiabolic heights, in noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality, of its northeast point, the point I have identified, all along, with ‘Kingdom Come’, and hence with a society characterized by religious sovereignty and the rights that such a sovereignty would entail in the event of its having been voted for in the aforementioned paradoxical election that would constitute a kind of judgement and process whereby ‘world-overcoming’ could be set in train from an otherworldly standpoint, call it Social Theocratic or Messianic or God-Centric or simply of ‘Kingdom Come’.  For only religious sovereignty will grant the people the right to psychic freedom (and somatic binding) of an order potent enough to enable society to be turned around and to experience a sensible ‘rebirth’ that will bring culture and civility, or counter-civility, to their ultimate metaphysical and antimetachemical peaks at the expense of all that would keep the people enslaved to the false cultural evidence of somatic licence in quasi-state-hegemonic idolatrous vein.  This antipathy to the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass from a revolutionary northeast point of it no less post-worldly and, hence, global in character is beyond any Sinn Fein/Blue Shirt-like antithesis within traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, just as global civilization is beyond not only Western civilization but its Eastern counterpart.  The Americanization of contemporary Irish Catholic life renders both radical republicanism and reactionary Catholic protectionism irrelevant to the liberal republican scene.  Only Social Theocracy can deliver the people from out the shadow of the American eagle into the inner light of the dove of peace whose metaphysics (coupled for females to antimetachemistry) must be no less synthetically artificial than the metachemical outer light (coupled for males to antimetaphysics) which currently blinds them to their true destiny in the Messianic ‘Kingdom’ to come.

 

THE MORAL NECESSITY OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION.  Males, as I am often keen to repeat, are psyche preceding and preponderating over soma.  Females, by contrast, are soma preceding and predominating over psyche.  Will and spirit predominating over ego and soul in the one case; ego and soul preponderating over will and spirit in the other case.  Therein lies the roots of the gender struggle which nature ordained largely in the interests of females without foreknowledge of the extent to which male-led civilization, largely founded on the need to foster and protect families, would subsequently exploit this dichotomy to its own advantage.  For a dichotomy once established cannot be undone, nor is there any guarantee that the psyche preceding soma of males won’t be taken to such lengths, under genuine culture, as to achieve a permanent victory in hegemony over the soma preceding psyche of females, thereby not only opposing nature – which, in any case, is all that civilization is good for – but ultimately transcending her.  For nature is fundamentally feminine or, at any rate, designed in such fashion as to favour the female at the expense of the male.  I think I have made a case, in certain of my works (preceding these weblogs), about the Cosmos being in its more prevalent, i.e. stellar/solar, aspects a context which favours the female absolutely, that is, on a 3:1 basis.  If that is so, then nature is only a context which favours the female relatively, on a 2½:1½ basis, being phenomenal rather than noumenal, corporeal rather than ethereal, and therefore relative as opposed to absolute.  Yet even that is no small advantage.  How much better then, from a male perspective, is the context which, as urban civilization, tends to favour the male on a 2½:1½ basis!  And yet, being relative, that is still inferior to whatever, in transcendent culture, favours the male on a 3:1 basis and thereby establishes an absolute antithesis with the stellar-ridden barbarity of the Cosmos.  If  civility is, in axial terms, a retort to barbarity, then culture is very much an axial retort to nature, if from a different male point of view – one favouring divinity rather than humanity, God rather than man.  Yet, for all their axial distinctiveness, culture and civility still ‘hang together’, whether genuine in the one case and pseudo in the other (metaphysics) or vice versa (physics), as male-dominated accomplishments; as, on the other side of the gender coin, do barbarity and nature, their sensual antitheses.  And yet people still persist in treating the genders as if they were equals!  As though the XX-chromosomal integrity of the female and the XY-chromosomal integrity of the male (the latter giving the male that edge over nature) were identical!  If you give females an inch of freedom, which for them means somatic freedom in sensuality, they will take an objective mile of it to the detriment of males.  For what is right for them (though not in the moral sense) is not to be under male domination in sensibility, but to be able to dominate males in sensuality.  This is the way that, according to nature and even the cosmos, they are made.  Shame for them is to be at cross-purposes with their gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche.  That makes them resigned, even if unconsciously, to vice.  Shame for males, on the contrary, is to find themselves at cross-purposes with their gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma.  That removes them from their original innocence, whether as a consequence of alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity, gluttony, drug abuse (especially in relation to narcotics), materialism, naturalism, or whatever it is that causes them to grovel before free soma.  Females have no such innocence.  They were not born innocent or intended, by nature, to be innocent, but to perpetuate the species through the vacuous imposition of objectivity in relation to free soma, free will, and hence all that is darkly removed from the innocence of inner light, of enlightenment.  I would not classify it as guilt, in the sense that shame in being at cross-purposes with one’s inherent nature makes for remorse and regret.  It is a sort of inherent evil that criminally takes itself for granted and can do no wrong in its own eyes, provided it is free to do what is in its best interests from a female point of view.  And it loathes, it mortally loathes to the point of barbarous fury, all that would oppose it and thwart its evil designs, all Christian somatic denial of folly (male) and/or evil (female) and psychic liberation from sin (male) and crime (female).  It wants that dead.  For it only gives birth on the basis that what it gives birth to will continue to pander to its interests in years and indeed generations to come.  It does not want to be put in its place and rendered impotent to conceive, unable to act freely, obliged to kowtow to male designs which, running contrary to sensual nature and the cosmos, can only be civil or cultural.  Unless it is put in a subordinate place to the male, however, and preferably in unequivocal rather than equivocal terms, in relation, that is, to antimetachemistry under metaphysics rather than to antichemistry under physics (which has the benefit of metachemistry over antimetaphysics to draw upon in state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms), there can be no male innocence, no peace that comes from being in sync with one’s gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, and therefore no end to guilt and suffering, to war and self-division, to folly and sin at the hands, craftily disguised and even tactfully ignored by conventional religions, of evil and crime, of that which, while not exactly innocent, is far from being guilty in and of itself.  Only when the advantage which nature inadvertently gave males by making them the other way around has been turned to full cultural account … will the gender war have been won, and peace become the rule rather than the exception, the rule of metaphysics for males which will require of antimetachemistry for females a binding to antiwar.  For they will be ashamed to have been counter-damned from war to antiwar as from chemistry to antimetachemistry, even though it was, like evil and crime, a pseudo-war that equivocally reigned over antiphysics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. (For the pseudo vis-à-vis genuine positions to be the other way round one would have to be describing state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria as germane to the opposite axis from anything traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, as here.)  But their shame in pseudo-good (bound soma) and pseudo-punishment (free psyche) in antimetachemistry is no argument against males being saved from antipeace to peace, as from antiphysics to metaphysics; for the blessed grace (in free psyche) and wisdom (in bound soma) of metaphysical salvation is its own justification and cannot be achieved except at the female’s counter-damned expense.  Willy-nilly, males have a duty to themselves or, rather, their selves, to defeat females in this way and return to a state of innocence.  Only cultural righteousness can guarantee such innocence, which is the blessedness of metaphysical holiness.  But it has to be coupled to pseudo-civil pseudo-justice (counter-justice) and, hence, to the pseudo-cursedness of antimetachemical unclearness, the shame of which counter-descending deliverance from war for females will be their inability to wage war as before, since antiwar is the antidevilish and antihellish corollary of godly and heavenly peace, the antivicious complement of true virtue, and only culture, taken to its logical extreme, can guarantee such peace.  Do you or do you not want such peace and antiwar?  That is the question of judgement.  But rest assured that if you do, it can only be achieved on a supra-human basis, as germane to the northeast point of our axial compass.  And to want it, and even to fear it, you have to be at its southwest point, as already remarked.  For salvation and counter-damnation are not just for anyone, but only for those who, as urbanized lapsed Catholics, are effectively pseudo-antimen and pseudo-women, the post-worldly preconditions of godly and antidevilish transmutation come the dawn of otherworldly righteousness and pseudo-justice with the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair.

 

FALLS AND COUNTER-RISES VIS-À-VIS RISES AND COUNTER-FALLS.   I was writing, not so long ago, about the lie of the ‘fall of man’.  But there is another way of looking at the problem, and that is in respect of the axial antitheses or poles, rather, at either end of the two intercardinal axes.  Just as a gender cannot be hegemonic at the northwest, southwest, southeast, or northeast point of these intercardinal axes without the opposite gender being upended and effectively put at cross-purposes with itself – antimetaphysics under metachemistry, antiphysics under chemistry, antichemistry under physics, and antimetachemistry under metaphysics – so the poles of a given axis cannot exist in relation to each other except on a pseudo vis-à-vis genuine basis.  Which is to say that if the northwest and northeast poles are pseudo, the southeast and southwest poles will be genuine, or vice versa.  In a worldly epoch, commensurate with Western and Christian criteria, the existence of each axis is premised upon a pseudo position above and a genuine position below, like pseudo-metachemistry vis-à-vis genuine antichemistry and pseudo-antimetaphysics vis-à-vis genuine physics on what has been called the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, together with pseudo-metaphysics vis-à-vis genuine antiphysics and pseudo-antimetachemistry vis-à-vis genuine chemistry on what we have termed the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.  Hence one could speak of the genuine positions, relative to the southeast and southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass, as constituting the ‘fallen’ positions … in the sense that they represent the worldly fulcrum of things in an epoch when the noumenal positions of the ‘above’ can only be pseudo, whether as pseudo-autocratic and pseudo-antitheocratic vis-à-vis genuine antibureaucratic and genuine democratic, or, across the axial divide, as pseudo-theocratic and pseudo-antiautocratic vis-à-vis genuine bureaucratic and genuine antidemocratic.  Hence the ‘fall of man’ is not to be interpreted in the simplistic Christian sense of a fall from God.  On the contrary, it is significant of the fulcrum of things being phenomenal, or worldly, and therefore as constitutive of the mean, whether in relation to the fall of antiwoman from the pseudo-Devil on the basis of antichemistry from pseudo-metachemistry or to the fall or, more correctly, antirise of man from pseudo-Antigod on the basis of physics from pseudo-antimetaphysics, the former position constitutive of a damnation from hegemonic pseudo-metachemistry to underplane antichemistry, free soma to bound soma, and the latter position constitutive of a counter-salvation from underplane pseudo-antimetaphysics to hegemonic physics, bound psyche to free psyche, as we descend or counter-ascend, according to gender, from the northwest to the southeast point of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.  Likewise, where church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria are concerned, one must differentiate between the fall of antiman from pseudo-God on the basis of antiphysics from pseudo-metaphysics and the fall or, more correctly, antirise of woman from the pseudo-Antidevil on the basis of chemistry from pseudo-antimetachemistry, the former position constitutive of a damnation from hegemonic pseudo-metaphysics to underplane antiphysics, free psyche to bound psyche, and the latter position constitutive of a counter-salvation from underplane pseudo-antimetachemistry to hegemonic chemistry, bound soma to free soma, as we descend or counter-ascend, according to gender, from the northeast to the southwest point of the axis in question.  Consequently, it is not simply a matter of falling from a hegemonic position above to an underplane position below, but also, for the opposite gender, of rising or, rather, counter-rising from an underplane position above to a hegemonic position below.  There is no simple ‘fall of man’.  Antiwoman falls from the pseudo-Devil no less than man counter-rises from Antigod on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, whereas antiman falls from pseudo-God no less than woman counter-rises from the pseudo-Antidevil on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.  Neither of them, however, are relevant to the post-worldly, and effectively global, present.  What we find, on the contrary, is a polarity, as in America, between a pseudo ‘below’ and a genuine ‘above’, pseudo-antichemistry and metachemistry, pseudo-physics and antimetaphysics, whereby the conditions of rising or counter-falling are significantly more relevant than conditions of falling and counter-rising.  And the same should apply, in due course, to the development of distinctions, on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, between pseudo-antiphysics and metaphysics, pseudo-chemistry and antimetachemistry, as pseudo-antiman is saved to God, rising from pseudo-antiphysics to metaphysics, and pseudo-woman is counter-damned to the Antidevil, counter-falling from pseudo-chemistry, which is equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-antiphysics, to antimetachemistry, which will be unequivocally subordinate to metaphysics at the northeast point of the axis in question.  For in a post-worldly, or global, age it is the noumenal positions which ‘call the shots’ at the expense of the phenomenal positions below, and what is already the case in terms of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria with respect, for example, to contemporary America (with its executive presidential C-in-C) must eventually become true of its axial antithesis, wherever that may be found and, more importantly, engineered, thereby bringing more efficacious procedures of salvation and counter-damnation, according to gender, to bear on the southwest point of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis (duly returned to self-respecting order from out the quasi-state-hegemonic other-deferring chaos of the present) in order that those who now pertain to it may be transmuted upwards towards the northeast point and be delivered from both their pseudo-worldly failings and those, across the axial divide, who avail of those failings to prey upon them in their own not-self, or somatic, female-dominated interest.  Instead of those in the ‘above’ being the priestly and/or monkish pseudo-exceptions to the genuine rule, the ‘above’ itself will become, at the said northeast point of the axis in question, the religiously-sovereign rule against which anything remaining in the pseudo-worldly ‘below’ will be very much the pseudo-exception, destined to remain ‘beneath the pale’ of heavenly and antihellish transmutations.

 

NO SIMPLE RIGHT AND WRONG.  Yesterday I attempted to equate the concept of the ‘fall of man’ with the genuine worldly positions that constituted the fulcrum of each axis, irrespective of the antithetical nature, duly noted, of the axes themselves.  For the very fact of their being antithetical precludes such a concept from having equal applicability to each axis.  If you are of the ‘fallen’, what have you fallen from or, alternatively, to what do you exist in a kind of polar relation?  Certainly not the Risen!  For the Fallen can only exist in polar relation to the Unfallen, whether as fallen to pseudo-unfallen or, alternatively, as pseudo-fallen to unfallen, depending on the epochal context of any given form of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate civilization.  And where the Fallen exist in relation to the Unfallen, the Counter-Risen exist in relation to the Counter-Unrisen, whether as counter-risen to pseudo-counter-unrisen or, in a post-worldly context, as pseudo-counter-risen to counter-unrisen, the Counter-Unrisen no less subordinate to the Unfallen than, at the other pole of the axis in question, the Fallen to the Counter-Risen.  Yet what applies to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria most certainly cannot be applied to its church-hegemonic/state-subordinate antithesis!  For the Risen can only exist in polar relation to the Unrisen, whether as pseudo-risen to unrisen in a worldly epoch and mode of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate civilization or, by contrast, as risen to pseudo-unrisen in its post-worldly – and effectively global – counterpart.  And where the Risen exist in relation to the Unrisen, the Counter-Fallen exist in relation to the Counter-Unfallen, whether as pseudo-counter-fallen to counter-unfallen in traditional terms or, from a contemporary and/or futuristic standpoint, as counter-fallen to pseudo-counter-unfallen, the Counter-Fallen no less subordinate to the Risen than, at the other pole of the axis in question, the Unrisen to the Counter-Unfallen.  Therefore far from an equalitarian reductionism to the Fallen, the southwest point of the axial compass presents us with a contrast between the Unrisen and the Counter-Unfallen which contrasts with the distinction between the Fallen and the Counter-Risen at its southeast point, the point which exists in polar relation to the Unfallen and the Counter-Unrisen no less than its axial antithesis to the Risen and Counter-Fallen.  But such a contrast in relations is typical of the antithetical nature of the two axes.  No one set of criteria can be applied to them.  They remain antithetical in virtually every respect.  Nor can one contend, with any certainty, that the overall distinction between the Unrisen/Counter-Unfallen and the Risen/Counter-Fallen on the one hand and the Unfallen/Counter-Unrisen and the Fallen/Counter-Risen on the other hand is between right and wrong.  It may seem to be, but, in reality, the positions on either axis are not so black and white.  What one can say with logical conviction is that the sensual positions of the Unfallen/Counter-Unrisen and of the Unrisen/Counter-Unfallen correspond to contexts which are subject to hegemonic female criteria in which free soma and bound psyche are the most characteristic gender differentials, whereas the sensible positions of the Fallen/Counter-Risen and of the Risen/Counter-Fallen correspond to contexts which are subject to hegemonic male criteria in which free psyche and bound soma are the most characteristic gender differentials.  Therefore there is an overall hegemonic contrast between the immorality of free soma and the morality of free psyche, both of which are right to their respective genders.  What is wrong is not immorality per se, but the upended male position in antimetaphysics under metachemistry for the Unfallen/Counter-Unrisen and in antiphysics under chemistry for the Unrisen/Counter-Unfallen, so that one has situations in which the male is antimorally wrong in bound psyche and free soma vis-à-vis the immoral rightness of the freely somatic and bound psychic female, the principal gender differential in each case being bound psyche for the male and free soma for the female.  Likewise, if from a contrary standpoint in sensibility, what is wrong is the upended female position in antichemistry under physics for the Fallen/Counter-Risen and in antimetachemistry under metaphysics for the Risen/Counter-Fallen, so that one has situations in which the female is anti-immorally wrong in bound soma and free psyche vis-à-vis the moral rightness of the freely psychic and bound somatic male, the principal gender differential in each case being bound soma for the female and free psyche for the male.  Thus we cannot argue in favour of sensual wrongness vis-à-vis sensible rightness.  Female immorality rides triumphantly over male antimorality in each of the sensual axial contexts, whereas male morality rides triumphantly over female anti-immorality in each of the sensible axial contexts.  But it does so, of course, in a different way and to a different extent in each context, be it sensual or sensible.  The immoral rightness of metachemistry over the antimoral wrongness of antimetaphysics is unequivocal, whereas the immoral rightness of chemistry over the antimoral wrongness of antiphysics in merely equivocal, subject to subversion in terms of bound psychic emphasis at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry, which establishes church-hegemonic criteria.  Conversely, the moral rightness of metaphysics over the anti-immoral wrongness of antimetachemistry is unequivocal, whereas the moral rightness of physics over the anti-immoral wrongness of antichemistry is merely equivocal, subject to subversion in terms of bound somatic emphasis at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, which establish state-hegemonic criteria.  Again the axes are completely antithetical.  One can no more speak of moral right unequivocally triumphing over anti-immoral wrong in relation to the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass than of immoral right unequivocally triumphing over antimoral wrong in relation to the southwest point of the said compass.  It is only at the northwest and northeast points that anything resembling an unequivocal triumph occurs, and that is all the distinction between the immoral rightness/antimoral wrongness of the Unfallen/Counter-Unsaved and the moral rightness/anti-immoral wrongness of the Risen/Counter-Fallen.  Right and wrong do hang together at each point of the axial compass, but they do so on both immoral/antimoral and moral/anti-immoral terms.  The female of the species is born for the immoral rightness of somatic freedom.  The male of the species is intended, on the contrary, for the moral rightness of psychic freedom.  The one is soma preceding and predominating over psyche.  The other is psyche preceding and preponderating over soma.  Life is the result of a gender struggle between these two antithetical tendencies, neither of which can simultaneously triumph.  For if females are immorally hegemonic in free soma, males must be subordinately upended and reduced to antimoral wrongness.  But if males become morally hegemonic in free psyche, females can only be subordinately upended and reduced to anti-immoral wrongness.  Either fact rules illusion in sensuality and antisensibility or, in sensibility and antisensuality, truth rules or, more correctly, leads fiction.  You can’t have it both ways, and that is why there are two axes which are, to all intents and purposes, mutually exclusive in their respective types of civilization and commitments to either female-dominated or male-oriented values.

 

RE-EXAMINING THE AXIAL COMPASS IN RELATION TO RIGHT AND WRONG. Having established the pairings of right and wrong in both sensuality (and antisensibility) and sensibility (and antisensuality), it is evident that immoral right and antimoral wrong at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass correspond to absolute fact and to absolute illusion (antitruth) in which the noumenal objectivity of metachemical clearness is unequivocally hegemonic over the noumenal antisubjectivity of antimetaphysical unholiness, like the Devil over Antigod in both free soma (Devil the Mother/the Antison of Antigod) and bound psyche (the Daughter of the Devil/Antigod the Antifather), the former more characteristic of metachemical clearness, the latter of antimetaphysical unholiness.  Contrariwise, it should be evident that moral right and anti-immoral wrong at the southeast point of the said compass correspond to relative truth (knowledge) and to relative fiction in which the phenomenal subjectivity of physical holiness is equivocally hegemonic over the phenomenal anti-objectivity of antichemical unclearness, like Man over Antiwoman in both free psyche (Man the Father/the Antidaughter of Antiwoman) and bound soma (the Son of Man/Antiwoman the Antimother), the former more characteristic of physical holiness, the latter of antichemical unclearness.  Yet the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis paradoxically illustrates the subversion of physics by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, so that the emphasis is switched from free psyche to bound soma in what is a phenomenal partnership between pseudo-righteousness and justice in antithesis to the noumenal partnership between vanity and pseudo-meekness, vanity and justice constituting, in their metachemical-to-antichemical female link, primary state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria, their pseudo-meek and pseudo-righteous male counterparts constitutive, in their antimetaphysical-to-physical link, of secondary state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria.  So much for the axis that stretches from northwest to southeast points of the intercardinal compass, whether from the top down or, in post-worldly guise, from the bottom up, wherein we would be conscious of an orientation that favoured the noumenal positions at the expense of their phenomenal counterparts, transforming pseudo-antichemistry into metachemistry and pseudo-physics into antimetaphysics, as the pseudo-anti-immoral wrongness of pseudo-antiwoman was transformed into the immoral rightness (or uncursedness) of the Devil and, in conjunction with this, the pseudo-moral rightness of pseudo-man into the antimoral wrongness of Antigod on both somatic and psychic terms such that equated with state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria and were constitutive of the undamnation of females and the counter-unsalvation of males, the former unfalling from the anti-immoral wrongness of bound soma and free psyche in pseudo-antichemistry to the immoral rightness of free soma and bound psyche in metachemistry, the latter counter-unrising from the moral rightness of bound soma and free psyche in pseudo-physics to the antimoral wrongness of free soma and bound psyche in antimetaphysics, as Vanity Fair and the Anti-Celestial City pursue their hellish and antiheavenly courses through Polyversality and Anti-Universality for all Infinity and Anti-Eternity. - By contrast, it should be equally evident that moral right and anti-immoral wrong at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass correspond to absolute truth and to absolute fiction in which the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysical holiness is unequivocally hegemonic over the noumenal anti-objectivity of antimetachemical unclearness, like God over the Antidevil in both free psyche (God the Father/the Antidaughter of the Antidevil) and bound soma (the Son of God/Antidevil the Antimother), the former more characteristic of metaphysical holiness, the latter of antimetachemical unclearness.  Contrariwise, it should be evident that immoral right and antimoral wrong at the southwest point of the said compass correspond to relative fact and to relative illusion (antiknowledge) in which the phenomenal objectivity of chemical clearness is equivocally hegemonic over the phenomenal antisubjectivity of antiphysical unholiness, like Woman over Antiman in both free soma (Woman the Mother/the Antison of Antiman) and bound psyche (the Daughter of Woman/Antiman the Antifather), the former more characteristic of chemical clearness, the latter of antiphysical unholiness.  Yet the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis paradoxically illustrates the subversion of chemistry by antiphysics at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry, so that the emphasis is switched from free soma to bound psyche in what is a phenomenal partnership between meekness and pseudo-vanity in antithesis to the noumenal partnership between righteousness and pseudo-justice, righteousness and meekness constituting, in their metaphysical-to-antiphysical male link, primary church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria, their pseudo-just and pseudo-vain female counterparts constitutive, in their antimetachemical-to-chemical link, of secondary church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria.  So much, then, for the axis that stretches from northeast to southwest points of the intercardinal compass, whether from the top down or, in post-worldly guise, from the bottom up, wherein we would be conscious of an orientation that favoured the noumenal positions at the expense of their phenomenal counterparts, transforming pseudo-antiphysics into metaphysics and pseudo-chemistry into antimetachemistry, as the pseudo-antimoral wrongness of pseudo-antiman was transformed into the moral rightness (or blessedness) of God and, in conjunction with this, the pseudo-immoral rightness of pseudo-woman into the anti-immoral wrongness of the Antidevil on both psychic and somatic terms such that equated with church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria and were constitutive of the salvation of males and the counter-damnation of females, the former rising from the antimoral wrongness of bound psyche and free soma in pseudo-antiphysics to the moral rightness of free psyche and bound soma in metaphysics, the latter counter-falling from the immoral rightness of bound psyche and free soma in pseudo-chemistry to the anti-immoral wrongness of free psyche and bound soma in antimetachemistry, as the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair pursue their heavenly and antihellish courses through Universality and Anti-Polyversality for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity.

 

GETTING THE LIFE-FORCE INTO PERSPECTIVE.  It has been said that the life-force, the so-called élan vital of Bergson, is neither evil nor good: it just is.  And evidently this was the belief of the composer Nielsen when he wrote his fourth symphony in 1914-16, at the time of Word War I, a time when the life-force was in full throttle.  But some genuine philosophers would beg to disagree with that, not least Schopenhauer, who was of the view that the life-force was precisely the thing that had to be rejected if one was to secure any peace of mind and effective salvation.  But Schopenhauer was a lone voice in his time, and his opposition to the life-force, to the will and even, I would argue, to the spirit, was more negative than positive, less Christian than orientally atheistic in the sense of accepting a cessation of will as tantamount to salvation rather than going on, beyond such an unchristian stance, to an acceptance of soul as the godly prerogative of the Saved.  There is, in a sense, no salvation with Schopenhauer but, rather, a refusal to play the heathenistic game of will and/or spirit and to regard such a refusal as the best, in the absence of a kind of transvaluation of values commensurate with the rejection of Devil the Mother hyped as God, that can be done.  Yet, even with his want of a genuinely godly alternative to what are fundamentally devilish or womanish proclivities which conventional religion has sought to cover with the lie of Providence, Schopenhauer is morally preferable to the advocators of the life-force in one or other of its principal permutations, as either free will or free spirit, and thus a viable alternative or even antidote to the likes of Hegel, with his evolution of Geist, or, subsequently, to Nietzsche, with his paganistic amor fati in the service of the ‘will to power’, and certainly to those in the twentieth century who took affirmation of the life-force a fatal stage further, as did the aforementioned Bergson, with his élan vital, and prepared the way, via Spengler and others, for the Hitlerian apocalypse of World War II, out of which orgy of free will and spirit there emerged the Existentialism of the immediate post-war generation, with its Sartrean doctrine of freedom through action.  In fact, it is difficult to think of a philosopher in the post-war generation who, with the possible exception of Camus, could have stood up to the avalanche of heathenistic life affirmation with a Schopenhauerean or even Baudelairean, not to mention Sadian, refusal to believe in or advocate it.  For despite the lessons to be learnt from the Second World War, with its monumental clash of Nazism and Bolshevism, the post-war age has been increasingly dominated by America, and America, though less evil than Nazi Germany, is hardly the country to spearhead a rejection of the life-force, being, to all intents and purposes, its principal exponent in a never-ending succession of wilful and spirited acts, productions, declarations, inventions, or what have you.  America, for all its checks and balances, believes in the life-force as it believes in free enterprise and the right of those who can to enrich themselves through the legal forms of such enterprise and at the expense, it goes without saying, of others.  America now spearheads everything that is rooted, heathenistically, in the life-force which, contrary to what the Danish composer Nielsen may have thought, is anything but neither evil nor good; on the contrary, it is the root of all evil!  For what is this free will and this free spirit if not the metachemical and chemical modes of somatic freedom such that issue from a female hegemony at both the northwest and southwest points of the intercardinal axial compass in what is a distinction between the evil of the diabolic and the pseudo-evil of the feminine, between absolute evil and crime in metachemical free soma and bound psyche, and relative evil and crime in chemical free soma and bound psyche, neither of which owe anything to sensibility but are manifestations, purely and simply, of sensuality, and thus of barbarous and natural proclivities.  And who or what does it dominate if not the absolute folly and sin, the pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin, of the antimetaphysical in the one case and the relative folly and sin of the antiphysical in the other case, the former no less antigodly than the latter are antimanly, or antimasculine.  Thus acquiescence in the life-force, whether at the noumenal level of free will or at the phenomenal level of free spirit, while it may be natural to a female, whether devilish or womanly, is the mark of male folly and sinfulness, and consequently something not only to be regretted but rejected and repudiated from a standpoint, beyond Schopenhauer, that affirms, in sensible male hegemonic fashion, either ego or soul, the former physically hegemonic over what could be called the antispirit of antichemistry within a state-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial integrity, the latter, appertaining by contrast to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, metaphysically hegemonic over what can be called the antiwill of antimetachemistry, its female counterpart.  Therefore unless males elect, as they have done in the past but remain to do so on truly contemporary terms, for sensibility and the hegemonic advantages that accrue to such a civilized or cultural stance, they will remain the foolish and sinful victims of evil and crime, of female free will and/or free spirit in metachemistry and/or chemistry, and have little or no prospects of salvation in either case.  For salvation is to be delivered from out the shadow or the blinding light, as the case may be, of evil and crime, of wilful and spirited manifestations of the life-force such that constitute, in their own terms, immoral rights the price for whose continual hegemonic existence is the antimoral wrongs of their male dupes and, in a sense, upended ‘fall guys’.  But salvation for males is also more than deliverance from the evil of metachemical and/or chemical free will and spirit (coupled to anti-ego and antisoul in the correlative criminality of bound psyche); it is, more importantly, to be delivered from their own folly of  antimetaphysical and/or antiphysical free will and spirit (coupled to antisoul and anti-ego in the correlative sinfulness of bound psyche), and to be delivered, more significantly from a church-hegemonic standpoint, from their sinful acquiescence in such folly, the sort of deliverance that can only transpire if the antiphysical elect for metaphysics and have the effect of dragging the chemical along with them towards the underplane subordination, at the northeast point of the axial compass, of antimetachemistry.  Salvation for males is principally metaphysical, and therefore it has less to do with physical ego at the southeast point of the said compass, which is constitutive, after all, of a sort of counter-salvation vis-à-vis the counter-unsalvation of the antimetaphysical, than with metaphysical soul at its northeast point, the point that only institutionally exists – and then imperfectly within the Catholic tradition – in relation to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria.  The salvation of man is less morally significant, in ego, than the salvation of God, which is to say of the antimanly to godliness, in soul, which can only come to pass within an axial system which is torn, according to gender, between the antiphysical and the metaphysical on the one hand and the chemical and the antimetachemical on the other, a system that offers both salvation (to males) and counter-damnation (to females) as the antiphysically sinful and foolish rise to grace and wisdom in metaphysical free psyche and bound soma and, correlatively, the chemically pseudo-criminal and pseudo-evil counter-fall to pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness in antimetachemical free psyche and bound soma, the former position in each instance church hegemonic and the latter position state subordinate.  To some extent Catholicism in predominantly Catholic countries like Eire permitted this and to a limited extent, despite all the gains of quasi-state-hegemonic criteria under American commercial pressures, still does; but if the American influence is to be significantly countered, then it will take a lot more than Catholicism to save and counter-damn the relevant types of people more efficaciously.  It will take, as I have argued all along, Social Theocracy and its resolve to counter the outer and somatically-based forms of freedom with the inner and psychically-based forms of freedom on an equally, if not more radically, synthetically artificial basis commensurate with the global requirements of universality.  For freedom, like sanity, is actually a relative term.  Those who believe in the life-force, call it élan vital or what you like, only have a somatic take on freedom, as indeed on sanity, which they conceive of in outer terms, as though life were a perpetual supermarket.  Those of us who have come to reject such an evil thing from the standpoint of wisdom and, more importantly, grace know, on the contrary, that freedom can also be inner, and that inner freedom manifests as an inner form of sanity which has nothing to do with the outer light and everything to do with the inner light, be that light natural or, in the contemporary case, artificial or, more to the point, synthetic.  Just as the inner sanity of ego countered, in worldly times, the outer sanity of spirit, ushering in the so-called Age of Reason at the expense of irrational faith, so the time has come for the inner sanity of soul to counter the outer sanity of will in order that the otherworldly may replace the netherworldly as the dominant characteristic of the age, bringing to pass an Age of Truth at the expense of illusory facts.  And the more it does so, the more, by a correlative token, will that which relativism holds to be an outer form of sanity appear, on the contrary, as positively or, rather, negatively mad, the fundamentally instinctual or irrational madness of that which is driven by somatic freedom of either a wilful or a spirited order … to the detriment of psychic peace.

 

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF PERCUSSION IN MUSIC.  These days we take so-called beat music, or music with a regular persistent beat stemming from percussion, so much for granted, that it is almost as though music had never been anything else, having now reached a kind of plateau of developmental excellence the absence from which of a persistent beat would be difficult if not impossible to imagine.  But has it?  Is the prevalence of a regular percussive beat necessarily a good thing?  Certainly music has not always been based in percussive rhythms.  There was a time, in Western civilization, when percussion was the exception rather than the rule, and in much of the music of Bach, Handel, Haydn, and Mozart one finds no discernible percussion at all but, rather, an absence of or, should I say, freedom from drum-like rhythms in overly melodic and harmonic compositions.  It was only during the late-nineteenth century and into the early-twentieth century that what one would call classical music began to show signs of beat dependence which, in the more pronounced examples, almost reversed the rule, albeit not to an extent, arguably, that would have taken percussion to the inalienable position it occupies in jazz and rock music and literally made it de rigueur, as though an indispensable prerequisite of serious or quality music.  That it is not and, to my mind, has never been.  For is it not the case that what distinguishes quality serious music – call it classical – from the popular forms of music, including primitive music, is the comparative absence or paucity of percussive rhythms such that most forms of popular and primitive music take for granted.  And is this not because classical music is, at its best, more sensible than sensual and somehow less an exemplification of will and spirit than of ego and soul?  Is it not the case that regular persistent beats in music are an indication of that music’s moral immaturity and want of true musicality?  Can it not be said that, as though in an exaggerated extrapolation from the metronome, percussive rhythms are indicative of something which is fundamentally more noise than music, and that in an age which worships power, as the contemporary age does, music will be enslaved to noise as though to an engine of devilish power which is a reflection of the heathenistic nature of the times, with its female-oriented worship of the life-force and all that glorifies brute strength and will.  Frankly, I have no doubt that, whatever forms these percussive rhythms take, they are fundamentally instruments of wilful instinctuality and spirited sensuality which reflect an almost fatalistic fascination with militarism and sexuality, power and glory, to the detriment, in melody and pitch, of form and contentment, or intellectuality and religious quietism.  Were not contemporary music, by which is meant beat music of an electronic character, like rock, in the grip of these percussive rhythms it would hardly be contemporary in the sense of reflecting the age’s obsession with rocket-like propulsions of engine-driven matter.  And yet what sort of an age is this compared with one that, like the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, was more concerned with the welfare of the soul and of man’s final destiny?  Or, like the eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries, was more concerned with the freedom of the mind and of man’s capacity for reason?  Surely it is something of a barbarous and philistine age which puts power and glory before form and contentment!  And therefore it must be an age that, like its predecessors in the history of civilization, will be overhauled and superseded by a more sensible age, an age that does not equate musical excellence with persistent percussive beats, but had somehow learned to transcend the beat in the interests of music of a suitably synthetically artificial order.  Such a return of music to something approaching the heights of classical purism is not as exaggerated as it may at first appear; for even now there are compositions of a suitably electronic order which if they do not entirely transcend percussion are at least able to sublimate it and render it subordinate to other musical considerations, incorporating it within the overall synthetic structure of their synthesizer-centred integrity.  Such music is already beyond rock and other forms of beat music.  It is in the process of escaping from heathenistic criteria into a sort of superchristian or supra-christian world which is more concerned with inner self-development than with expressions of outer power through not-self dominion.  It is the music of psyche as opposed to soma, of the mind as opposed to the body, of culture as opposed to commerce, and it heralds an age in which, once again, percussive rhythms will be the exception to the rule as music extricates itself from the power of noise and ceases to dance to the tune or, rather, beat of a glorified metronome.  I heartily commend such an age, for it will be one in which music is once again true to the self, only this time less on the middle-class basis of the intellect than on the classless basis, germane to eternity, of the soul.

 

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN OPPOSITE TYPES OF SANITY.  Sooner or later philosophy demands of the conscientious thinker that comprehensiveness which systematic analysis of the opposites of gender and class requires if the result is to do full justice to the overall framework.  Take the distinction between metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass; such a gender dichotomy between female and essentially antimale elements boils down, in particular terms, to a distinction between the outer sanity of free soma and the anti-inner sanity of bound psyche, specifically with regard to the elements in question, even though in reality, on a general basis, such free soma and bound psyche, and therefore outer sanity and anti-inner sanity, cut both ways – on primary and secondary terms according to gender.  Thus we can speak of metachemistry as signifying a partnership between primary outer sanity and primary anti-inner sanity, with antimetaphysics, its antimale corollary, signifying a like-distinction between secondary modes of outer sanity, or ‘outsanity’, and anti-inner sanity, or ‘anti-insanity’. For at the northwest point of the axial compass it is the female gender which is primary and the male gender secondary, and this has a demonstrative effect upon the southeast point of the compass where, in overall axial terms, the equivocally hegemonic male position is subverted by the under-plane female or, more correctly, antifemale position as physics bows to antichemistry and inner sanity and anti-outer sanity to their female counterparts, albeit with the emphasis falling, within state-hegemonic/church subordinate criteria, on anti-outer sanity, or ‘anti-outsanity’, thereby guaranteeing a primary state-hegemonic antithesis between the evil of metachemical outer sanity and the goodness of antichemical anti-outer sanity, with, for males, a secondary state-hegemonic antithesis between the pseudo-folly of antimetaphysical outer sanity and the pseudo-wisdom of physical anti-outer sanity, the church-subordinate complements of course being between the pseudo-sin of antimetaphysical anti-inner sanity and the pseudo-grace of physical inner sanity in the secondary, or ‘male’ case, and between the crime of metachemical anti-inner sanity and the punishment of antichemical inner sanity in the primary, or ‘female’, case.  Therefore a primary antithesis, for females, between materialist metachemical ‘outsanity’ and antirealist antichemical ‘anti-outsanity’ on the one hand (state) and fundamentalist metachemical ‘anti-insanity’ and antinonconformist antichemical ‘insanity’ on the other hand (church), with males obliged to fall in with a secondary antithesis between anti-idealist antimetaphysical ‘outsanity’ and naturalist physical ‘anti-outsanity’ on the one hand (state) and antitranscendentalist antimetaphysical ‘anti-insanity’ and humanist physical ‘insanity’ on the other hand (church).  So much for the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which is stretched between the northwest and southeast points of the intercardinal compass. - Now let us take the distinction between metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the compass in question; such a gender dichotomy between male and essentially antifemale elements boils down, in particular terms, to a distinction between the inner sanity of free psyche and the anti-outer sanity of bound soma, specifically with regard to the elements in question, even though in reality, on a general basis, such free psyche and bound soma, and therefore inner sanity and anti-outer sanity, cut both ways – on primary and secondary terms according to gender.  Thus we can speak of metaphysics as signifying a partnership between primary inner sanity and primary anti-outer sanity, with antimetachemistry, its antifemale corollary, signifying a like-distinction between secondary modes of inner sanity, or ‘insanity’, and anti-outer sanity, or ‘anti-outsanity’.  For at the northeast point of the axial compass it is the male gender which is primary and the female gender secondary, and this has a demonstrative effect upon the southwest point of the compass where, in axial terms, the equivocally hegemonic female position is subverted by the under-plane male or, more correctly, antimale position as chemistry bows to antiphysics and outer sanity and anti-inner sanity to their male counterparts, albeit with the emphasis falling, within church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, on anti-inner sanity, or ‘anti-insanity’, thereby guaranteeing a primary church-hegemonic antithesis between the grace of metaphysical inner sanity and the sinfulness of antiphysical anti-inner sanity, with, for females, a secondary church-hegemonic antithesis between the pseudo-punishment of antimetachemical inner sanity and the pseudo-crime of chemical anti-inner sanity, the state-subordinate complements of course being between the pseudo-goodness of antimetachemical anti-outer sanity and the pseudo-evil of chemical outer sanity in the secondary, or ‘female’ case, and between the wisdom of metaphysical anti-outer sanity and the folly of antiphysical outer sanity in the primary, or ‘male’, case.  Therefore a primary antithesis, for males, between transcendentalist metaphysical ‘insanity’ and antihumanist antiphysical ‘anti-insanity’ on the one hand (church) and idealist metaphysical ‘anti-outsanity’ and antinaturalist antiphysical ‘outsanity’ on the other hand (state), with females obliged to fall in with a secondary antithesis between antifundamentalist antimetachemical ‘insanity’ and nonconformist chemical ‘anti-insanity’ on the one hand (church) and antimaterialist antimetachemical ‘anti-outsanity’ and realist chemical ‘outsanity’ on the other hand (state).  So much, then, for the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis which is stretched between the northeast and southwest points of the intercardinal compass.  Consequently there are four positions to take into account at each of these axial points, whether the free soma and bound psyche of metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest; the free psyche and bound soma of physics and antichemistry at the southeast; the free psyche and bound soma of metaphysics and antimetahemistry at the northeast; or the free soma and bound psyche of chemistry and antiphysics at the southwest.  Free soma is equivalent on either axis to outer sanity, or ‘outsanity’, whereas bound psyche is no less equivalent to anti-inner sanity, or ‘anti-insanity’, each position being germane to sensuality as opposed to sensibility.  By contrast, free psyche is equivalent on either axis to inner sanity, or ‘insanity’, whereas bound soma is no less equivalent to anti-outer sanity, or ‘anti-outsanity’, each position being germane to sensibility as opposed to sensuality.  One cannot have it both ways.  Either outer sanity triumphs over anti-inner sanity at the expense of inner sanity, free soma over bound psyche at the expense of free psyche, or inner sanity triumphs over anti-outer sanity at the expense of outer sanity, free psyche over bound soma at the expense of free soma.  Such is the nature of the gender struggle which makes, or can make in worldly relativity, for contrasting types of society – those dominated by the State with the co-operation of the Antichurch at the expense of the Church, and those, by contrast, dominated by the Church  with the co-operation of the Antistate at the expense of the State.  Neither of these antithetical types of worldly society will ever see ‘eye to eye’, for they are torn between alternative types of sensuality and sensibility, noumenal sensuality (coupled to noumenal antisensibility) and phenomenal sensibility (coupled to phenomenal antisensuality) on the one hand, and noumenal sensibility (coupled to noumenal antisensuality) and phenomenal sensuality (coupled to phenomenal antisensibility) on the other hand.  Only the Social Theocratic overcoming of the world can put an end to this dichotomous state-of-affairs, the cause of exploitation and strife.  For until those at the southwest are saved and/or counter-damned (according to gender) to the northeast on a truly radical basis, commensurate with the revolutionary overhaul of Catholic tradition, they will continue directly to fall prey to the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and indirectly to its southeast point, which is that which finances the somatic licence of the northwest in female-dominated heathenistic defiance of male-led Christianistic values.  The otherworldly ‘Kingdom of God’, as of Heaven, will not have come while such netherworldly exploitation and worldly strife – and division – persist, as they do at present on the largely post-worldly basis of commercial secularity with a synthetically artificial framework based in sensuality.  Only the establishment of its sensible counterpart will restore to those at the southwest point of our compass the moral right to salvation and counter-damnation which will alone guarantee them deliverance from the secular fruit of schismatic heresy and restore to them the possibility of grace and pseudo-punishment, wisdom and pseudo-goodness, in the ‘insanity’ and ‘anti-outsanity’ of an ultimate metaphysics and antimetachemistry at its resurrected northeast point, the point according with Messianic intervention and therefore, in a loose sense (given its Western limitations), with the Second Coming or, rather, with a new manifestation of God the Father (metaphysical psyche) and a new manifestation of the Son of God (metaphysical soma), the new manifestations of Antidevil the Antimother (antimetachemical soma) and the Antidaughter of the Antidevil (antimetachemical psyche) to follow on, as Truth makes possible the truthful approach to Beauty which establishes Beauty as a precondition of the beautiful approach to Truth in the virtuous circle of metaphysical and antimetachemical factors which also embrace, in both holiness and unclearness, soul and spirit, Joy and the joyful approach to Love, Love and the loving approach to Joy, Heaven the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, Antihell the Unclear Spirit and the Unclear Soul of Antihell, for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity.

 

EXPOSING THE ANTICHRIST HYPE.  One hears so much about the coming of the Antichrist in the time of Christ, or of the Second Coming, and other such Christian – and therefore Western – related subjects from films, serials, the media generally and the like, that it gradually grows on one just how irrational such notions are and of how partial and misleading they can be.  One would think that the Antichrist was the big bad ‘first mover’ in things, evidently male, and simply an antithesis to Christ.  But as my philosophy should have made equally evident by now, the concept of ‘the Son’ is in relation to the concept of ‘the Father’, and this can sensibly exist at either phenomenal or noumenal levels of the intercardinal axial compass, wherein one has ‘Son of Man’ in relation to ‘Man the Father’ in the one case, that of physics, and ‘Son of God’ in relation to ‘God the Father’ in the other case, that of metaphysics.  Let us, therefore, just limit ourselves to metaphysics for the time being, which would qualify as being more Roman Catholic than Puritan in character, since Puritanism effectively operates, humanistically, on the basis of the New Testament and not of any faith in a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ (at the northeast point of the axial compass) who would approximate to what is axially antithetical to the so-called ‘Father’ (at the northwest point of the axis in question), much as the ‘Son of Man’ lower down (at the southeast point) would approximate to what is axially polar to the so-called ‘Father’; though, in reality, this ‘Father’ (at the northwest point of the intercardinal axis) would be more metachemical than antimetaphysical, and therefore not strictly polar to anything male in physics at all but to its antichemical female (and antifeminine) counterpart, which we have elsewhere described in terms of ‘Antiwoman the Antimother’ as far as the relevant bound soma is concerned, and can therefore place in a polar position – bound soma in antichemistry to free soma in metachemistry – to ‘Devil the Mother’, i.e., to what traditionally and conventionally passes for God (the Father), as creative ‘first mover’ in, for example, the Cosmos.  Thus not only is the ‘Son of Man’ not polar to ‘Devil the Mother’, it is not even metaphysically antithetical to ‘Devil the Mother’, but the axial antithesis to what, in antimetaphysics, we may call the ‘Antison of Antigod’.  Now this ‘Antison of Antigod’, the antimetaphysical free soma of that which exists under the hegemonic sway of ‘Devil the Mother’, is a lot closer to being ‘Antichrist’ in relation to the ‘Son of God’ than in relation, polar-wise, to the ‘Son of Man’, since the noumenal should be contrasted, across the axial divide, with the noumenal and the phenomenal, lower down, likewise with the phenomenal, which, in the case of the ‘Son of Man’, would give us a Catholic antithesis of the order of the ‘Antison of Antiman’, or something to that effect.  But that is obviously one kind of Antichrist in contrast to the other, and in both cases, irrespective of the co-existence of bound psyche to free soma which demands antitheses to ‘God the Father’ and ‘Man the Father’, we have positions which are not free-standing and capable of initiating themselves but, on the contrary, positions which owe their negatively sensual existences to the hegemonic prevalence, in each case, of either metachemistry or chemistry, depending on the class context, and thus to the prior existence, on the female side of the gender divide, of what we have identified with ‘Devil the Mother’ in the one case and what should be identified with ‘Woman the Mother’ in the other case, the former of which is as somatically hegemonic over the ‘Antison of Antigod’ as the latter over the ‘Antison of Antiman’, neither of which would be capable of an independent existence of this female-based control.  Therefore before we talk of Antichrists and other such scapegoats for male denigration, we should think about what causes such antimale positions to arise in the first place.  We should bear in mind that neither position would arise without the prior existence of their female counterparts, which are the actual ‘first movers’ in the sensual game.  Thus without a demonstrably active ‘Devil the Mother’ in metachemical free soma there would be no ‘Antison of Antigod’ in antimetaphysical free soma; without a demonstrably active ‘Woman the Mother’ in chemical free soma there would be no ‘Antison of Antiman’ in antiphysical free soma.  And neither, in relation to bound psyche, would there be much evidence of ‘Antigod the Antifather’ without the ‘Daughter of the Devil’ or, down below in the phenomenal sphere, of ‘Antiman the Antifather’ without the ‘Daughter of Woman’, both of which accord with the bound psyche stemming, in metachemistry and chemistry, from free soma, and therefore effect the binding of male psyche in antimetaphysics and antiphysics as a precondition of the correlative free soma of the aforementioned, over-hyped, Antichrists whom we have identified with the ‘Antison of Antigod’ and the ‘Antison of Antiman’ which, contrary to popular belief, complete the vicious circle in each class case – ‘Antison of Antigod’ to ‘Devil the Mother’, ‘Antison of Antiman’ to ‘Woman the Mother’; though in the latter case, traditionally, church-hegemonic criteria have ensured that ‘Woman the Mother’ takes a secondary place, in state-subordinate vein, to the ‘Antison of Antiman’, while, more importantly, the ‘Daughter of Woman’ takes a secondary church-hegemonic place to ‘Antiman the Antifather’, the antiphysical bound psyche which is the primary church-hegemonic (sinful) precondition of grace in salvation to ‘God the Father’.  But, alas, this latter is still a problematic term in Christianity, as in Christendom, because Christianity operates less on the basis of the metaphysical precedence of ‘Son’ by ‘Father’ in relation to the male actuality of psyche preceding soma (also applicable to ‘Man’ down in physics) than on the basis of a kind of worldly extrapolation from a netherworldly Alpha, call it Creator or Father or Jehovah or First Cause, which makes for a rather more linear – and populist - situation in terms of ‘Father’ leading to ‘Son’ than is compatible with the actuality of metaphysical reality at the northeast point of the axial compass.  Christianity was not able to escape from the northwest point of the axial compass, from the Jehovahesque ‘First Mover’ of ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as God, and no matter how much this root or anchor of cosmic precedence is attenuated by the Christic extrapolation from it  and by an intermediate (between Alpha and Omega) focus on ‘the Son’, on Christ, it remains ‘in situ’ to bedevil the development or, rather, concept of metaphysics at the northeast point of the compass in question, a point unique, as we have seen, to Catholicism, but still short of that metaphysical fullness or completeness that is only possible once ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as God is rejected and one can regard the concept of ‘Father’ preceding ‘Son’ solely in relation to the precedence, for males, of soma by psyche in metaphysics, so that the terms are less historically linear than metaphors for male actuality as it actually exists on both the metaphysical and even physical planes.  This, however, will take a Social Theocratic revolution to achieve, since Creatorism, steeped in the Old Testament, will not go away by itself.  It will take a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in paradoxical elections in certain largely Catholic countries, like Eire, to start the ball rolling, as it were, in this respect, since before one can institute a new and effectively ultimate religion the principal upholders of that religion must be in power and be able to take the necessary measures not only to develop it in the interests of the People, but to demolish the old religion(s) in order that all Creator-based obstacles to metaphysical maturation, coupled, be it not forgotten, to its antimetachemical female counterpart, may be swept away and effectively consigned to the rubbish heap of ecclesiastical history.  Only the sovereign People can remove the historical Church and embrace, via the paradoxical utilization of democracy, the revolutionary Church which I have identified with the Social Theocratic Centre…. Though, in point of fact, like Marx, who believed that Socialism would transmute into Communism with the ‘withering of the State’, I believe that Social Theocracy will gradually be superseded by Social Transcendentalism as the Church passes from a kind of pluralist to a totalitarian phase of its evolution in the course of theological centro-complexification, evolving, as it were, from Social Theocracy, which will be based in the State-like aspects of the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond of the Centre-proper, to Social Transcendentalism, as the Church becomes more prevalent with the supersession of ego by soul, of brain stem by spinal cord, of synthetically artificial visionary experience by synthetically artificial unitive experience of the sort that would signify the triumph of soul over ego and thus of contentment over form – in a word, of Heaven over God.  But that will take some time, since the precondition of unitive experience on the necessarily global level of synthetic artificiality will be a correlative degree of cyborgization in the masses that will take some time to develop in view of its communal sophistication and render it almost inevitable, in the shorter-term, that they will have to make do with visionary experience in a kind of supercatholic precedence of a kind of superpuritanism until such time as the cyborgization is sufficiently advanced as to render the purer – and more potent – unitive experience viable.  One cannot ‘jump the gun’, as it were, but must take each stage a step at a time, allowing the religiously sovereign people (if that comes to pass) only that which is clinically and technologically feasible at the time, since premature idealism in this regard would almost certainly lead to fatalities and hence to the discrediting of Social Theocracy.  Naturally, one wants the religiously sovereign to be able to remain up at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass for longer and longer periods, in order that they may be delivered from their immoral predators at the northwest point of the said compass. Yet that is contingent not only on the type and quality of the synthetically artificial substances to which religious sovereignty would entitle them (as rights), but on the correlative development of cyborgization as the ‘cart’ that follows the ‘horse’, or the bound soma accompanying the free psyche in both metaphysics (for males) and antimetachemistry (for females).  Without the relevant, for the era, types of synthetically artificial substances their rights will not have been respected; but without the correlative cyborgization, those rights will not be advanced and will not bring them to a position, ultimately, from which there will be no return, no degeneration, in Catholic fashion, to the world of the southwest point of the axial compass but simply the heavenly (for males) and antihellish (for females) transfigurations that would be commensurate with the divine and antidiabolic destinies of the metaphysically Saved and the antimetachemically Counter-Damned in the Social Theocratic/Transcendentalist Centres of ‘Kingdom Come’.

 

THE ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS OF SALVATION AND DAMNATION.  Carrying on from the previous entry, one might ask: who are saved and who are damned.  And the answer to that would be: that those in antiphysics who can be identified with Antiman the Antifather will be saved in primary church-hegemonic terms to God the Father, as from the sinfulness of antiphysical bound psyche to the grace of metaphysical free psyche, and in primary state-subordinate terms from the Antison of Antiman to the Son of God, as from the folly of antiphysical free soma to the wisdom of metaphysical bound soma, while those in chemistry who can be identified with the Daughter of Woman will be counter-damned in secondary church-hegemonic terms to the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, as from the pseudo-crime of chemical bound psyche to the pseudo-punishment of antimetachemical free psyche, and in secondary state-subordinate terms from Woman the Mother to Antidevil the Antimother, as from the pseudo-evil of chemical free soma to the pseudo-goodness of antimetachemical bound soma.  Thus males will be saved, in both church and state, from Antiman the Antifather/the Antison of Antiman to God the Father/the Son of God, while females will be counter-damned, in both church and state, from the Daughter of Woman/Woman the Mother to the Antidaughter of the Antidevil/Antidevil the Antimother, antiphysics being saved to metaphysics and chemistry counter-damned to antimetachemistry, though, in actuality, it will be from the pseudo-manifestations of antiphysics and chemistry, for the post-worldly at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, to more genuine manifestations of metaphysics and antimetachemistry in the otherworldly heights of the northeast point of the said compass within the necessarily revolutionary context of ‘Kingdom Come’, which I have all along identified with Social Theocracy and, hence, the messianic concept of the Social Theocratic Centre which could only come to pass in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a paradoxical election – intended to counter the paradox of quasi-state-hegemonic criteria within the Americanized secular context of the southwest point of the axial compass – such that has the ring of ‘judgement’ about it.  Be that as it may, there is another axis to consider, and that is the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass.  In relation to the success – should it transpire – of salvation and counter-damnation on the revolutionary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms outlined above, those who can be identified with Devil the Mother will be damned in primary state-hegemonic terms to Antiwoman the Antimother, as from the evil of metachemical free soma to the goodness of antichemical bound soma, and in primary church-subordinate terms from the Daughter of the Devil to the Antidaughter of Antiwoman, as from the crime of metachemical bound psyche to the punishment of antichemical free psyche, while those in antimetaphysics who can be identified with the Antison of Antigod will be counter-saved in secondary state-hegemonic terms to the Son of Man, as from the pseudo-folly of antimemtaphysical free soma to the pseudo-wisdom of physical bound soma, and in secondary church-subordinate terms from Antigod the Antifather to Man the Father, as from the pseudo-sin of antimetaphysical bound psyche to the pseudo-grace of physical free psyche.  Thus females will be damned, in both state and church, from Devil the Mother/the Daughter of the Devil to Antiwoman the Antimother/the Antidaughter of Antiwoman, while males will be counter-saved, in both state and church, from the Antison of Antigod/Antigod the Antifather to the Son of Man/Man the Father, metachemistry being damned to antichemistry and antimetaphysics counter-saved to physics, though, in actuality, it will be from the more genuine manifestations of metachemistry and antimetaphysics, for the netherworldly at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, to pseudo-manifestations of antichemistry and physics in the post-worldly depths of the southeast point of the said compass within what, even without the prevalence of Social Theocratic criteria, is already a post-worldly age dominated by American somatic freedom.  Thus, in broad terms, salvation, whether genuine or pseudo, is from alternative kinds of Antiman and/or Antigod in sensuality (under female hegemonies) to their manly and/or godly counterparts in sensibility, whereas damnation, whether pseudo or genuine, is from alternative kinds of Woman and/or Devil in sensuality to their antiwomanly and/or antidevilish counterparts in sensibility (where they exist under male hegemonies).  Females are undamned as long as they are free in soma and bound in psyche; males, by contrast, are unsaved as long as they are bound in psyche and free in soma.  For the genders, remember, are opposite: soma preceding and predominating over psyche being the female mean; psyche preceding and preponderating over soma the male mean.  Hence salvation is not only a male thing; it is the return of males, in sensibility, to hegemonic positions over females - time over antispace in metaphysics over antimetachemistry, mass over antivolume in physics over antichemistry - which alone guarantee them gender sync with their actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, as evidenced by the prevalence of free psyche and bound soma.  But of course such gender sync equally ensures that females are damned to being at cross-purposes, under male hegemonic pressures, with their gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche, since they get to experience, in contrast to this, free psyche and bound soma.  However, it is only in metaphysics that males are genuinely in sync with their gender actuality, since it is only there that an unequivocal hegemony, as over antimetachemistry, exists or ever can exist.  In physics, by contrast, physics is subverted by antichemistry at the behest, back up what is a state-hegemonic/church subordinate axis, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, so that the emphasis paradoxically falls on bound soma – son of man-wise – at the expense of the free psyche of Man the Father.  That is why grace and wisdom for such males is pseudo.  Females remain in overall control of the axis, with primary state-hegemonic criteria embracing metachemistry and antichemistry in a polarity between evil and good, free metachemical soma and bound antichemical soma, primary church-subordinate criteria likewise reflecting the female dominance in terms of crime and punishment, metachemical bound psyche and antichemical free psyche, all of which reduces the male position to secondary manifestations of such criteria, whether in relation to the pseudo-folly and pseudo-wisdom of antimetaphysical free soma and physical bound soma or, where the church is concerned, in relation to the pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace of antimetaphysical bound psyche and physical free psyche.  Therefore we can only speak of counter-salvation in relation to damnation where this axis is concerned, the exact antithesis of the counter-damnation in relation to salvation of its church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial counterpart.  For there, it is males who, in overall terms, ‘call the shots’, since church-hegemonic criteria presuppose a male lead of society, and such a lead, culminating in metaphysics, can only counter-damn females (up the axis) from chemistry to antimetachemistry, the equivocal hegemony of the one eclipsed by the unequivocal subordination of the other under what has already been described as an unequivocal hegemony such that allows males to be absolutely true to their gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, and thus to be psychically free and somatically bound in such fashion that the emphasis properly falls, in due church-hegemonic terms, on free psyche.

 

UNDERSTANDING CLASS.  Although I have been making distinctions in my philosophy for some period of time now between the noumenal and the phenomenal, the former appertaining, in general terms, to space and time, and the latter to volume and mass, I haven’t systematically correlated them with the concepts ‘noble’ and ‘plebeian’ before, and this surprises me insofar as a strict correlation between the noumenal and the noble, on the one hand, and the phenomenal and the plebeian, on the other hand, can and should be drawn, even if this does mean that nobility is no more one thing, or limitable to one point of the intercardinal axial compass, than is being plebeian.  For there are four points to the said compass subdivided between the genders into the noumenal objectivity and noumenal antisubjectivity of metachemistry and antimetaphysics at the northwest point; the noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity of metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point; the phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal antisubjectivity of chemistry and antiphysics at the southwest point; and the phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal anti-objectivity of physics and antichemistry at the southeast point.  Therefore on axial terms alone we must distinguish, with due gender distinctions, two kinds of nobility from two kinds of plebeianism, viz. the metachemical nobility and antimetaphysical nobility of noumenal objectivity and noumenal antisubjectivity from the antichemical plebeianism and physical plebeianism of phenomenal anti-objectivity and phenomenal subjectivity, on the one hand, and the metaphysical nobility and antimetachemical nobility of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity from the antiphysical plebeianism and chemical plebeianism of phenomenal antisubjectivity and phenomenal objectivity on the other hand, the former polarities making for state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, the latter polarities for church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria.  Therefore damnation is possible, in theory if not necessarily in practice, from the metachemical nobility to the antichemical plebeianism on primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, with counter-salvation being correlatively possible from the antimetaphysical nobility to the physical plebeianism on secondary state-hegemonic/church subordinate terms, as from the evil and crime of noumenal objectivity to the good and punishment of phenomenal anti-objectivity in the one case, and from the pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin of noumenal antisubjectivity to the pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace of phenomenal subjectivity in the other case.  Transferring to the other axis, salvation is possible, in theory if not necessarily in practice, from the antiphysical plebeianism to the metaphysical nobility on primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, with counter-damnation being correlatively possible from the chemical plebeianism to the antimetachemical nobility on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, as from the sin and folly of phenomenal antisubjectivity to the grace and wisdom of noumenal subjectivity in the one case, and from the pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil of phenomenal objectivity to the pseudo-punishment and pseudo-good of noumenal anti-objectivity in the other case.  Whatever the case, however, it is evident that the noumenal contexts are noble and the phenomenal ones plebeian, and therefore we should remember that the nobility are no less divisible on an objective/subjective basis according with gender than are the plebs, their phenomenal counterparts.  The only difference – and it is a significant one – is that whereas the metachemical and antimetaphysical nobilities appertain, in conjunction with the antichemical and physical plebs, to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, the metaphysical and antimetachemical nobilities appertain, in conjunction with the antiphysical and chemical plebs, to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria.  In that respect, both sets of nobles and both sets of plebs are axially antithetical and therefore incompatible.  It is the story, in a nutshell, of Ireland and Great Britain or, as some would prefer, of Eire and the United Kingdom.  For whereas nobility in Eire is theocratic and anti-autocratic, in Britain it is autocratic and antitheocratic.  And whereas in Britain plebeianism is democratic and antibureaucratic, in Eire, by contrast, it is bureaucratic and antidemocratic.  The House of Commons is, as suggested by the name, the fulcrum of British plebeian political life, and Puritanism is the denominational persuasion of the physical and antichemical plebs, whose opposition to autocracy and antitheocracy grants them a certain complacency, if not class smugness, that would be quite out of place in the sin-ridden consciousness of Irish Catholics of a plebeian cast, however much other factors, not least of a chemical persuasion, may be at work.  For in Catholic Ireland it is theocracy and, correlatively, anti-autocracy which takes moral precedence, at least in theory, over antidemocracy and bureaucracy, and therefore the priests and, to a lesser extent, the jurists are the representative nobilities, traditionally, who keep the plebs grovelling in sin and pseudo-crime, folly and pseudo-evil, in both antiphysics and chemistry.  But such church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria should still be differentiated from the rather more contemporary prevalence of quasi-state-hegemonic criteria under American influence primarily, since the urban reality of a lapsed Catholic generality beholden to secular impositions is what should guarantee to revolutionary religion more genuine manifestations of theocracy and anti-autocracy in the decades and centuries to come, once Social Theocracy can be democratically established as the solution not only to worldly shortcomings, but the means whereby all netherworldly-dominated obstacles to otherworldly-led progress may be first curtailed and eventually eliminated.

 

A REAPPRAISAL OF SALVATION AND COUNTER-DAMNATION IN RELATION TO DAMNATION AND COUNTER-SALVATION.  One hears the expressions ‘goddamn’ and ‘goddamned’ so often on the media, especially filmic TV, that it might seem as if God’s primary purpose is to damn those who displease Him or fail to meet the criteria of salvation.  Yet, in truth, God has no interest, at least directly, in damning at all, but only in saving.  The salvation of the antiphysical to the metaphysical on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, will happen, if it happens at all, at the expense of the counter-damnation of the chemical to the antimetachemical in like-diagonally-rising fashion, since if males are to be saved to gender sync in free psyche and bound soma, females must be counter-damned to free psyche and bound soma under unequivocally male hegemonic pressures at the northeast point of the said compass, falling in under metaphysics as the aforementioned antimetachemical who, from a female standpoint, will be at cross-purposes with their gender actuality (of soma preceding and predominating over psyche) and accordingly damned, albeit in this instance in ‘pseudo’ terms under genuine salvation.  Thus the salvation of males presupposes the counter-damnation of females.  But this is not the act of God.  On the contrary, it falls under the responsibility of the Antidevil, His antimetachemical counterpart, whose duty it is to uphold the position of counter-damnation in parallel with God’s commitment to salvation.  Thus it is not God who damns or, rather, counter-damns the chemical to antimetachemistry, since his principal concern will be to save the antiphysical to metaphysics.  Counter-damnation follows on the heels of the salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics as the pseudo-just destiny of the chemical, and is therefore germane to an axial position, viz. antimetachemistry, that is characterized by the Antidevil.  For females take care of females no less than males of males in these matters.  However, should salvation and counter-damnation of the respective genders be carried out to a conclusively metaphysical and antimetachemical degree, such that would eventually imply their transfiguration to the godly and antidevilish positions at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, then the consequences for the undamned and counter-unsaved of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis would be damnation and counter-salvation respectively.  For the metachemical undamned and the antimetaphysical counter-unsaved would not be able to commercially or culturally prey upon the chemical counter-undamned and the antiphysical unsaved if the latter were not there to be preyed upon but had been counter-damned and saved to the antimetachemical and metaphysical options which were germane to their church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.  And without prey to avail of, the predatory undamned and counter-unsaved would not be of much use to their financial backers at the southeast point of the axis in question, whose antichemically damned and physically counter-saved positions only really make axial sense in relation to their polar counterparts at the northwest point of the same axis.  So it is likely that, without prey at the southwest point of the overall axial compass to culturally exploit, these commercial backers would cut their losses and accept the inevitable; accept, that is, the collapse of the metachemical undamned and the antimetaphysical counter-unsaved down the axis into positions, once they had be ‘made over’ in their own image, corresponding to damnation and counter-salvation.  Thus with the collapse of the northwest point into the southeast point of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis the undamned would experience damnation and the counter-unsaved experience counter-salvation, indirectly, in each case, in consequence of the salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and of the counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry.  Therefore it could be argued that God is not only indirectly responsible for counter-damning the chemical to metachemistry vis-à-vis the more direct responsibility of the Antidevil in that respect, but that the counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry by the Antidevil will be responsible, across the axial divide, for the collapse of the metachemical down into antichemistry, while the salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms will be no less responsible, where the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate are concerned, for the collapse of the antimetaphysical down into physics, where they will be ‘made over’ as counter-saved counterparts to the damned.  Thus it can be argued that God is axially indirectly responsible for the counter-salvation of the counter-unsaved, while his antimetachemical counterpart, the Antidevil, is axially indirectly responsible for the damnation of the undamned.  For salvation is the prerogative of God and counter-damnation the prerogative of the Antidevil.  Damnation from metachemical undamnation to antichemical damnation is the prerogative, on the contrary, of Antiwoman, while counter-salvation from antimetaphysical counter-unsalvation to physical salvation is the prerogative of Man.  It is Antiwoman who damns the devilish undamned and Man who counter-saves the antigodly counter-unsaved.  But only in the event of God having saved the antimanly unsaved and the Antidevil having counter-damned the womanly counter-undamned.  The divine and antidiabolic resolution of the one axis can lead to the antiwomanly and manly resolution of the other axis, though only until such time as the antiwomanly and the manly opt for axial transference to the southwest point of the overall axial compass, where they would be ‘made over’ in the respective images of the chemical and antiphysical or, rather (to put it in male and female church-hegemonic/state subordinate axial terms), the antiphysical and chemical, to be saved from antiman to God and counter-damned from woman to the Antidevil in due process of divine and antidiabolic resolution, their recently damned and counter-saved counterparts to eventually follow suit.  For eventually there can be no axial residues at all, but only the metaphysical and antimetachemical ‘transcendence’ of the evidence of former exploitation by and through God and the Antidevil.  Verily, the antichemical are already damned and the physical already counter-saved, but as polarities, politically and religiously, to the undamned and counter-unsaved.  Such will continue to be the case until the unsaved antiphysical are saved to metaphysics and the counter-undamned chemical counter-damned to antimetachemistry, thus indirectly causing the collapse of the undamned and the counter-unsaved.  But before I conclude this entry I should add that, in order not to overcomplicate the text, I have avoided making pseudo-worldly/otherworldly and netherworldly/pseudo-worldly distinctions such that actually characterize contemporary post-worldly, American-dominated society.  In truth, the antiphysical and the chemical are less antimanly and womanly than pseudo-antimanly and pseudo-womanly in what is, with post-worldly secular criteria, a pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical precondition of genuine metaphysical and antimetachemical criteria such that portend correspondingly more genuine levels of God and the Antidevil than anything that would have obtained in the pre-cyborg past.  And the same, in reverse gender polarity, applies to the other axis, where the Devil (duly hyped as God) and the Antigod (duly disparaged as the Devil) reign over pseudo-antiwomen and pseudo-men respectively in what is a pseudo-antichemical retort to a more genuine mode of metachemistry and a pseudo-physical retort to a more genuine mode of antimetaphysics, neither of which commend themselves to God and the Antidevil and are therefore fit targets, no matter how indirectly, for counter-salvation and damnation to the post-worldly positions in question.

 

FROM PHENOMENAL PARTICLE COLLECTIVITY TO NOUMENAL WAVICLE INDIVIDUALITY.  Saving and counter-damning (according to gender) from the southwest to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass is, in effect, to deliver from a context dominated, in its phenomenal relativity, by particle collectivity to one led, in noumenal absolutism, by wavicle individuality, which is to say, by a wavicle cohesiveness that owes more to male subjectivity in metaphysics than to female objectivity in chemistry, and is correspondingly of the Few as opposed to the Many on what has previously been described as the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.  For in this southwest/northeast distinction between the phenomenal Many and the noumenal Few, we have a parallel, after all, with the class and elemental distinction between relativity and absolutism, collectivity and individuality, particles and wavicles, the temporal and the eternal.  But that is still to put it in general terms.  Each context, or point of the said axis, is divisible between male and female elements, more specifically in terms of the chemical femaleness (feminine) of the volumetric hegemony of the purgatorial over the antiphysical maleness (antimasculine) of the massed anti-earthly, in which psyche is bound to free soma in reflection of the female dominance which, according with soma preceding and predominating over psyche, ensures that males are upended in such fashion as to be at cross-purposes with their gender actuality (of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma).  Consequently, even with church-hegemonic criteria, males are fated, in the phenomenal relativity of their antisubjectivity, to be psychically bound to a free soma in antiphysics that owes much if not everything to the equivocal hegemony of chemical free soma and bound psyche, its female counterpart.  They are sinful and foolish where their gender counterparts are pseudo-criminal and pseudo-evil; though such sin and folly can easily find itself reversed in relation to quasi-state-hegemonic criteria which have the effect of putting soma before psyche in heathenistic vein, thereby causing the emphasis to fall not on bound psyche but on free soma.  However that may be – and the contemporary Irish situation, for example, is nothing if not quasi-state-hegemonic in its paradoxical deference to the metachemical and antimetaphysical manifestations of somatic licence which hail, in mostly American terms, from the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass (and thus in effect from the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis) – the hypothetical return, at some future time, to the possibility of a new order of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria will require that the Many be saved and counter-damned (according to gender) to the Few, in the sense that they will gradually be transfigured or transmuted or even transposed from the collectivistic relativity, rooted in free particles and bound wavicles on both antiphysical and chemical terms, of phenomenal antisubjectivity and phenomenal objectivity to the individualistic absolutism of the noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity of that which is centred in free wavicles and bound particles on both metaphysical and antimetachemical terms, as germane to the northeast point of the axial compass.  Their transmutation, although gradual, will signify the overcoming of the phenomenal, in this case anti-omega worldly (antiphysical) and alpha worldly (chemical) by and through their noumenal elevation to otherworldly (metaphysical) and anti-netherworldly (antimetachemical) positions such that will accord with divine and antidiabolic requirement in ‘Kingdom Come’, that context, necessarily germane to the northeast point of the axis in question, which will be characterized by religious sovereignty, as of a religiously sovereign ‘people’ in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in elections no less paradoxical than that which currently prevails in quasi-state-hegemonic vein compliments of the Americanization of contemporary life in the wake of such relaxing of the ties between church and state as transpired in consequence of the Irish freedom struggles against English imperialism.  Thus from a uniquely indigenous and Western form of secularism Ireland, like certain other countries of a Catholic tradition, was to regress to a type of secularism that owes more to American commercial and cultural influence than ever it does to radical republicanism, and which is therefore symptomatic of the contemporary situation as germane to global – as opposed to Western – criteria.  Only a counter-paradoxical exploitation of this predicament can hope to restore to the Irish people – and, by extrapolation, others like them – the prospect of renewed church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, in which the possibility of deliverance from the southwest to the northeast point of the axial compass will once more become feasible, only this time on a much more radical and revolutionary basis, under Social Theocracy, than anything corresponding to their Catholic traditions such that would gradually transform them from antimen and women or, in the contemporary secular context, pseudo-antimen and pseudo-women into gods and antidevils, the more so as communal cyborgization ensued upon any individual cyborgization possibly more typifying the leaders than the masses generally, and thus resulted in their transformation from what could be called antiwavicle anti-individuality (antiphysical) and particle collectivity (chemical) to wavicle individuality (metaphysical) and antiparticle anticollectivity (antimetachemical), in response to ongoing centro-complexification with respect to the noumenal contexts of wavicle subjectivity and antiparticle anti-objectivity.  For, ultimately, the Many will not be differentiated from the Few, the way parishioners are from their priests, but will even overhaul the pioneering Few of a Social Theocratic disposition in terms of the communalization of cyborgization in response to technological necessity and, more importantly, in consequence of the rights of a religiously sovereign ‘people’ to self-realization in relation to a variety, according with gender, of synthetically artificial stimulants intended to facilitate inner-light enlightenment and thus keep them in a contrary position - sensible as opposed to sensual, free wavicle as opposed to free particle, omega as opposed to alpha - from how they had been before, a position according, in Christian terminology, with the concept of ‘rebirth’, or transposition from sensual to sensible, collectivity to individuality, objectivity to subjectivity (again in general terms), which would thus constitute a rejection and refutation of the heathenism of cultures subordinated to and victimized by the moral blindness that hails from the outer light, including, be it not forgotten, the contemporary mode of outer light par excellence which, hailing from cameras, more usually takes a photographic and/or filmic guise in keeping with cyborgization of a sensual bias within a culture that is both global and if not exactly universal and antipolyversal, then polyversal and anti-universal in the extent to which it is beholden to the particle collectivity of noumenal objectivity and the antiwavicle anti-individuality of noumenal antisubjectivity, which is to say, to the dominance of the metachemical and antimetaphysical Few.  Only when the wavicle individuality of noumenal subjectivity and the antiparticle anticollectivity of noumenal anti-objectivity are metaphysically and antimetachemically triumphant over this metachemical and antimetaphysical mode of globalization, a mode, incidentally, which is axially aligned with the antichemical and physical Many, will globalization have achieved that ‘rebirth’ which is commensurate with genuine culture and pseudo-civility and, thus, with the triumph of godly and antidevilish values for all eternity and anti-infinity, righteousness and pseudo-justice without end.  For until the antiphysical Many are radically saved to the metaphysical Few and the chemical Many radically counter-damned to the antimetachemical Few, the metachemical and antimetaphysical Few will not be damned and counter-saved to the antichemical and physical Many or, more correctly, to their latter-day ‘pseudo’ counterparts, but will continue to ride roughshod over those at the southwest point of the axial compass whose own post-worldly status is pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical in consequence of their quasi-state-hegemonic deference to the more elevated metachemical and antimetaphysical criteria which correspond to the contemporary modes of devilishness and antigodliness par excellence.  Yet even this contemporary, camera-based mode of devilishness is in the long metachemical tradition of Devil the Mother hyped as God, and will therefore often assume godly airs irrespective of the fact that it is as far removed from godliness, and hence metaphysics, as it is possible to be.  And that is enough reason – even without the correlative ‘doing down’ of the Antigodly as devil -  why the genuinely godly should be of a mind, in conjunction with their female counterparts, the Antidevilish, to expose this lie and work to bring it to justice, which is to say, to antichemical damnation (with the simultaneous physical counter-salvation of the antimetaphysical to pseudo-righteousness the male gender corollary of female damnation) in the event of the collapse of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria for want of chemical and antiphysical prey at the southwest point of the axial compass.  Verily, it will be our duty, as godly and antidevilish individuals, to remove the prey from its predators and thereby put an end to its exploitation at the hands of those whose somatic freedom and psychic binding is at noumenal variance with our own psychic freedom and somatic binding, and therefore primarily constitutive not of individuality in relation to the Few but of collectivity in relation to the Few.  For the supreme individuality will not succeed until the primal collectivity is vanquished and, with it, the antisupreme anti-individuality which is the hallmark of the antimetaphysical ‘fall guy for slag’.  But for the supreme individuality to succeed, the antiprimal anticollectivity of antimetachemistry will have to have been established as the subordinate partner, for ever after, of the metaphysical hegemony, necessarily unequivocal, of the godly, as of God.  Without the Antidevil, God cannot succeed.  With the Antidevil, God can bring salvation to the pseudo-antimanly and, via the Antidevil, counter-damnation to the pseudo-womanly, two orders of deliverance from pseudo-worldly limitation which, if thoroughgoing, will indirectly bring pseudo-manly counter-salvation to the Antigodly and pseudo-antiwomanly damnation to the Devilish, pending further axial transformations in the longer term.

 

CONTRASTING OBJECTIVITY WITH ANTISUBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVITY WITH ANTI-OBJECTIVITY IN NOUMENAL AND PHENOMENAL CONTEXTS.  To contrast the noumenal objectivity of Space, i.e. spatial space, with the noumenal antisubjectivity of Antitime, i.e. sequential time, at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where metachemistry is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetaphysics; to contrast the phenomenal subjectivity of Mass, i.e. massive mass, with the phenomenal anti-objectivity of Antivolume, i.e. voluminous volume, at the southeast point of the said compass, where physics is equivocally hegemonic over – though subverted to somatic emphasis by its subordinate complement acting in  conjunction with metachemistry – antichemistry; to contrast the phenomenal objectivity of Volume, i.e. volumetric volume, with the phenomenal antisubjectivity of Antimass, i.e. massed mass, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, where chemistry is equivocally hegemonic over – though subverted to psychic emphasis by its subordinate complement acting in conjunction with metaphysics – antiphysics; to contrast, finally, the noumenal subjectivity of Time, i.e. repetitive time, with the noumenal anti-objectivity of Antispace, i.e. spaced space, at the northeast point of the said compass, where metaphysics is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry.  Thus an axial antithesis between the noumenal objectivity of Space and the phenomenal anti-objectivity of Antivolume coupled to the noumenal antisubjectivity of Antitime and the phenomenal subjectivity of Mass on the one hand, that of state-hegemonic/church subordinate axial criteria, where metachemistry and antichemistry form female polarities as against the male polarities of antimetaphysics and physics; and, contrariwise, an axial antithesis between the phenomenal antisubjectivity of Antivolume and the noumenal subjectivity of Time coupled to the phenomenal objectivity of Volume and the noumenal anti-objectivity of Antispace on the other hand, that of church-hegemonic/state subordinate axial criteria, where antiphysics and metaphysics form male polarities as against the female polarities of chemistry and antimetachemistry.  Strictly speaking, we have a logical right to describe antimetaphysics as antimale in an antidivine way and antichemistry as antifemale in an antifeminine way, while reserving to antiphysics and antimetachemistry the distinction between an antimasculine mode of antimaleness and an antidiabolic mode of antifemaleness.  For that which is ‘anti’, whether in sensuality or in sensibility, is contrary to its male or female counterpart.  Hence the noumenal antisubjectivity of antimetaphysics is axially contrary to the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics as antidivine antimaleness to divine maleness; hence the phenomenal antisubjectivity of antiphysics is axially contrary to the phenomenal subjectivity of physics as antimasculine antimaleness to masculine maleness; hence, by gender contrast, the phenomenal anti-objectivity of antichemistry is axially contrary to the phenomenal objectivity of chemistry as antifeminine antifemaleness to feminine femaleness; hence, finally, the noumenal anti-objectivity antimetachemistry is axially contrary to the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry as antidiabolic antifemaleness to diabolic femaleness.  This, believe it or not, is how things add up, and it would indicate that the axial interdependence and interrelativity of worldly societies is more complicated than a simple humanistic reductionism would suggest.  As, for that matter is the reversal of worldly criteria in a post-worldly age or stage of civilization, where not the ‘below’ but the ‘above’ call the shots, whether for worse, as in relation to the netherworldly/anti-otherworldly northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, or for better, hopefully in times to come with a resurrected northeast point commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’ and, hence, with more genuine otherworldly/anti-netherworldly criteria relative to a universal (divine male)/antipolyversal (antidiabolic antifemale) stage of globalization, when not metachemistry and antimetaphysics but metaphysics and antimetachemistry will determine the fate of everything else, not least those entitled to deliverance from antiphysical antisubjectivity and chemical objectivity in the forms, according with gender, of salvation and counter-damnation.

 

ENVISIONING THE SUPRA-CHRISTIAN BEYOND.  Henry Miller had a phrase about reaching for his revolver when he heard such-and-such a thing that he took an immediate dislike to, and I have to say there are religious expressions that come close to exciting a similar response in me, if only because they are so patently false and lying.  Take the expression, so often used by Irish Catholics, about ‘Holy Mary Mother of God’.  It sounds innocent on the surface of it, but the more you think about it the more you come to realize that it is doubly wrong – wrong about holiness in connection with a female and wrong about God.  Anyone familiar with my philosophy and indeed my teachings will know well enough by now that the only relevant term to use with the concept of ‘Mother’ is ‘clear’, since the female can be either clear or unclear depending whether she is in a sensually hegemonic position, as in metachemistry and chemistry, or in a sensibly subordinate position, as in antimetachemistry and antichemistry, the former options being hegemonic over antimetaphysics and antiphysics, the latter ones subordinate to metaphysics and physics.  Thus there is no way in which either Devil the Mother in the one case or Woman the Mother in the other case can be other than clear, having intimate associations with Hell the Clear Spirit in the metachemical context and Purgatory the Clear Spirit in the chemical one.  The Virgin Mary, being germane to Christianity, is more to be associated with Woman the Mother in phenomenal sensuality than with Devil the Mother in noumenal sensuality, and therefore we should have little doubt that her position, in chemistry over antiphysics, is such as to guarantee her a degree of purgatorial clearness at the expense of such anti-earthly unholiness as must typify, in psychic sin and somatic folly, her male or, rather, antimale counterpart, whom we can identify, in traditional worldly terms, with the phenomenal mode of antison in free soma and antifather in bound psyche, which is to say, with antiman under woman.  Granted, then, that the Virgin has nothing to do with holiness, how much does her son have to do with God?  The answer to that question must be: that he is less God than the so-called Son of God at best and, at worst, the Antison of Antigod who is really a mere extrapolation from what, in the alpha-most anterior context of things, has been identified, falsely, with the Father, being rather more germane to the metachemical context of Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father).  Thus even as Antison, Christ or, more correctly, the Antichrist is merely an extrapolation from Devil the Mother hyped as God on the plane of antimetaphysics and an extrapolation from Woman the Mother hyped as holy on the plane of antiphysics. The only way in which Christ gets to be either Son of Man (phenomenal) or Son of God (noumenal), is in rejection of the Mother through hegemonic sensibility, since such terms have a limited applicability to both physics and metaphysics, albeit not as mere sensual extrapolations from anterior sensual positions in metachemistry and/or chemistry, but as contrary positions to anything sensual and thus subordinate to either Devil the Mother or Woman the Mother.  But even the Christ independent of Woman the Mother in post-resurrectional transcendence of the world is not really Son of God (the Father), but a more elevated and in some sense linear extrapolation from Devil the Mother hyped as God, since there is no God the Father in metaphysics for the Christian so-called God but simply a want of free-psychic metaphysics by dint of the extent to which the metachemical alpha acts as anchor or root to a mere worldly extrapolation which cannot be anything other than ‘Son’ to a so-called Father which, in the Christian context, becomes sort of constitutional rather than autocratically absolutist (Jehovah) in the interests of this linear extrapolation which has been identified with the concept ‘Son of God’, the rightful fulcrum of Christian devotion.  Christianity, by dint of this limitation, can never transcend the Son in relation to metaphysics, since that is the be-all-and-end-all of Christianity, and therefore such transcendence as it does uphold is merely somatic in relation to the paradigm for bound soma of the Crucifixion.  Thus the Crucified ‘On High’ is still merely ‘Son’, is a cart not merely put before a horse but to the exclusion of the relevant horse, the horse, so to speak, that would have to precede it in metaphysical free psyche as the Word that made the bound soma of the Son truly possible.  No such Father exists in Christianity for the simple reason that Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) continues to exist, Old Testament-wise, as root concept of God and to hold the Son accountable to itself as a mere linear extrapolation when it is not, as has already been demonstrated, simply an Antichristic ‘fall guy’.  Christianity does not allow for metaphysical freedom in God the Father, and therefore it always falls short of ‘Kingdom Come’ by dint of being a worldly extrapolation from the alpha-most mode of Devil the Mother, the cosmic mode that the Hebrews contrived to think of in monotheistic terms but always, exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, as a continuation of the Middle Eastern tradition, conditioned by environmental factors, of stellar and solar domination of life to the effective exclusion of sensibility, whether cosmically – not least in respect of those Roman acknowledgements of Jupiter and Saturn which owed more to European sensibility – or naturally, as in relation to winged seedpods on trees of a sufficient stature as to qualify for metaphysical association.  Beyond nature, such a civilization did not venture at all; for that would have implied a New Testament – and hence Christian – transcendence of the Old Testament, as germane to mankind as the next stage of religious culture, one necessarily more European than Middle Eastern.  But even Christianity was tied, as we have seen, to the Old Testament, and therefore constrained to a mere Son-like extrapolation from a so-called Father which doesn’t amount to anything more than a pseudo-otherworldly extrapolation from – and effective repudiation of - netherworldly primacy, i.e. Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father), in the Catholic case and more than a sensibly worldly extrapolation from  - and effective repudiation of - Woman the Mother hyped as holy in the Puritan case, notwithstanding the greater part played by the so-called Father in the case of Anglicanism.  Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint, God the Father can only be achieved independently of Devil the Mother, and therefore as a rejection and absolute repudiation of all alpha-stemming criteria, whether of the Mother or the Antison, not to mention, on linear terms, of the so-called Son.  Godliness, in this ultimate sense, a sense which only the cyborgization of life in tandem with the use of synthetically artificial stimulants to enlightenment can properly establish, and then following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in paradoxical elections that would effectively put an end to worldly limitations – and hence the world – in the event of judgement favouring religious sovereignty, has nothing whatsoever to do with Creatorism in relation to Devil the Mother hyped as God, but stands, whether provisionally through the internet-oriented cyborg-like Word or practically and eternally through metaphysical praxis thereafter, at the furthest possible remove from anything metachemical.  Doubtless those who most adhere to Devil the Mother hyped as God, which is to say all who slavishly adhere to the Bible, will find pretexts to deprecate this independent position, just as they have always deprecated what is either beneath them or contrary to them from a standpoint rooted in the utmost sanctimonious hypocrisy and cant.  Does not the Antigod of both Antigod the Antifather in antimetaphysical bound psyche and, especially, the Antison of Antigod in antimetaphysical free soma get slagged off as the Devil, as Satan, the antimetaphysical form of Antichrist?  And yet the real devil, notwithstanding the deprecation of Antiman the Antifather and Antiman the Antison in such terms, exists hegemonically over it as Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) and is the root, in metachemical free will and spirit, of all that is most evil in life.  If there is a significant gender distinction between Devil the Mother and/or the Daughter of the Devil (for we have to consider what is effectively church-subordinate bound metachemical psyche as well as its state-hegemonic free somatic counterpart) and the Antison of Antigod and/or Antigod the Antifather, how much more significant is the wider distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics, between Devil the Mother and/or the Daughter of the Devil and God the Father and/or the Son of God, the latter of whom can only have meaningful existence in relation to that metaphysical free psyche which is commensurate with His Father as the psyche preceding soma of male gender actuality, whether on the absolute basis of a 3:1 ratio in metaphysics or on the relative basis, germane to phenomenal temporality, of a 2½:1½ ratio in physics, the context not of God but of Man, not of God the Father and/or the Son of God, but of Man the Father and/or the Son of Man, the actual New Testament Christ who stands sensibly apart from any so-called ‘Holy Mother of God’ just as he stands sensibly over his antichemical antifemale counterpart in the Antidaughter of Antiwoman and/or Antiwoman the Antimother, neither of which antifeminine positions (corresponding, after all, to free psyche and bound soma) could be other than unclear under what remains, despite its phenomenal limitations, a holy hegemony of the masculine male.  But even that hegemony, merely equivocal in character, is subject to subversion to the extent that it becomes more a context of bound somatic emphasis in the Son of Man than of free psychic emphasis in Man the Father, and all because axial continuity and consistency on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms requires a polarity between metachemistry and antichemistry, as between evil and good where the free soma of the one and the bound soma of the other, corresponding to primary state-hegemonic criteria, are concerned, and between crime and punishment where the bound psyche of the one and the free psyche of the other, corresponding to primary church-subordinate criteria, are concerned, neither of which have anything male about them but, on the contrary, remain indicative of the extent to which state-hegemonic society, rooted in metachemical free soma, is always female-dominated, with but secondary male positions in the polarity between antimetaphysics and physics, whether in relation to the State, where the somatic antithesis is rather more between pseudo-folly and pseudo-wisdom, or in relation to the Church, where the psychic antithesis is rather more between pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace, the consequence of which, in phenomenal sensibility, is a pseudo-righteousness which is only equivocally hegemonic over genuine justice as far as the antichemical attachment to goodness and punishment, bound soma and free psyche, is concerned.  Obviously I am not an apologist for Man, with his subverted physics axially obliging him to take second place, overall, to the metachemical-to-antichemical polarity of his female counterparts, and therefore I do not place much store by the secondary state-hegemonic bound somatic emphasis upon the concept ‘Son of Man’ which tends to typify the physical hegemony in relation, logically enough, to its primary state-hegemonic counterpart ‘Antiwoman the Antimother’, the focus, after all, of goodness in antichemical bound soma, and the voluminous base of subversion, through antivolume, of massive mass, the form of mass per se.  And as the reader will have realized, neither am I an apologist for anything clear and unholy across the axial divide, even if such unholiness in antimale antiphysics and clearness in female chemistry, corresponding on their respective phenomenal planes to antimass  (massed mass) and volume (volumetric volume), are preconditions, in post-worldly pseudo terms, of genuine salvation to male metaphysics and genuine counter-damnation to antifemale antimetachemistry, as to time (repetitive time) and antispace (spaced space), the holiness and unclearness of which is commensurate with godliness and antidevilishness, and thus with ‘Kingdom Come’; though that, as we have seen, will require a series of paradoxical elections if the possibility of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and its rights – the right, above all, to synthetically artificial enlightenment rendered viable, long-term, on a cyborg foundation to be thought of rather more in connection with the Son of God than with God the Father and, hence, with the Holy Spirit of Heaven than with Heaven the Holy Soul for metaphysical males and with Antidevil the Antimother than with the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and, hence, Antihell the Unclear Spirit rather than the Unclear Soul of Antihell for antimetachemical females – are to materialize officially and, eventually, institutionally.  But it will not just be the ‘free for’ but also the ‘free from’ that will have to be addressed at such a critical and revolutionary time, and here we are of course alluding to the need for the then-relevant authorities, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty transpiring, to remove all religiously and culturally anachronistic obstacles to the development of a religiously sovereign people or, rather, supra-humanity earmarked for godly and antidevilish transfiguration, in order that they may be able to pursue their divine and antidiabolic courses in metaphysics and antimetachemistry without hindrance or detraction from those who would continue to identify God, contrary to all logical reason, with Devil the Mother and, hence, metachemical primacy.  The Bible, rooted as it is in Old Testament fundamentalism or, more correctly, materialism in relation to metachemical free soma and fundamentalism in relation to metachemical bound psyche, the evil of the one complementary to the criminality of the other, will have to be officially consigned to the rubbish heap of history, and this is something that the relevant authorities, which I have tended to identify all along with Social Theocracy, will have to take care off in the religiously sovereign people’s best interests, in order that all traces of Creatorism, of alpha-stemming or alpha-oriented devilishness, with its immoral fixation on the concept ‘Almighty’ and hence, brute cosmic power, may be rejected and repudiated, never again to pass muster as godliness from a standpoint axially antithetical to God.  The day of the reckoning with Devil the Mother in metachemistry and Woman the Mother in chemistry has still to come, but you can rest assured that when it does eventually come through the Grace of God there will be no more Antigods or Antimen under their freely somatic heel and no more possibility of clearness being hyped as holy at the expense of an unholy ‘fall guy’ done down as devil.  Clearness, like unholiness, will be a thing of the past; for only holiness and unclearness will prevail, and the more they do so, in metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the greater will be the prospect of all that is metachemical and antimetaphysical being axially brought down to a pseudo-antichemical and pseudo-physical judgement which will determine whether those already pseudo-antichemical and pseudo-physical, in post-worldly vein, can be swivelled across from their position at the southeast of the intercardinal axial compass to the southwest foot of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis and be made over in the pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical images of those whose salvation and counter-damnation had already taken place, thus precipitating the collapse of the other axis which it is the will of godliness and antidevilishness to destroy in the wake of the overcoming of the world or, rather, of that segment of the contemporary pseudo-world which can be identified, in lapsed Catholic vein, with pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-antiphysics.  For only the systematic overhaul of our own church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, now lamentably quasi-state hegemonic in pseudo-worldly deference to netherworldly-dominated somatic licence, can guarantee more genuine orders of salvation and counter-damnation necessary to the undoing of that axis whose secular exploitations are the bitter fruit of schismatic heresy.  Without Social Theocracy there can be no ‘Kingdom Come’ of a religiously sovereign supra-humanity whose willingness to have their worldly shortcomings overcome will attest to their godly and antidevilish resolve.

 

UNDERSTANDING THE CONTRARY MODES OF NOUMENAL SALUTING.  If there is a mode of saluting – and I guess most ideologies have salutes of one sort or another – germane to Social Theocracy and/or Social Transcendentalism (for the terms are both loosely interchangeable and indicative of a state/church dichotomy within the Centre, our projected ideological context of a religiously sovereign people), it is that which exemplifies life in noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass – in short, that which is illustrative of a metaphysical and an antimetachemical orientation.  I can think of none better, for this purpose, than a clenched fist on a loosely bent arm that is raised and capable of rotating the fist backwards and forwards in due curvilinear fashion, the arm and fist being gently turned towards the person in confirmation of a subjective orientation that should leave one in no doubt that metaphysical transcendentalism and/or idealism is the allegiance being upheld.  But this noumenally subjective mode of Social Theocratic and/or Social Transcendentalist saluting should be differentiated, as metaphysics from antimetachemistry, from its female or, more correctly, antifemale complement, which should have reference to an open-handed salute on a loosely bent arm the angle of which is likewise, as with the male, gently turned towards the person and therefore in no way fascist.  For fascist open-handed saluting is of course conducted on a straight raised arm the hand of which points away from the person in due noumenally objective vein, symptomatic of a metachemical allegiance germane to the unequivocally hegemonic position at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and therefore as far removed from metaphysical godliness, not to mention antimetachemical antidevilishness, as it is possible to be.  The squareness, so to speak, of the typical raised arm fascist salute is indicative of the barbarism of Devil the Mother and/or the Daughter of the Devil hyped as God on a contemporary, or post-worldly and even global, basis, and where metachemistry vainly parades its noumenal objectivity one will invariably find antimetaphysics pseudo-meekly parading its noumenal antisubjectivity in terms of a raised-arm salute the clenched fist of which likewise points away from the person in due subjectivity-defying upended male fashion, the fashion, in other words, of the antidivine antimale, the devotee of the Antison of Antigod in free soma and of Antigod the Antifather in bound psyche, under the hegemonic pressure of the diabolic female.  Thus neither the outright squareness of the one nor the twisted and upended ‘hipness’ of the other, the former fascist and the latter communist, are of any saluting relevance to Social Theocracy, since symptomatic of all that is rooted in or subordinate to metachemical barbarism and therefore contrary to the metaphysical culture of a godly resolve.  We Social Theocrats should be careful to preserve, according to gender, both clenched-fist and open-handed saluting in relation to a loosely bent arm that is capable of metaphysically graceful/wise and antimetachemically pseudo-punishing/good curvilinear movement in defence of noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity.  This is the hipness that unabashedly stands apart from and contrary to all squareness, and therefore it is fitting that its principal mode of gestural exemplification, germane to noumenal subjectivity, should take a clenched-fist form for males and its subordinate mode of gestural exemplification, germane to noumenal anti-objectivity, an open-hand form for antifemales, whose palm will, like the fist of their male counterparts, be gently facing back towards the person on an arm which is not indisposed to some degree, varying with the individual, of oscillatory movement.  Thus do we radically distinguish ourselves from all that is fascist and communist, since we Centrists, in that special Social Theocratic and/or Transcendentalist sense in which I normally employ that term, are heirs to a liberal order of totalitarianism which respects both male and antifemale positions and stands in marked contrast to all that would autocratically set the one gender at the throat of the other in the interests of total female domination of society to the lasting detriment if not effective exclusion of anything else.

 

EXAMINING THE NOUMENAL ANTITHESIS BETWEEN SPACE AND TIME AND THE PHENOMENAL ANTITHESIS BETWEEN VOLUME AND MASS TOGETHER WITH THEIR SUBORDINATE CONCOMITANTS.  To contrast the power of space with the contentment of time, and the glory of volume with the form of mass, as one would contrast the noumenal objectivity of spatial Space with the noumenal subjectivity of repetitive Time on the one hand, that of the absolute antithesis between devilishness and godliness, and the phenomenal objectivity of volumetric Volume with the phenomenal subjectivity of massive Mass on the other hand, that of the relative antithesis between womanliness and manliness.  But under the power of space in metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass lies the anticontentment of antitime in antimetaphysics, while under the contentment of time in metaphysics at the northeast point of the said compass stands the antipower of antispace in antimetachemistry, the former the antidivine complement to diabolism, the latter the antidiabolic complement to divinity.  Likewise, under the glory of volume in chemistry at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass lies the antiform of antimass in antiphysics, while under the form of mass in physics at the southeast point of the said compass stands the antiglory of antivolume in antichemistry, the former the antimasculine complement to femininity and the latter the antifeminine complement to masculinity.  Thus under spatial Space lies sequential Time, the mode of antitime, while under repetitive Time stands spaced Space, the mode of antispace.  Similarly, if phenomenally lower down, under volumetric Volume lies massed Mass, the mode of antimass, while under massive Mass stands voluminous Volume, the mode of antivolume.  Consequently we may speak of a primary noumenal antithesis between Space and Time, diabolic objectivity and divine subjectivity, and of a secondary noumenal antithesis between Antitime and Antispace, antidivine antisubjectivity and antidiabolic anti-objectivity, the primary antithesis (of the respective unequivocally hegemonic elements) being between Power and Contentment, as between the Devil (Devil the Mother) and God (God the Father), the secondary antithesis (of the respective unequivocally subordinate elements) between Anticontentment and Antipower, as between Antigod (Antigod the Antifather) and the Antidevil (Antidevil the Antimother), to take the more representative gender aspects of each secondary element (bound psyche in the former case, bound soma in the latter).  Likewise we may speak of a primary phenomenal antithesis between Volume and Mass, feminine objectivity and masculine subjectivity, and of a secondary phenomenal antithesis between Antimass and Antivolume, antimasculine antisubjectivity and antifeminine anti-objectivity, the primary antithesis (of the respective equivocally hegemonic elements) being between Glory and Form, as between Woman (Woman the Mother) and Man (Man the Father), the secondary antithesis (of the respective equivocally subordinate elements) between Antiform and Antiglory, as between Antiman (Antiman the Antifather) and Antiwoman (Antiwoman the Antimother), to take, once again, the more representative gender aspects of each secondary element (bound psyche in the former case, bound soma in the latter).  Metachemical power takes place no less in connection with Space than metaphysical contentment in connection with Time, while chemical glory takes place no less in connection with Volume than physical form in connection with Mass.  A want of Time under Space makes no less for the antimetaphysical anticontentment of Antitime than a want of Space under Time for the antimetachemical antipower of Antispace.  A want of Mass under Volume makes no less for the antiphysical antiform of Antimass than a want of Volume under Mass for the antichemical antiglory of Antivolume.  Space and Antitime are the absolute alpha and anti-omega of Infinity and Anti-Eternity, Time and Antispace the absolute omega and anti-alpha of Eternity and Anti-Infinity.  Volume and Antimass are the relative alpha and anti-omega of the finite and the antitemporal, Mass and Antivolume the relative omega and anti-alpha of the temporal and the antifinite.  Here is confirmation of the fact that the hegemonic gender position on either class plane – noumenal or phenomenal – is only possible on the basis of the subordinate gender position being upended and effectively put at cross-purposes with itself, whether as the antidivine antisubjectivity of anti-air under the diabolic objectivity of fire in antimetaphysical Antitime under metachemical Space, as the antidiabolic anti-objectivity of antifire under the divine subjectivity of air in antimetachemical Antispace under metaphysical Time, as the antimasculine antisubjectivity of anti-earth (antivegetation) under the feminine objectivity of water in antiphysical Antimass under chemical Volume, or as the antifeminine anti-objectivity of antiwater under the masculine subjectivity of earth (vegetation) in antichemical Antivolume under physical Mass.  Put more concretely, the Devil is only possible in conjunction with a subordinate Antigod, God only possible in conjunction with a subordinate Antidevil, Woman only possible in conjunction with a subordinate Antiman, and Man only possible in conjunction with a subordinate Antiwoman.  Yet even then, axial modifications of the respective intercardinal positions have to be taken into account when examining the extents to which the equivocal hegemonies are subverted by their respective subordinate complements to a contrary gender emphasis – bound psychic in the case of chemistry, bound somatic in the case of physics – at the behest of the unequivocally hegemonic elements in metaphysics and metachemistry, which are in a position not only to dominate their respective subordinate elements or, more correctly, anti-elements, but to establish an interclass polarity, as it were, with the upended gender of the phenomenal position below – antiphysics in the case of metaphysics, antichemistry in that of metachemistry – in the interests of axial continuity and consistency on either a church-hegemonic or a state-hegemonic, depending on the axis, basis.  But here, for once, we have been more concerned with the main planes of existence, viz. Space, Time, Volume, and Mass, than with axial interaction on an interclass basis, and it should be evident, from our investigations, that Space, Time, Volume, and Mass do not constitute a simple hierarchy of planes but, rather, noumenal and phenomenal antitheses which do not meet, as it were, in the middle, as though in a continuous plane, but remain disjunctively apart in relation to those fundamental antitheses – Space and Time at the top, Antitime and Antispace at the higher middle, Volume and Mass at the lower middle, and Antimass and Antivolume at the bottom.  Hence the absolute primary antithesis between Power and Contentment has to be supplemented by the absolute secondary antithesis between Anticontentment and Antipower where the noumenal antithesis between Space/Antitime and Time/Antispace is concerned, while the relative primary antithesis between Glory and Form has to be supplemented by the relative secondary antithesis between Antiform and Antiglory where the phenomenal antithesis between Volume/Antimass and Mass/Antivolume is concerned.  In no instance can the prevailing element be completely isolated from its subordinate complement, for the Devil without Antigod is as inconceivable as God without the Antidevil, Woman without Antiman, and Man without Antiwoman.  But the Devil and God are no less incompatible than Antigod and the Antidevil, Woman and Man, and Antiman and Antiwoman.  Only the Devil and Antigod, God and the Antidevil, Woman and Antiman, and Man and Antiwoman are respectively compatible.  Which of course means that if God is to triumph it will be at the expense of Antigod and with the cooperation of the Antidevil whose subordinate complementariness will ultimately be at the expense of the Devil.  But until God triumphs over Antiman, he will not triumph over Antigod.  And until the Antidevil triumphs over Woman, she will not triumph over the Devil.  For the defeat of the Devil and Antigod does not directly stem from the triumph of God and the Antidevil but … indirectly, through the triumph of God and the Antidevil over Antiman and Woman respectively or, in this post-worldly age, their pseudo-antimanly and pseudo-womanly counterparts.  For until Antimass (or its pseudo equivalent) has been saved to Time and Volume counter-damned to Antispace, Space and Antitime will not be put out of their diabolic and antidivine business, so to speak, but will still be able to prey on their preordained worldly victims as before – Space upon Volume (noumenal female to phenomenal female) and Antitime upon Antimass (noumenal antimale to phenomenal antimale), to the lasting detriment of Antispace and Time.  But God is all about saving from the anti-omega world to his own otherworldly blessedness, and the Antidevil about counter-damning from the alpha world to her own antinetherworldly pseudo-cursedness.  That is the only basis upon which the ultimate triumph of Time and Antispace both directly and indirectly over what is sensually contrary to them can proceed, and it can and should proceed on an altogether more radical basis in the future than anything that has obtained, rather less metaphysically and antimetachemically authentically, in the past and is consequently irrelevant to the post-worldly present.

 

MORE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURE AND CIVILITY IN BOTH NOUMENAL AND PHENOMENAL CONTEXTS.  One has to distinguish, whether people like it or not, between genuine culture and pseudo-civility, the respective attributes of metaphysics and antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, and pseudo-culture and genuine civility, the respective attributes of physics and antichemistry at the southeast point of the said compass.  For not only are these pairings distinct from each other, but they appertain to two diametrically antithetical axes, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis that also embraces, at its southwest point, chemistry and antiphysics, or pseudo-barbarity and genuine philistinism, and the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis that also embraces, at its northwest point, metachemistry and antimetaphysics, barbarity and pseudo-philistinism.  That said, it should be evident that a polarity between philistinism and culture on the one hand, and pseudo-barbarity and pseudo-civility on the other should not be confounded with the polarity between barbarity and civility on the one hand, and pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture on the other.  The polarities of each axis are as distinct as their respective components, and that is why they rarely or never see eye-to-eye, as it were, across the axial divide but remain symptomatic of ethnic incompatibility and rivalry.  But pseudo-culture and civility (the genuine article) are no less guilty of hyping the pseudo-cultural element to the standing of genuine culture than they are of hyping Man to the standing of God.  Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your standpoint, there is all the axial difference in the world - and even above it - between these two superficially parallel but diametrically incompatible elements.  Pseudo-culture is not and never has been or ever will be genuinely cultural, but the worldly opponent of such culture that puts commercial considerations above the truth or, at the very least, the artist's endeavour to be as sincere and honest in his pursuance of self-enlightenment, of self-discovery, as he possibly can be.  No one who has been published in book form on the basis of commercial expedience or in relation to commercial sense is or ever can be a genuine artist, a purveyor of genuine culture.  Books are illustrative of pseudo-culture in the pocket of civility and are axially beholden to pseudo-philistinism in the pocket (hegemonically speaking) of barbarity, which usually takes the form of a garish illustration.  They are no more expressive of genuine culture (coupled to pseudo-civility) than Man is expressive of God.  And by 'God' I do not mean Devil the Mother hyped as God (in metachemistry), but the genuine metaphysical article, which is God the Father in metaphysical free psyche and the Son of God in metaphysical bound soma.  The Son of Man, which is the more prevalent take on humanism, is not even on the physically free-psychic level of Man the Father, an almost unheard of term.  But he is still hyped nonetheless, like the bullshit that passes for truth but is really the strength co-opted knowledge of physics when it is not, like antimetaphysics, the illusory servant of metachemical ugliness, serving merely to blurb-up the garish presentation of a compendium of knowledge whose typographical presentation is merely printerly and, therefore, germane to the antichemical subversion of pseudo-culture by civility.

 

THE DUTIES OF SOCIAL THEOCRACY.  As I think I may have mentioned some time before, Social Theocracy, if and when it attains to power in consequence of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a paradoxical election in certain countries with, like Eire, a Catholic axial tradition, will have more to do than simply to advance the interests of a religiously sovereign people, crucial as that may be, but would also have to deliver them from religious anachronisms and thus from the whole tradition of Bible-based Christianity which still, officially, weighs upon them with all the authority of Scripture.  Obviously the ‘free for’ is more important than the ‘free from’, but one would still have to deal with the latter and thus set about freeing them, our hypothetically religiously sovereign people, from every type of Christian anachronism and effective obstacle to metaphysical liberation and its antimetachemical (antifemale) corollary.  This means that the Bible would itself be in the front line of that which had to be removed from society in the interests of the religiously sovereign people’s deliverance from Creator-based autocracy and metachemical tyranny, the Devil the Mother hyped as God-type scenario which has bedevilled conventional religion for thousands of years.  Thus the Social Theocratic movement would have to be instrumental in confiscating Bibles and having them destroyed, presumably through incineration at special facilities where all sorts of religious and cultural anachronisms would be stored prior to being destroyed in the wake of judgement.  What certain persons of Germanic stamp set about doing on the physical plane in Europe two or three generations ago in relation to perceived physical anachronisms or irrelevancies to European progress, which is to say, to the West’s gradual emergence from out the autocratic shadow of Eastern – and specifically Middle Eastern – influence towards the free horizon of global enlightenment, certain other gentlemen of a different ethnic or racial stamp will have to set about doing on the metaphysical plane, so to speak, in relation to those cultural and religious anachronisms which, if left uncensored, would continue to hold the Europe of the future back from global maturity and thus preclude its liberation from Eastern tyranny, a thing that Western civilization only managed to achieve on the Christian/democratic plane of a worldly intermediacy, as it were, between the Alpha of netherworldly autocracy and the coming Omega of otherworldly theocracy, as though in relation to a constitutional monarchy which, corresponding to the Old Testament, had to allow for such worldly freedoms as first Christianity and then democracy contrived to establish at its expense, the New Testament taking precedence – except possibly in the Anglican case – over the Old Testament and thus signifying a relative break with all forms of netherworldly tyranny.  Doubtless the step beyond the West into a more fully-fledged global civilization than that which heathenistically obtains at present under American auspices will put an end both to Christianity and to democracy, since a majority mandate for religious sovereignty would permit the Social Theocratic authorities to serve that sovereignty on both positive (free for) and negative (free from) terms, thereby advancing the religiously sovereign people’s rights as they set about eliminating all obstacles to those rights, both Western and Eastern.  And the elimination of the Bible as a representative emblem of Western civilization, torn between its own New Testament and that which it basically inherited, Old Testament-wise, from the Middle East, would have to take precedence over everything else, at least until such time as it became possible to proceed to related matter of an equally anachronistic nature.  Thus Social Theocracy will have to use both stick and carrot, so to speak, in its determination to deliver the people from the last vestiges of autocratic tyranny, since their own rights in relation to religious sovereignty could be severely hampered unless all that stands in its way, including Christian prayer-books and hymnals, is not systematically removed from the new order of society in the form of a purge.  But such a procedure, crucial as it may be to the proper functioning of the New Order, will still rank secondary to the principal responsibilities of Social Theocracy vis-à-vis the people, which will entail the advancement of enlightenment in the forms of synthetically artificial stimulants and, in the case of females, tranquillizers or somatic inhibitors – the former to enhance metaphysical free psyche as a male, or godly, prerogative, the latter to constrain females to antimetachemical bound soma and thus keep them instinctually and spiritually bottled up, as it were, and at cross-purposes with themselves under male hegemonic pressure and, hence, the leadership of intellect and, especially, soul.  For any free psyche in the female or, more correctly, antifemale case can only be secondary to its male counterpart, and hence no more than a spin-off from antimetachemical bound soma.  Enlightenment is primarily a male prerogative, since it is not possible to males on a significantly consistent scale unless females are constrained from outer-light clearness in sensuality through male pressures emanating from sensibility, the ensuing unclearness of the one owing much if not everything to the holiness of the other, which means that male freedom in metaphysics can only be achieved at the cost of female binding, or somatic enslavement, in antimetachemistry.  If the boot is not on the male foot, so to speak, it will be on the female foot in sensuality, and instead of culture and civility or, in this noumenal instance, pseudo-civility, you will simply have a continuation of the all-too-prevalent American-dominated context of barbarity and pseudo-philistinism, metachemistry and antimetaphysics, with Devil the Mother hyped as God  and the correlative sanctimonious disparagement, in typically devaluating terms, of the Antison of Antigod (in antimetaphysical free soma), who naturally becomes Devil in that all-too-traditional and sensually conventional event, whether in relation to the cosmos, to nature, to mankind or, indeed, to cyborgkind.  Therefore if we wish, as Social Theocrats, to achieve all that is best in civilization, in this instance global civilization, which is premised on the cyborgization of life, we must ensure that culture and pseudo-civility, righteousness and pseudo-justice, take their rightful place at the peak of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate society, and thereby restore to the lapsed Catholic quasi-state-hegemonic majority of countries like Eire the possibility of salvation and counter-damnation from their pseudo-worldly predicament to the revolutionary otherworldly and antinetherworldly positions which it would be the duty of Social Theocracy to uphold in the face of both traditional anachronisms and all-too-contemporary outside influences, not least those which, in American-inspired vein, are primarily responsible for establishing the quasi-state-hegemonic paradoxes of contemporary star-obsessed society in relation to a well-nigh polyversal array of films and film-stars, to take but two examples,1 whose evil or pseudo-foolish content and behaviour does little to advance their moral wellbeing but, on the contrary, enslaves them to all that is most somatically licentious and thus contrary to the will or, more correctly, ego and soulful aspirations of godliness.  But, even here, I am generalizing.  For, of course, the enslavement that the contemporary manifestation of global civilization imposes on society is more in terms of the male, where bound psyche is concerned, than of the female, and is thus symptomatic of the female-dominated heathenistic nature of the age.  The boot, right now, is most assuredly on the other foot, so to speak, and that is the way it will stay until Social Theocracy can establish itself in certain countries with a Catholic tradition (no matter how much such a tradition may since have been overhauled by contemporary criteria), and begin the campaign to wrest the relevant people, those of the anti-omega-worldly and alpha-worldly southwest point of our intercardinal axial compass, away from both their own pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical, pseudo-antimasculine and pseudo-feminine, limitations and, more importantly, those who would continue to metachemically and antimetaphysically prey upon them from the somatically free and psychically bound heights of its northwest point, thereby precluding, short of the revolutionary transformation I have in mind, their deliverance, under male hegemonic pressures, to the salvation of psychic freedom in metaphysics and, for females-become-antifemales, the counter-damnation of somatic binding in antimetachemistry (to take the more characteristic emphases in each gender case).  Thus Social Theocracy would reverse the current gender situation, putting the emphasis of freedom upon psyche in relation to sensibility as a male-led and male-inspired ideal which it can only be in the interests of males, in particular, to accept and set about furthering by every possible means short, that is, of violence and corruption.  A global civilization that finally extricates itself from the last vestiges of metachemical and antimetaphysical sensuality will truly have been reborn into metaphysical and antimetachemical sensibility as though in a Superchristian rejection of the Superheathen present.  For this to work properly, the religiously sovereign people will have to have recourse to the most potent inner forms of synthetic artificiality as a counterweight to all those outer forms of it to which they are currently subjected in the shape, not least, of filmic and TV bombardment.  If this means that sensible cyborgization follows from the lead of these inner-light alternatives to the filmic outer-lights, then so be it!  It is inconceivable that the people would be able to survive recourse to such potent stimulants to free psyche and purveyors of bound soma unless cyborgization in relation to the person were a concurrent process and right, thereby lifting them from out their human – antimasculine and feminine – limitations toward the divine and antidiabolic heights of supra-human blessedness and pseudo-cursedness and simultaneously ensuring that they remained up the axis of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria at its northeast point on an increasingly frequent and protracted basis, preconditions, after all, of the collapse of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis for want of pseudo-chemical and pseudo-antiphysical prey at the southwest point of the overall intercardinal compass.  For only when that prey has been systematically removed from its lowly status through otherworldly and antinetherworldly transfiguration or transmutation … will the axis which is the bitter fruit of schismatic heresy be brought down and the battle be won by those whose antipathy to everything metachemical and antimetaphysical confirms their divine and antidiabolic, metaphysical and antimetachemical, credentials as leaders of Social Theocracy and the Social Transcendentalist ‘overcoming’ of the pseudo-alpha world of the pseudo-chemical and pseudo-anti-omega world of the pseudo-antiphysical in the interests both of their deliverance from themselves and, more importantly from our metaphysical and antimetachemical perspectives, those who will continue to exploit them and, by so doing, continue to disparage us and preclude us from triumphing at their expense in the name of Truth and, where antimetachemistry is concerned, Beauty.   Thus if ‘man is to be overcome’, to use a Nietzschean phrase, it is to bring what has been called the Devil and Her antigodly corollary, the freely somatic Antison of Antigod, down, in order that godliness and antidevilishness may triumph through the pseudo-antimasculine form of ‘man’ and the pseudo-feminine form of ‘woman’ being lifted up On High and thereby transmuted into that which appertains, in metaphysics and antimetachemistry, to all that is most righteous and most pseudo-just, most true and most beautiful, most saved and most counter-damned.  Verily, God’s triumph over the world with the help of the Antidevil is the only way in which the Devil’s rule over the world with the help of the Antigod (financed and ethnically supported by its axial polarity in man and antiwoman or, in contemporary terms, pseudo-man and pseudo-antiwoman) can be defeated and those who would correspond, in such terms, to pseudo-men and pseudo-women be delivered from exploitation.  The world as here defined in relation to pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-antiphysics is not an ideal place.  It is the scene of exploitation from netherworldly and anti-otherworldly elements financed by omega worldly and anti-alpha-worldly elements who are deluded into believing that their worldliness, because it is not directly in the firing-line of exploitation, is ideal.  Therefore it is something, from our otherworldly and antinetherworldly standpoints, that should be overcome, if only to defeat those who would prey upon it from standpoints at variance with if not totally contrary to all that is true and beautiful, holy and unclear, godly and antidevilish, blessed and pseudo-cursed.  That is the logic, if you will, of world-overcoming, and it is not something that is fanciful or pie in the sky or in any way utopian in consequence of gender or element reductionism.  It is logically well-founded and morally sound.  It is the one form of progress that is not self-defeating or a contradiction in terms.  It is, frankly, inevitable because the desire for Eternity and its antifemale corollary Anti-Infinity cannot be denied for ever.

 

A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE RESURRECTION.  Just as the Catholic term ‘Mother of God’ leaves much to be desired from the standpoint of both the sensual reality of Woman the Mother and the Christian fulcrum of Son of God, neither of which would qualify for equation with God, since God the Father can only be quite distinct from either the Mother or the Son, so the concept of the ‘Resurrection of Christ’ is somewhat problematic insofar as it infers a change of position from phenomenal to noumenal, sensuality to sensibility, which simply defies the underlining reality of entrenched class positions in both contexts – the contexts, that is to say, of antiphysics and metaphysics or, in the Christian tradition of a worldly fulcrum, antiphysics and pseudo-metaphysics.  The ‘below’ does not transform itself into the ‘above’ because the sensible position comes to pass in consequence of a rejection of the sensual position relative to itself, whether on a noumenal or a phenomenal basis.  The Son of God does not arise from Woman the Mother, the Catholic so-called ‘Mother of God’, because what immediately appertains, as direct extrapolation from or simply under-plane upended gender to Woman the Mother, is the Antison of Antiman, a phenomenal manifestation of the Antichrist.  There is also, of course, the bound-psychic corollary of such free soma, which can be described as Antiman the Antifather and which would parallel, in antiphysical subservience to chemistry (to speak in general terms), the Daughter of Woman, its chemical counterpart.  Therefore just as Antiman has intimate associations with Woman, whether as Mother or as Daughter, so it is inconceivable that Man could have such associations with her, since he comes to pass in consequence of a rejection of Antiman, whether as the Antison of Antiman in antiphysical free soma or as Antiman the Antifather in antiphysical bound psyche.  And such a rejection, premised upon a sensible alternative to sensuality, establishes, by its very existence, the reality of Antiwoman in both psyche and soma, the Antidaughter of Antiwoman under Man the Father, and Antiwoman the Antimother under the Son of Man.  Hence both Man the Father and the Son of Man come to pass in consequence of a rejection of their sensual counterparts, Antiman the Antifather and the Antison of Antiman, and not as a result of a resurrection from Woman the Mother (to take but the freely somatic aspect of chemistry).  Man is the rejection of Antiman, whose existence under Woman keeps him pegged to the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass in typically mass Catholic fashion.  But that is all that this type of Christ is.  It is not godly.  It is manly.  And it comes to pass at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as a puritanical postulate that establishes humanism as the physical alternative to antihumanism and, by subordinate gender implication, antinonconformism as the antichemical alternative to nonconformism, using that term as synonymous with the chemical hegemony of feminine females over antimasculine males in antiphysics.  But where, then, does the Son of God arise from?  Certainly not Woman the Mother!  The genuine Son of God must follow as a consequence of the coming to pass in metaphysics of God the Father as a sensible rejection of noumenal sensuality or, more correctly, noumenal antisensibility in antimetaphysics and, thus, of Antigod the Antifather.  This sensible rejection of Antigod the Antifather paves the way for God the Father no less than the rejection of the somatic corollary of such a manifestation of Antigod, viz. the Antison of Antigod, paves the way for the Son of God, both of which male positions in metaphysics appertain to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as a noumenal antithesis to that which, in antimetaphysics, can only exist under metachemistry at its northwest point.  But such metachemistry is equivalent to Devil the Mother in free soma and to the Daughter of the Devil in bound psyche.  Therefore no less than Man comes to pass as a rejection of Antiman, so God comes to pass as a rejection of Antigod, of the antigodly modes, in psyche and soma, of the Antichrist, and in so doing he establishes the Antidevil under him as the antimetachemical rejection, in effect, of the Devil, i.e. Devil the Mother and the Daughter of the Devil.  Thus it is logically incontestable that God does not arise from Devil the Mother, still less from Woman the Mother, but in consequence of a rejection, in noumenal sensibility, of all that is antigodly and beholden, as ‘fall guy’, to a metachemical hegemony rooted, somatically, in Devil the Mother.  Antigodliness, no less than antimanliness in relation to Woman, has intimate associations with devilishness, with whom it is somatically and psychically aligned at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.  Godliness, by contrast, only comes to pass on the basis of a rejection of such intimacy from a standpoint no less noumenal but profoundly sensible.  The sensible ‘high’, or noumenal, remain antithetical to the sensual ‘high’, to speak more generally, no less than the sensible ‘low’, or phenomenal, are antithetical to the sensual ‘low’.  The  male ‘high’ do not arise from the antimale ‘low’ but are effectively high, if on antisensible terms, to begin with … before their conversion to sensibility and hegemonic independence of anything female.  The only way that, in general terms, the ‘high’ can emerge from the ‘low’ in the future, in our hypothetical context of ‘Kingdom Come’ premised upon a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, will be in consequence of the transfiguration or transmutation of the ‘low’, cyborg-wise, as from the southwest to the northeast points of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.  But that will be in consequence of those who are already metaphysically and antimetachemically high, in noumenal sensibility and noumenal antisensuality, being able to impact upon them and deliver them from their lowly plight.  It will not be a natural transformation from phenomenal antisensibility and sensuality to noumenal sensibility and antisensuality, as though in a more gender representative paradigm of the Christian resurrection, but one that transpires, if ever it does, in relation to a combination of factors stemming from the ‘above’, not least of a substance and technological order.  For there will already be, on provisional terms, godly and antidevilish elements in situ to effect the overall transformation of the antimanly and womanly elements, or their pseudo counterparts (to speak in contemporary, post-worldly terms), to a standing that will eventually be more genuinely godly and antidevilish in relation to both metaphysical and antimetachemical praxis taking place in increasingly communal settings germane to the wavicle cohesiveness of noumenal absolutism.  Thus, with this in mind, it could be said that godliness ultimately emerges out of antimanliness and antidevilishness out of womanliness, but not without the provisional godliness and antidevilishness of those who were already noumenally high being instrumental in effecting such a mass transformation.  And they spring, as was said above, from a rejection of antigodliness and devilishness, not from the ‘below’.  The ‘high’ remain high and the ‘low’ remain low until such time as the former are in a position to effect the transfiguration of the latter in what becomes an artificial resurrection of the Many into the One or, when gender differentials are also taken into account, the Few.  Not even the Son of God arises from Woman the Mother, the so-called ‘Mother of God’, but in consequence of the prior existence of God the Father as metaphysical psyche preceding metaphysical soma, the basis of male reality.  The Son of God is certainly an extrapolation, though not directly, from Devil the Mother (hyped as God), just as the Son of Man is an indirect extrapolation, through rejection, from Woman the Mother (hyped as holy, if not as godly).  But that is merely to posit one type or another of son-like fulcrum at the expense of a so-called Father (Creator) of Middle Eastern precedence, which is both the achievement and limitation of the Christian West.  Unfortunately for Western civilization, the true Son of God does not stem, indirectly, from Devil the Mother hyped as Father, but in consequence of a godly individual whose psychic freedom puts him at loggerheads with Devil the Mother and leads him to repudiate the antigodly Antichrist, her antimetaphysical offspring, so to speak.  The Son of God who is cart after horse in metaphysics requires the precedence of the metaphysical Father in order that he may implement, from the standpoint of state soma, the church psyche which is his Word and moral directive.  Therefore the people, if they elect for religious sovereignty, become, by degrees, even more metaphysical and, for females, antimetachemical on both psychic and somatic terms, as God and the Antidevil really get properly up and running on terms quite independent of the initial leadership, though owing everything to it.  For without the initial Father and Son of metaphysical independence of metachemistry, and hence of Devil the Mother/the Daughter of the Devil, there can be no New Order, corresponding to ‘Kingdom Come’, in which metaphysics and antimetachemistry will be more fully and practically realized thereafter, as the people come on board.  Provisional godliness and antidevilishness paves the way for the bona fide modes of God and Antidevil to come when the people have been transmuted up from their lowly state by those who have appointed themselves to lead them.  For without this leadership, nothing can or will be achieved by the people that would even remotely resemble ‘Kingdom Come’.

 

AN EXAMINATION OF FAITHFULNESS AND FAITHLESSNESS.  Christ claimed to have brought a sword to cleave the faithless from the faithful, the sheep from the goats, the chaff from the wheat, etc., etc., and it would seem that I can claim, with or without the benefit of a metaphorical sword, to have done likewise, specifically in relation to the metaphysical and the antimetachemical at the northeast point of our by-now well-established intercardinal axial compass, the former divine male and the latter antidiabolic female or, more correctly, antidiabolic antifemale, which puts them in the position of the Antidevil under God or, as I have elsewhere described it, Anti-Yin under Yang, Anti-Vanity Fair under the Celestial City, Anti-Infinity under Eternity, and so on.  Clearly, this distinction between the metaphysically Saved and the antimetachemically Counter-Damned is equivalent to the Faithful and, if not to the Faithless then, in this instance, to the Anti-Faithless, since those who are antimetachemical can at least be expected to defer to the unequivocal hegemony of the metaphysical, and therefore to stand in a diametrically antithetical position to those who, ever faithless, rule over what could be called the Anti-Faithful, the antimetaphysical ‘fall guys’ for diabolic denigration from the unequivocal hegemony of Devil the Mother hyped as God in metachemistry.  But what, you may wonder, constitutes the distinction between being faithful and being faithless?  The answer is relatively straightforward.  Those who are faithful, being male, are faithful to the eternity of godliness, to the possibility and, indeed, desirability if not actuality of Eternal Life from the standpoint of repetitive time, whereas those, on the contrary, who are faithless have no such aspirations or ambitions but, being female, are motivated by criteria stemming from the infinity of spatial space in what can be called Infinite Death.  Therefore the absolute alpha and omega of things is Infinite Death on the one hand, and Eternal Life on the other hand.  And consequently that which appertains, in antimetaphysics, to anti-faithfulness is anti-eternal life, whereas that which appertains, in antimetachemistry, to anti-faithlessness is anti-infinite death.  The Anti-Faithful are no less the victims of anti-eternity under the rule of Infinity … than the Anti-Faithless the victims of anti-infinity under the rule or, rather, lead of Eternity.  There stands the great gender-conditioned alpha/anti-omega and omega/anti-alpha antithesis between those at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass who are of the Devil and Antigod, viz. metachemistry and antimetaphysics, and those, by contrast, who, to the northeast of the said compass, are of God and the Antidevil, viz. metaphysics and antimetachemistry.  The one category effectively excludes the other, since the one category can only triumph over the world at the expense of the other.  So the Faithful have to be cleaved from the Anti-Faithless in the metaphysical/antimetachemical dichotomy between Eternity and Anti-Infinity, repetitive time and spaced space.  For that which appertains, in metaphysics, to Eternal Life can only reign hegemonically if it is accompanied by that which, in antimetachemistry, appertains to Anti-Infinite Death, the antidiabolic antifemale whose existence is premised upon the prior hegemonic sway, in metaphysical sensibility, of the divine male.  Death and Life, faithlessness and faithfulness, Infinity and Eternity, the overall alpha and omega of things which struggle, across the gender divide, for either primacy or supremacy, the primacy of the Faithless over the Anti-Faithful, of Infinite Death over Anti-Eternal Life or, antithetical to this, the supremacy of the Faithful over the Anti-Faithless, of Eternal Life over Anti-Infinite Death.  But life itself derives from Infinity, just as death precedes Eternity.  This, however, is on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass or, more correctly, volume/antimass in sensuality and mass/antivolume in sensibility.  For life, in that sense, is subject to death, since all that is born of woman must die, whether to inherit Eternity or Anti-Infinity or, indeed, Infinity or Anti-Eternity.  Such, at any rate, is how it stands for mankind, and thus in relation to the antithetical or complementary fates awaiting those whose death is the prelude to either an Afterlife or an Anti-Afterdeath, not to mention, in sensuality, to an Afterdeath or an Anti-Afterlife.  For we cannot suppose that, even on this basis of phenomenal death, everyone is oriented to the same fate – say, to afterlife experience.  There is a male/female distinction between the Afterlife and the Anti-Afterdeath, as between Eternity and Anti-Infinity, but there is also a female/male distinction between afterdeath experience and anti-afterlife experience, the former corresponding to Infinity and the latter to Anti-Eternity.  Thus as one had lived (or died), whether in sensuality or in sensibility, under the ruling shadow of metachemistry/antimetaphysics or, alternatively, under the guiding light of metaphysics/antimetachemistry, so shall one live (or die) again, whether from the standpoints of chemistry/antiphysics at the southwest point of our intercardinal axial compass or from those of physics/antichemistry at its southeast.  Death, in the general sense, is a prelude to one of a number of fates, and it is of no coincidence that the disposal of the deceased often mirrors this fact, whether in relation to cremation or to burial.  For cremation is more to be associated with afterdeath (female) and anti-afterlife (male) experiences than would be burial in conventional Christian fashion, which suggests the likelihood of afterlife (male) and anti-afterdeath (female) experiences, depending on the overall lifestyles of the departed.  Again, the above generalized distinctions between male and female could be subdivided more clinically into female/antimale and male/antifemale alternatives, since that which is female lives under the shadow of death even as it gives life to the male and, subsequently, his posthumous predilection towards either life or, if foolishly sensual, antilife.  Hence, in overall terms, we can speak of life out of Death and death as a prelude to Life, but with due gender distinctions between the dead to ego and soul, to psyche, who are also alive to will and spirit, to soma, and the dead to will and spirit, to soma, who may also be alive to ego and soul, to psyche.  But that posits a female/male dichotomy in the broader sense, and, as alluded to above, one must also allow, as the evidence suggests, for female/antimale and male/antifemale distinctions, the former pairing of which, ever sensual, will be alive to will and spirit and dead to  soul and ego, the latter pairing of which, ever sensible, will be alive to ego and soul and dead to spirit and will, the antimales of the one context being more dead to soul  and ego than alive, like their female counterparts, to will and spirit; the antifemales of the other context being more dead to spirit and will than alive, like their male counterparts, to ego and soul.  For the one gender only triumphs over the other on the basis of the upending and confounding of its gender opposite, whether in sensuality (where the male as antimale is, strictly speaking, antisensible) or in sensibility (where the female as antifemale is, strictly speaking, antisensual).  Antisensibility under a female sensual hegemony is equivalent to antilife under death, antipsyche under soma, antilight under darkness, while antisensuality under a male sensible hegemony is equivalent to antideath under life, antisoma under psyche, antidarkness under light.  Small wonder that the posthumous fates of each gender, quite apart from their sensual or sensible predestinations, are so different, if complementarily so, in each case.  There is no such thing as a female afterlife.  Afterlife experience is solely male, whether in positive (sensible) terms or, in consequence of gender subservience to a female hegemony, in negative (antisensible) terms.  Females, by contrast, can only experience afterdeath, whether in positive (sensual) terms or, in consequence of gender subservience to a male hegemony, in negative (antisensual) terms.  That which was the ‘lady with the lamp’, whether or not though especially when also blonde, is not fated to experience an Afterlife, and even what could be called ‘the antilady with the antilamp’ of bound soma, of antispirit and antiwill, will only experience an Anti-Afterdeath, in keeping with her subordination to male hegemonic values in sensibility.  Yet such ‘temporal’ afterlives and anti-afterdeaths, stemming from human life and, ultimately, death, should not be confounded with the properly eternal afterlives and anti-afterdeaths that lie potentially in store for humanity in the supra-human future … should ‘Kingdom Come’ actually come to pass on the back of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a series of paradoxical elections in various countries, and steps duly be taken, by the then-responsible authorities, to implement, gradually and methodically, the cyborgization of that proportion of humankind who had democratically opted for godliness and antidevilishness, for salvation from pseudo-antimanliness to godliness and counter-damnation to antidevilishness from pseudo-womanliness, in relation to their pro-psychic and anti-somatic rights, with ego being synthetically enhanced primarily in the male population (primary church-hegemonic criteria) in proportion as spirit was curtailed to antispirit in the female (antifemale) population (secondary state-subordinate criteria) and, later on, when cyborgization was sufficiently advanced to permit of it and other changes in society overall had also taken place, with soul being synthetically enhanced primarily in the male population (primary church-hegemonic criteria) in proportion as will was curtailed to antiwill in the female (antifemale) population (secondary state-subordinate criteria), the secondary levels of church hegemony having antifemale and the primary levels of state subordination male correlations respectively.  But that is to anticipate a future outcome to society which is far beyond anything now existing and therefore dependent on the resolve, as it were, of certain higher individuals to help bring it to pass in decades or centuries to come.  In the meantime, people will continue to die and to experience one of a number of alternative afterlife or afterdeath, anti-afterlife or anti-afterdeath fates, as they deserve.  Even now a dichotomy between the faithful and the faithless exists which is symptomatic of the distinction between life and death, psyche and soma, light and darkness, Christian and Heathen, and such a dichotomy, amounting to an antithesis between sensuality and sensibility, has its axial and ethnic implications, for better or worse.  Time alone will determine whether Eternity triumphs over Anti-Infinity at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass or whether, in all-too-contemporary vein, Infinity continues to ride roughshod over Anti-Eternity at the northwest point of the said compass, constraining the alpha and anti-omega world to its exemplification of somatic licence and dark denial of psychic enlightenment, while the omega and anti-alpha world continues to finance it from an axially antithetical standpoint rooted in humanism.

 

AN INVESTIGATION OF DEATH IN RELATION TO LIFE, BOTH TEMPORAL AND ETERNAL.  People have an unfortunate tendency to confound death with the Afterlife, as though the Afterlife and death were synonymous or, more obviously, that you had to die in order to experience the Afterlife – which, frankly, is patently the case for the type of afterlife experiences, for better or worse, that mankind, though particularly males, can become subject to in the event of death.  But that is more usually in consequence of natural causes, not of death brought about through fatal injury as a result of an accident, a murder, or war, to take but three possibilities.  Even in this latter respect, one cannot rule out the possibility of some kind of posthumous experience for males in particular, though that would be contingent on circumstances and not a foregone conclusion.  If the brain stem and spinal cord were intact, then some cannibalistic self-conflagration of retreating nerve fibres could be anticipated, though not necessarily on terms that were strictly synonymous with afterlife experience as a positive phenomenon.  It could be that what in the previous entry was called ‘anti-afterlife’ experience would ensue both in consequence of injury and in response, depending on the individual, to a largely heathenistic lifestyle premised upon sensual subservience to female domination.  Individual variations are obviously not a matter about which one can speculate with any certainty, but, even in the event of violent death, some kind of posthumous experience cannot be entirely ruled out.  But that is still distinct from any such experience transpiring in consequence of natural death.  And natural death is, for mankind or, at any rate, its male members, the gateway to posthumous experience – for better or worse.  Yet all that falls short of Eternity in a properly otherworldly and therefore supra-human context, as germane to what may lie ahead of mankind in the not-too-distant future in the event of certain revolutionary changes taking place in society with the aim of establishing the nearest approximation to ‘Kingdom Come’, that necessarily universal, and therefore global, outcome of the overcoming of the world, as of worldly society.  It is in such a supra-human society, premised upon a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, that Eternity would be more than merely posthumous experience of one kind or another of afterlife, just as Anti-Infinity, its female or, rather, antifemale counterpart, would be more than either the afterdeath or anti-afterdeath types of posthumous experience briefly alluded to in the previous entry.  There would be no fizzling out of the self-conflagration of the myriad nerve fibres of the brain stem and spinal cord with the kind of supra-human Eternity and Anti-Infinity I have in mind here, since longevity would be premised upon a cyborgization of the person that precluded mortality and ensured that such self-enlightenment or notself-curtailment as the individual was synthetically entitled to would not prove either lethal to him/her or unsustainable over an almost indefinite period of time commensurate with Eternity and an indefinite period of antispace commensurate with Anti-Infinity.  But that said, death in consequence of injury and the Afterlife and Anti-Afterdeath of our projected otherworldly and anti-netherworldly society would be two completely different and incompatible things.  Death may or may not pave the way for posthumous experiences for humankind, but it remains a consequence of the mortality of the flesh, and the ensuing self-conflagration of the central nervous system is, to my mind, scant reward for such a fate, the consequence, all along, of human limitations.  Death is really something to be avoided, that is, defeated through evolutionary progress in regard to cyborgization and its raison d’être, self-enlightenment of a suitably – for global civilization – synthetically artificial order that must also embrace, particularly in relation to antimetachemical antifemales, a proportionate degree of notself-curtailment of an equally synthetically artificial order.  But death comes in different shapes and sizes, as we have seen, and while death in consequence of human mortality is something that will need to be overcome in the future if Eternity and Anti-Infinity are to become realities in what has been provisionally equated with ‘Kingdom Come’, death in consequence of injury in peacetime or wartime is not to be equated with posthumous experience in any sense, whether natural or artificial, but will usually be found to signify, particularly in war, a peculiarly male response to the, more often than not, heathenistic status quo which favours females and stems, in consequence, from Infinite Death and its antimale counterpart, Anti-Eternal Life.  Death as a nihilistic phenomenon, shall we say, is no substitute for posthumous experience, particularly of an afterlife (rather than say anti-afterlife) type, and neither should it be confounded with such experience, as though a shortcut to Paradise.  More usually the ensuing experience will be negative rather than positive in consequence of both the effects of injury and the lifestyles of the combatants more likely favouring sensuality than sensibility as a general rule.  Therefore such death should never be confounded with Eternity, never mind its female or, rather, antifemale corollary, Anti-Infinity, which has less to do with Eternal Life than with Anti-Infinite Death.  Death of this sordid and tragic nature is a shortfall from posthumous experience in the true sense, whether in relation to mankind or, to anticipate the future, cyborgkind, the possible supra-human successors to mankind.  It is a failure from the standpoint of the Beyond, for it results from injury in relation to life as a largely heathenistic phenomenon whose origins lie rather more in the realms of Infinite Death and Anti-Eternal Life (according with gender) than with any pressing desire to embrace the Beyond.  You cannot cheat the Beyond, neither in peacetime nor in wartime.  You may have reason to be disillusioned with life as a phenomenon conditioned by criteria that run contrary to the prospects of a Beyond, but the tragic fruit of such disillusionment is not the solution either to the status quo of Death-ruled life or to one’s own predicament as a disillusioned male in relation to such life.  It is more usually the result of frustration and male failure vis-à-vis the female-dominated status quo.  And it results not in true posthumous experience, least of all of an afterlife order, but if not in complete annihilation of the self, the brain stem and spinal cord, then in a self which will have to deal with the crippling effects of mortal injury as well as with what may well be the consequences of a lifetime of less than sensible resolve, a lifetime spent nihilistically under the shadow of female domination in sensuality.  No, for true posthumous experience in relation to the Afterlife, the positive eternity of god-fearing males, one must avoid, at all costs, such a fate.  Death, in that sense, is no alternative to life, still less to be equated with the Afterlife.  And therefore I say unto you that we who uphold Eternal Life and its antifemale corollary of Anti-Infinite Death do not look upon death favourably, neither in naturalis, as a consequence of mortality, or in consequence, worse again, of mortal injury.  We see it rather as something that must be overcome through supra-human progress that will raise humankind, little by little, to the status of godly and antidevilish individuals with the help of both synthetic substances of both a self-enhancing and notself-defeating nature and, stemming from this, the development of synthetically artificial means of both sustaining and supporting the self in its struggle against the not-self, so that cyborgization of the person follows from the principal motive of death-overcoming in relation to Eternal Life and, for antifemales, Anti-Infinite Death and is not, exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding, something to be pursued for its own sake, irrespective of psychic motives.  It is the freeing of psyche that will determine the proportionate degree, varying with the individual and with gender, of somatic binding, and such binding, which will increasingly take the form of cyborgization of the person, will be there to serve the enhancement of free psyche as it progresses through various stages of substance utilization towards its maximum realization in unitive knowledge of the self.  Therefore no self-enhancement without notself-overcoming, which is equivalent to the defeat of death primarily though not exclusively in the interests of Eternal Life.

 

SETTING THE TIME/ANTISPACE RECORD STRAIGHT.  For a long time now a seeming contradiction in my work has puzzled me, but now, at last, I have determined to resolve the issue and draw it to a logical conclusion.  For the metaphysics over antimetachemistry of the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass has long connoted, in my mind, with the concept of repetitive time over spaced space, the mode of antispace.  And yet this has been equated with lungs over heart, air over fire or, rather, antifire, given the sensible status of the heart vis-à-vis such sensual, or outer, organs as the eyes.  Therefore the lungs have been identified with repetitive time and the heart, by contrast, with spaced space, the antispace conditioned, in no small measure, by the hegemonic proximity, in metaphysics, of time.  One would think, to judge by the beating of the heart, that it was the other way round.  And yet, I cannot logically reconcile myself to such a thought for the very reason that it would suggest that repetitive time lay under spaced space as, in some sense, its precondition.   But I have always argued in favour of the precedence of spaced space by time in relation to the hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry and, hence, of the lungs over the heart, of air over antifire.  Therefore it is logically necessary that one should come to identify repetitive time with the rising and falling of the lungs and spaced space, or antispace, with the beating of the heart or, rather, with the pulsations of blood flowing through the vessels of the heart.  And this contrary to what might at first seem to be the case!  For air must indeed be metaphysically hegemonic over antifire as lungs over heart if repetitive time is to be both triumphant over and a conditioning factor of the existence of spaced space, of antispace.  Therefore lungs take precedence over heart from a divine male standpoint, just as transcendental meditation takes precedence over dance, or whatever, from such a standpoint in relation to mankind, to a humankind stage of metaphysics and antimetachemistry which is necessarily intermediate between nature and cyborgkind, the latter of which is antithetical to anything cosmic.  And, to be sure, one is never so happy, so filled with joy, as a male, than when one is brought to an awareness of the rising and falling of one’s lungs in the process of breathing, whether or not in relation to transcendental meditation.  Being aware of one’s heartbeats, by contrast, would be somewhat less pleasing, more like an excursion into the antifemale realm of antimetachemistry which is conditioned not by joy, still less by truth, but by love and its corollary of beauty.  Therefore lungs over heart is equivalent, despite the seeming contradiction, to repetitive time over antispace, the spaced nature of which owes not a little to the prior conditioning of time, since spaced space is no less the mode of antispace under time, repetitive time, than, across the axial divide, sequential time is the mode of antitime under space, the spatial nature of which is hegemonically responsible, in no small degree, for the existence of the spatially-influenced mode of time that has been identified, in its sequential nature, with antitime.  And here, in metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, we would be alluding to eyes over ears and hence to fire over air or, rather, anti-air, the sensual mode of airiness which would be no less germane to the airwaves than its fiery counterpart to optical light.  Thus eyes over ears is equivalent to spatial space over sequential time, and one can see, without any equivocation, that the hegemony of the diabolic element of fire over its antidivine counterpart of anti-air is equivalent to female space over antimale antitime, optical light over the airwaves, and thus contrasts, absolutely, with the hegemony of lungs over heart, breath over blood, that we have been equating with male time and antifemale antispace in metaphysics and antimetachemistry.  The hegemony, in spatial space, of fire over anti-air, its antitime counterpart, has to be contrasted, across the noumenal axial divide, with the hegemony, in repetitive time, of air over antifire, its antispace counterpart, so that we have a contrast between a female elemental rule, through fire, in sensuality and a male elemental lead, through air, in sensibility, fire and antifire, space and antispace, no less germane, in general terms, to the female side of the gender divide than air and anti-air, time and antitime, to its male side.  For if fire is the diabolic female element par excellence, then antifire can only be the antidiabolic antifemale element, or anti-element, par excellence.  And if air is the divine male element par excellence, then anti-air can only be the antidivine antimale element, or anti-element, par excellence.  The hegemony of metachemistry over antimetaphysics in the one context has to be contrasted with the hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry in the other, and therefore we can have no hesitation in ascribing to noumenal sensuality and noumenal antisensibility diabolic female and antidivine antimale connotations in respect of eyes and ears which set them forever apart from the divine male and antidiabolic antifemale connotations of the lungs and the heart.  Spatial space over sequential time stand as the metachemical alpha and antimetaphysical anti-omega of the noumenal planes of space and antitime, whereas repetitive time over spaced space stand as the metaphysical omega and antimetachemical anti-alpha of the noumenal planes of time and antispace.  And time is no less the characteristic of the lungs than antispace the characteristic of the heart, the air-breathing of the former contrasting with the blood-pumping of the latter as one would contrast eternity with anti-infinity, air with antifire.  No more conclusive proof could be advanced in relation to the sensible hegemony of the lungs over the heart than that which differentiates this dichotomy between time and antispace from the dichotomy between space and antitime which is characteristic, by contrast, of the sensual hegemony of eyes over ears.  If noumenal males are to rise, in a manner of speaking, from antitime to time, ears to lungs, then noumenal females must fall, correspondingly, from space to antispace, eyes to heart.  Only a resolve on the part of noumenal males to reject the noumenal antimale position in favour of the noumenal male one can lead to the fall of noumenal females to the noumenal antifemale position.  No metaphysics without the rejection of antimetaphysics, but no antimetachemistry under metaphysics until metaphysics has been sensibly embraced to grant time its hegemonic sway over antispace.

 

A COMMON PHRASE CORRECTED.  One so often hears phrases like ‘sonofabitch’ on TV and elsewhere these days that it is almost tempting to take them for granted, never questioning their validity.  But, being something of a thinker in my own right, that is something I find difficult to do - and with good reason!  For, as demonstrated in a previous entry, bitches and sons rarely hang together, in contiguous phenomenality or noumenality, but the Son, together with the Father, is in some sense expressive of a revolt against the antimanly and/or antigodly positions of antisons and antifathers which happen to be sensually contiguous, down a plane in each class case, with either devils or women, that is to say, with either Devil the Mother (hyped as God the Father) and the Daughter of the Devil or, in the phenomenal context, Woman the Mother (hyped as Mother of God the Son) and the Daughter of Woman.  Therefore far from sons stemming from devilish or womanly bitches, we should be thinking in terms of antisons and antifathers stemming from such hegemonic postulates as accord with a female first mover in either metachemistry (noumenal) or chemistry (phenomenal), the antisons and antifathers of antimanly and/or antigodly disposition according with their ‘fall guy’ dupes and, in some sense, victims.  Hence the above-mentioned slang term could be modified to ‘antisonofabitch’ if one were intent on being logically credible and not merely impulsive.  And, likewise, one could conceive, across the sensible divide, of antibitches in relation to sons and fathers, whether as ‘antibitchofason’ or ‘antibitchofafather’, depending whether soma or psyche were the prevailing factor.  For sons and fathers have a lot to do with men and/or gods in phenomenal and/or noumenal sensibility, and therefore not only with the repudiation of antimen (phenomenal antisons and antifathers) or of antigods (noumenal antisons and antifathers) but, no less significantly, with the ensuing subordination of the female to either antiwomanly (phenomenal antimothers and antidaughters) or antidevilish (noumenal antimothers and antidaughters) antibitchfulness, so to speak.  And this antibitchfulness, whether antichemical or antimetachemical, is the under-plane complement to the male hegemonies typifying sensibility, whether on the phenomenal plane of physics or, more importantly, on the noumenal plane of metaphysics.  For females – more properly antifemales – in tight skirts or dresses are not to be thought of as bitches if their behaviour mirrors their sartorial constraints and confirms either an antiwomanly subservience to men (at least in planar theory if not always in axial practice) or an antidevilish subservience to gods, as it were.  For only the manly and the godly are truly male, and this compels an antifemale correspondence which if not always sensible will at least suggest the likelihood of antisensuality.  How distinct, then, from the antisensible correspondence of antimales, whether as free somatic antisons or bound psychic antifathers, to their female overladies or, more correctly, somatically free and psychically bound bitches whose familial metaphors have more to do with mothers and daughters than with their converse, and whose hegemonic influence is such that their gender-subordinate counterparts soon become akin to what has been described as if not antisons then antifathers of bitches, whether or not – though I guess especially when – their sartorial attire mirrors, in some degree, the flouncy looseness of its female counterpart, a flared-pants situation likely to accord with some degree of antibullgas under cowpuss in the case of antimetaphysics under metachemistry and, down on the phenomenal planes, of antibullshit under cowpiss in the case of antiphysics under chemistry.  For you can no more be subject to bullgas when subordinate to cowpuss than to bullshit when subordinate to cowpiss.  Bullgas is the metaphysical prerogative of the godly and bullshit the physical prerogative of the manly, the one making for anticowpuss in the antimetachemical antifemale and the other for anticowpiss in the antichemical antifemale, since the existence of cowpuss under bullgas is as unlikely as that of cowpiss under bullshit.   Therefore the respectable ‘lady’ under the respectable ‘gentleman’ is a creature constrained, in bound soma and free psyche, to either anticowpuss or anticowpiss who simultaneously pays lip service to the bullgas or bullshit primarily emanating from her male counterpart in either metaphysics (if godly) or physics (if manly).  She may not be the prime mover in such bullgas or bullshit, since even the beautiful approach to truth has to be distinguished from truth no less than the strong approach to knowledge from knowledge, but she is obliged, by convention and certain male-imposed strategies, to go along with it, and that is what makes, believe it or not, for all that is best in civilization, whether with a civilized bias governed by bound soma, as in the case of phenomenal sensibility, or with a cultural bias led by free psyche, as in the case of noumenal sensibility.

 

ANOTHER LOOK AT FREEDOM.  French republicanism paved the way for the concept of freedom we are still living under today, a concept based not in free psyche and bound soma but, contrary to male values, in free soma and bound psyche.  Everything that is adjudged free today is basically reducible to somatic freedom and, hence, to the dominance of society by its female elements, whether in terms of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, diabolic females over antidivine males or, rather, antimales, or in terms of chemistry over antiphysics, feminine females over antimasculine antimales, the antimale elements in each case being such vis-à-vis their female counterparts and thus reducible to either antisons or antifathers in what could more generally be equated with antichrists.  For the antichrist-type of antimale, whether noumenally antigodly or phenomenally antimanly, is an antison and/or antifather (but more antison in free soma than antifather in bound psyche, as a rule) of a bitch, and thus an antichrist of either Devil the Mother/the Daughter of the Devil or Woman the Mother/the Daughter of Woman, depending whether noumenal or phenomenal criteria are at issue.  And yet just as Devil the Mother, to take the more prevalent and representative female attribute … of free soma, is hyped as ‘God the Father’ and Woman the Mother, likewise taking the more representative female attribute, is hyped as ‘Mother of God’, meaning the Son of God or, as some prefer, God the Son, so the antisons and/or antifathers of Antigod and the antisons and/or antifathers of Antiman are either hyped as Son or just not recognized for the antichristic creatures they manifestly are.  In fact, once we have dismissed terms like ‘sonofabitch’ as exemplifying the former, whether consciously or unconsciously, we can see that the isolation of the concept Antichrist from a female ‘first mover’ holding hegemonic sway over it tends to play into the hands of the latter, insofar as all responsibility for the antichristic existence is then attributed to male wilfulness and rebellion against Christ rather than conceived in relation to female domination as the root motivation, in hegemonic sensuality, of antichristic behaviour.  Therefore the antichristic male is not necessarily understood as existing in relation to a mother, whether diabolic or feminine, but taken to be a perversity of religion with specific reference to Christ.  And yet how the facts belie this assumption!  Those who have rejected Christ, whether in manly or godly vein, have actually done so, as a rule, under female hegemonic pressure that stems not from religion but from science, not from sensibility but from sensuality, not from the inner light of psychic freedom but from the outer light of somatic freedom whose psyche, being bound, is dark, that is to say, either criminally acquiescent in the evil of metachemical and/or chemical free soma (I shall forego, here, my usual more pedantic distinction between the genuine and pseudo manifestations thereof) or, if antimale rather than female, sinfully acquiescent in the folly of antimetaphysical and/or antiphysical free soma, and thus unenlightened.  Therefore these antichrists, these antimetaphysical and/or antiphysical antimales are precisely what they are because of the hegemonic prevalence of free females, whether as devils in metachemistry or as women in chemistry.  They have little or nothing in common with Christ, with man and/or god, because they have not rebelled against the female dominions of noumenal and/or phenomenal objectivity from a contrary subjective standpoint, but have continued, by and large, to exist under the shadow of antisubjective if not outright objective criteria, fighting shy of male independence as they cravenly defer to its female counterpart.  And all this ‘liberty leading the people’ makes not for culture and civility but for their sensual opposites,  philistinism and barbarity, the sort of philistinism and barbarity with which we are only too familiar as we witness the grovelling of antimales before the all-powerful and all-glorious onslaughts of triumphant females from standpoints that are based not in the self-oriented acceptance of ego and/or soul but in the worship of will and/or spirit and the correlative acceptance of antisoul and/or anti-ego, the very bases of antichristic behaviour.  Therefore there is much to be done in this global age to reverse the terms of existence and further the cause of male-hegemonic sensibility, especially in relation to metaphysics and, hence, the triumph of godliness over its female or, rather, antifemale corollary, antidevilishness.  Power and glory, notwithstanding the so-called Lord’s Prayer, do not fit with godliness but are contrary to it, as is Devil the Mother hyped as God.  Only antipower and antiglory, bound will and spirit in metaphysics, accord with godliness, and then in relation to the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, not in relation to God as such, whose egoistic form is of the kind, unlike man’s, that desires nothing less than to be eclipsed by the blessed contentment of heavenly joy, his ego subsumed into soul in such a manner that all that it stands for, in truth, is vindicated, and Heaven the Holy Soul really is the resolution of God the Father.  Therefore unto God … the Father we attribute form and, especially, the prospect of contentment in Heaven the Holy Soul.  We leave power and glory to Devil the Mother and Woman the Mother, the one more power than glory, the other more glory than power, since the one is more will than spirit while the other is more spirit than will, as though of water rather than fire.  But fire and water are not male elements.  Only vegetation (earth) and air, and to air alone belongs the throne of God and Heaven.  Therefore we who repudiate power and glory from a standpoint based not in physical but in metaphysical form and contentment also repudiate the female domination of society that characterizes much of what passes for freedom in the West today, whether it stems from the French Revolution or, indeed, from the earlier British revolution which firmed up the axis of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in defiance of everything Catholic and played no small role in giving to America its own brand of female-dominated state-hegemonic/church-subordinate freedom which, modified by criteria deriving from the French Revolution, currently rules the Western roost and is in the forefront of global imperialism.  In fact, it is almost a truism, these days, that wherever red, white and blue is paraded, there stands the emblematic exemplification of the female domination of fire and water over vegetation (earth) and air, with few if any national exceptions.  But it is precisely that that does not make for civilized maturity but, on the contrary, for a sort of wanton juvenility that fights shy of culture and civility even as it lays claim to them from standpoints rooted in their philistine and barbarous converse.  Verily, it will be a long time before truth is aired and granted the sort of encouragement which is reserved for all that is contrary to it as the powerful tradition of Devil the Mother hyped as God … the Father and glorious tradition of Woman the Mother hyped as Mother of God … the Son continues to prevail in the face of all that would deliver males from their antimale repudiation of self to self more completely than in the Christic, man-based past.  But the day when the repudiation of antigodliness by the godly and the salvation of the antimanly to godliness comes successively to past is fast approaching, and that will bring in its train the repudiation of devilishness by the antidevilish and the counter-damnation of the womanly to antidevilishness as a matter of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate necessity.  Then instead of males psychically enslaved, as antimales, to somatically free females, females will be somatically enslaved, as antifemales, to psychically free males, and the dawn of culture and pseudo-civility on terms appropriate to global civilization will have officially come to pass, to signal the attainment of such a civilization to its universal omega point and antipolyversal anti-alpha point in the utmost metaphysics of divine males and antimetachemistry of antidiabolic antifemales.  For the only alternative to the triumph of males over antifemales is the ongoing rule of antimales by females and that, as we have seen and should be only too keenly aware, is the enemy of everything true and beautiful if not beautifully true.  Enlightenment stems not from free soma but from free psyche and it is to the advancement of enlightenment on suitably metaphysical terms for males that we should dedicate our efforts in the coming decades and centuries, that females may be brought to the pseudo-justice of divine righteousness and cease to be somatically free.  For somatic freedom is not commensurate, believe it or not, with beauty, nor even the beautiful approach to truth that would constitute secondary church-hegemonic criteria from an antifundamentalist antifemale standpoint.  Only the somatically bound female is beautiful, and out of this somatic beauty there arises the antifundamentalist free psyche which is the beautiful approach to truth and thus secondary church-hegemonic complement of the truth of transcendentalist free psyche which must forever characterize the primary church-hegemonic egoistic form of God the Father as he launches himself, via the Son and Holy Spirit, into the psychoistic contentment of Heaven the Holy Soul.

 

A RE-EXAMINATION OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS RELATIVE TO GENDER.  Light and darkness, freedom and binding.  As noted in the previous entry, light and darkness hang together as freedom and binding, and therefore one can speak of the light of freedom vis-à-vis the darkness of binding.  But this does not actually mean that darkness is something to avoid.  On the contrary, I have shown that freedom requires binding whether the freedom be of soma (and female) or of psyche (and male).  Only one kind of freedom excludes the other, and therefore one kind of binding relative to the prevailing kind of freedom must necessarily exclude the other kind.  But we have to distinguish each kind of freedom and binding not only on a female/male basis, free soma and bound psyche being female and free psyche and bound soma male, but in terms of outer or inner, somatic or psychic.  For somatic freedom, as properly germane to metachemistry (diabolic females) and chemistry (feminine females), is the outer kind of freedom and hence light, the psychic corollary of which is inner thralldom and hence darkness, whereas psychic freedom, as properly germane to metaphysics (divine males) and physics (masculine males), is the inner kind of freedom and hence light, the somatic corollary of which  is outer thralldom and hence darkness.  For if soma is outer because of the not-self and psyche inner because of the self, then somatic freedom will always correlate with the outer light and psychic freedom, by contrast, with the inner light.  Yet each type of freedom must have a correlative mode of darkness, be it of psyche or of soma, and this thralldom relative to itself will be inner in the case of bound psyche and outer in the case of bound soma, since, as noted above, psyche is of the self and soma of the not-self.  A free not-self implies a bound self, outer light the inner darkness which is its psychic corollary, while a free self implies a bound not-self, inner light the outer darkness which is its somatic corollary.  But the freedom of the outer light and the binding of the inner darkness to it as, for example, the criminal acquiescence in evil, necessarily excludes the freedom of the inner light and the binding of the outer darkness to it as, for example, the wise acquiescence in grace, since one cannot have hegemonic female criteria and hegemonic male criteria simultaneously in hegemonic sway over the opposite gender.  Either females get the better of males (become antimales) in sensuality or males get the better of females (become antifemales) in sensibility.  Therefore if free soma and bound psyche is the prevailing ethos in society or of a particular section of it, it is because either metachemistry is hegemonic, unequivocally, over antimetaphysics or because chemistry is hegemonic, equivocally, over antiphysics, and the antimale is consequently acquiescing, under female hegemonic pressures, in the outer light of somatic freedom and the inner darkness of psychic binding, not so much in terms of a criminal acquiescence, whether genuinely in the noumenal or on a pseudo basis in the phenomenal, in evil but, according with his gender, in terms of a sinful acquiescence, whether pseudo or genuine, in folly, the folly of somatic freedom in either antimetaphysics or antiphysics.  For pseudo-meekness is no less the corollary of vanity in the metachemical/antimetaphysical context than meekness the corollary of pseudo-vanity in the chemical/antiphysical one.  Contrariwise, if free psyche and bound soma is the prevailing ethos in society or of a particular section of it, it is because either metaphysics is hegemonic, unequivocally, over antimetachemistry or because physics is hegemonic, equivocally, over antichemistry, and the antifemale is consequently acquiescing, under male hegemonic pressures, in the inner light of psyche freedom and the outer darkness of somatic binding, not so much in terms of a wise acquiescence, whether genuinely in the noumenal or on a pseudo basis in the phenomenal, in grace but, according with her gender, in terms of a modest (good) acquiescence, whether pseudo or genuine, in punishment, the punishment of psychic freedom in either antimetachemistry or antichemistry.  For pseudo-justice is no less the corollary of righteousness in the metaphysical/antimetachemical context than justice the corollary of pseudo-righteousness in the physical/antichemical one.  Either males are upended as antimales under female hegemonic pressures in sensuality, where the metachemical and/or chemical actualities of soma preceding and predominating over psyche are the ruling factors or, contrary to this, females are upended as antifemales under male hegemonic pressures in sensibility, where the metaphysical and/or physical actualities of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma are the leading factors.  Obviously, to be at cross-purposes with one’s gender actuality one would have to be either meek, as in the antimale cases, or just, as in the antifemale cases, since it is no less foolish to be acquiescing in free soma contrary to one’s gender actuality as a male than it is punishing to be acquiescing in free psyche contrary to one’s gender actuality as a female.  Now although both genders in either sensuality or sensibility are superficially in sync with each other, free soma and bound psyche characterizing the former no less than free psyche and bound soma the latter, we have a right, based on the underlining gender actuality of each gender, to regard antimales as enslaved to females when psychically bound and somatically free and antifemales, by contrast, as enslaved to males when somatically bound and psychically free.  For in spite of appearances to the contrary in the one case and essences to the contrary in the other, a psychically bound male is an upended male, whom we have identified with the term antimale, just as a somatically bound female, whom we have identified with the term antifemale, is an upended female and therefore no less at cross-purposes with her gender actuality than her sensually subordinate male or, rather, antimale counterpart.  One gender’s meat is, to use the proverbial expression, the other gender’s poison, and therefore any society based in the outer light of somatic freedom can only be unfair to males, who have to live, contrary to their gender grain, with the inner darkness of psychic binding.  Contrariwise, any society based or, rather, centred in the inner light of psychic freedom can only be unfair to females, who have to live, contrary to their gender grain, with the outer darkness of somatic binding.  You can’t have it both ways, although most Western societies, in particular, are more complicated than to be simply one thing or the other, bearing in mind the extent to which axial interplay between the noumenal and phenomenal, the ethereal and corporeal, factors has traditionally been a fact or a truth of life, with due modifications of the phenomenal positions in relation to their noumenal counterparts, whether in terms of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in relation to the male ideal of free psyche and bound soma, the inner light and the outer darkness, or in terms of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in relation to the female ideal of free soma and bound psyche, the outer light and the inner darkness.  Those ideals exist on separate axes in mutually exclusive vein, but they are polar to positions on each axis that run contrary to the presiding ideal and have to be judged in relation to either psychic binding and somatic freedom (if sensual) or somatic binding and psychic freedom (if sensible), being phenomenal parallels to the contrary noumenal ideals which head a different axis.  Verily, there is no simple polarity between light and darkness.  Only between inner darkness and inner light on church-hegemonic terms and between outer light and outer darkness on state-subordinate terms, should the antiphysical be psychically saved to metaphysics and the chemical somatically counter-damned to antimetachemistry, to take a particular rather than general view.  And, contrary to this, there exists a polarity between outer light and outer darkness on state-hegemonic terms and between inner darkness and inner light on church-subordinate terms, should the metachemical be somatically damned to antichemistry and the antimetaphysical psychically counter-saved to physics.

 

THE TASKS LYING AHEAD FOR THE GODLY AND THE ANTIDEVILISH.  Of course, as the reader may already have learned, the only thing that will damn the metachemical to antichemistry (to speak in general terms) and counter-save the antimetaphysical to physics is the salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics (again speaking in general terms) and the counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry, so that the metachemical/antimetaphysical position at the northwest point of our intercardinal axial compass is rendered commercially untenable for want of chemical/antiphysical prey to exploit from the standpoint of somatic license and psychic enslavement, the outer light and the inner darkness.  Hence only the radical and effectively permanent salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics and the no-less permanent counter-damnation of the chemical to antimetachemistry will bring down the metachemical/antimetaphysical and effectively collapse the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, the secular fruit of schismatic heresy, to its polar antithesis at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, obliging those who, as physical/antichemical, are already there to make the damned/counter-saved over in their own effectively damned/counter-saved images as a precondition of their own entitlement to salvation and counter-damnation in the not unlikely event, longer term, of their being transferred to and transformed by the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis as a matter of evolutionary course.  Even those who were damned down from and counter-saved up from the northwest to the southeast point of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, sacrificing free soma to bound soma in the case, most especially, of the metachemical and bound psyche to free psyche in the case, most especially, of the antimetaphysical could conceivably find themselves in subsequent line for axial transference and transformation in the event of their physical and antichemical counterparts having already undergone such an experience, since one cannot put a halt to the processes of salvation and counter-damnation until virtually everyone who can be has been saved or counter-damned to the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass and therefore re-made in the mould of metaphysical divinity and antimetachemical antidevility, according to gender.  But in the shorter term it is only the antiphysical and chemical who can be so saved and counter-damned, and it is those who come, from a revolutionary social theocratic basis, to identify with the northeast point of the said compass who will be responsible, sooner or later, for saving and counter-damning them in a manner commensurate with the synthetically artificial requirements of global civilization.  For this is way beyond both the West and the East, Catholicism and Buddhism, alike, and only a social theocratically radical interpretation of salvation and counter-damnation in relation to the utmost synthetically artificial criteria, whether applied to the self or to the not-self, to psyche or to soma, in both metaphysical and antimetachemical contexts, will suffice to so transfigure the antiphysical and chemical lapsed Catholic generality of, for instance, violent-film-suffering persons that, eventually, they will be removed from their lowly status to the divine and antidiabolic heights of the northeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, which is also the utmost point of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria.  And it is the extent to which this transpires that will determine whether or not the metachemical and antimetaphysical are damned and counter-saved to antichemistry and physics respectively for want of  chemical and antiphysical prey at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.  At present, those who are prey to all manner of filmic and other metachemical and antimetaphysical impositions ‘from above’ are less church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, in traditional Catholic fashion, than quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate in their deference, in different degrees, to what passes for culture at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.  They are less meek and pseudo-vain than quasi-vain (quasi-metachemical chemical) and quasi-pseudomeek (quasi-antimetaphysical antiphysical) and therefore they are, as secularized lapsed Catholics, out of kilter with traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria.  Only the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process in such traditionally Catholic but effectively secularized countries as Eire to a religiously sovereign end can return the people concerned to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, and thus permit their salvation and counter-damnation to metaphysics and antimetachemistry to go ahead.  But this can only happen in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty from out the paradoxical election, and therefore the paradox of their secular deference to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria largely, though not exclusively, stemming from the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass can only be rectified in favour of a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in consequence of this other paradox not only taking place but ultimately proving successful in achieving from the electorate a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, which will alone guarantee it deliverance not only from its own lowly condition but from those who currently exploit such a condition from immorally state-hegemonic/church-subordinate heights of somatic licence in order to increase their fame and wealth at the people’s financial and moral expense.  Only this majority mandate will entitle the social theocratic leadership to begin the process of saving and counter-damning the people to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass in relation to a renewal, necessarily revolutionary, of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria.  There will be much building, within the framework of the Centre (as explained by me in a variety of philosophical texts mostly germane to Opera D’Oeuvre, my collected writings), for Social Theocracy to undertake and also, as a necessary corollary of this, the removal, as and where appropriate, of outmoded and obsolete cultural and religious material such that, for all its good intentions, still stems from the regrettably untransvaluated tradition of Devil the Mother hyped as God and the Antison of Antigod ‘down down’ as the Devil and would hold the people back from their entitlement, under religious sovereignty, to true metaphysical and beautiful antimetachemical self-realization and notself-curtailment.  In short, the free psychic triumph of the inner light and its bound somatic corollary of outer darkness can only come properly to pass if all that appertains to the outer light of somatic freedom and the inner darkness of psychic binding has been systematically rejected, and this would be at first implicit in and then explicit to the assumption of a religiously sovereign people in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in consequence of a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process in certain countries whose religious traditions predispose one to believe that such a utilization, not matter how seemingly implausible at present, would not only be possible but likely, later if not sooner, to achieve the required mandate from the electorate.  For only from their mandate can the social theocratic ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ be established on earth to start the process of freeing them, little by little, from all that would hold them back and down to the false worship of filmic barbarity and philistinism or, more correctly, pseudo-philistinism.  Even their own traditions in relation to Woman the Mother and the Antison of Antiman, corresponding on state-subordinate terms to chemical free soma and antiphysical free soma, not to mention, in church-hegemonic vein, the Daughter of Woman and Antiman the Antifather, corresponding to chemical bound psyche and antiphysical bound psyche, would hold them back and down, if still operative, from the prospect of that more complete salvation and counter-damnation which, according with gender, will bring them to the gates of metaphysical heaven and antimetachemical antihell on a basis that will owe everything to global universality and antipolyversality and thus to the synthetically artificial overcoming of the world to which, in antiphysics and chemistry, they still belong, if less now on a traditional Catholic basis than on the contemporary secular basis of post-worldly globalization.  I do not pretend that the task of delivering such a people to the revolutionary northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass will be easy or straightforward, but I am confident that unless a start is made on establishing a social theocratic alternative to the contemporary worldly and netherworldly/anti-otherworldly secular status quo, their exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous predators will continue to gather momentum and to grow steadily worse.  It is we Social Theocrats who must bring this alternative to pass so that the people may be delivered both from evil (metachemical free soma) and pseudo-folly (antimetaphysical free soma), as well as from crime (metachemical bound psyche) and pseudo-sin (antimetaphysical bound psyche), the outer light and inner darkness of which can only blind them to their selves and thus to the possibility, for antimales-become-males, of soulful salvation in the Joy of Heaven the Holy Soul through the truthfully blessed ego of God the Father, whose primary church-hegemonic positions in metaphysical transcendentalism will establish the primary state-subordinate (compared to the antimaterialism of antimetachemical antifemales) corollary of transcendentalism in the idealism of the blessed antiwill (bound will) of the Son of God and the blessed antispirit (bound spirit) of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, the truthful approach to beauty and joyful approach to love of which will impact on antimetachemistry in such fashion that, for females-become-antifemales,  there will duly ensue a pseudo-cursed antispiritual (bound spiritual) counter-damnation in Antihell the Unclear Spirit via the pseudo-cursed  antiwill (bound will) of Antidevil the Antimother, the antimaterialism of each of which will establish the possibility of a secondary church-hegemonic (compared to the transcendentalism of metaphysical males) complement to transcendentalism in the antifundamentalism of the pseudo-cursed ego of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil whose beautiful approach to truth will parallel the loving approach to joy of the pseudo-cursed soul of the Unclear Soul of Antihell.  Gender, in itself, is an extremely complicated issue, which needs to be addressed from a standpoint favouring the male and engineering the upending, to unclear cross-purposes, of the female-become-antifemale in order that holiness in the male may prevail as the leading attribute of the metaphysical hegemony over antimetachemistry.  But once one has understood gender and taken the necessary precautions to ensure that gender discrimination is upheld in the interests of metaphysical holiness, then it should be possible to implement the salvation of males and the counter-damnation of antifemales in such a manner that the one will never be at risk of subversion by the other but will continue to prevail in the interests of cultural grace and pseudo-civil wisdom, free metaphysical psyche and bound metaphysical soma, bringing a secondary pseudo-civility in pseudo-goodness (pseudo-modesty) and a secondary culture in pseudo-punishment, bound antimetachemical soma and free antimetachemical psyche, to pass as a matter of secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate necessity vis-à-vis the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria obtaining ‘on high’, in the truth and joy of metaphysical transcendentalism and the truthful approach to beauty and joyful approach to love of metaphysical idealism, the latter of which will be instrumental, in no small degree, in establishing the beauty and love of antimetachemical antimaterialism as the necessary secondary state-subordinate preconditions of the beautiful approach to truth and loving approach to joy of that antimetachemical antifundamentalism which has been identified, correctly, with secondary church-hegemonic criteria.  Only thus will there be a virtuous circle of metaphysical and antimetachemical factors in both psyche and soma, church and state, inner light and outer darkness, self and not-self, and this can only obtain under what is and has every noumenal right to be an unequivocal metaphysical hegemony over antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, bringing to pass the godly and heavenly leadership of the Celestial City over the antidevilish and antihellish antirule of Anti-Vanity Fair, Eternity and Anti-Infinity without universal and antipolyversal end.

 

LONDON 2005-06 (Revised 2007-10)

 

 

OPUS POSTSCRIPTUM 1

 

 

Support independent publishing: Buy this e-book on Lulu.

 

Bookmark and Share