Op. 136


Revised and Reformatted Weblogs by


Of Centretruths Digital Media

Behold the Superman, as he rises

phoenix-like, from the ashes of

the Superfluous Man …

to soar Heavenwards on wings of

Superchristian (Social Theocratic) grace.

John O'Loughlin

Copyright © 2011 John O'Loughlin



01. The Fundamental Falsity of Traditional Religion

02. Imagination and Logic

03. The Relativity of 'Not Resisting Evil'

04. Soul Pollution

05. Eschatological Speculations in relation to 'Kingdom Come'

06. Fame

07. Man and Superman

08. A Distinction of Male Hairstyles

09. Existence of the British Empire

10. High vis-a-vis Low Culture

11. Abusive People

12. Contact Lenses vis-a-vis Glasses

13. Distinction between Irish and British Masses

14. Nazism and Rock Music

15. Spectacles

16. 'Secrets' for Sale

17. Dependence of the Working Class

18. Three Short Apophthegms

19. Truth and Freedom

20. The Truth about Stauffenberg

21. Lust

22. The Mask of Nobility

23. That which flanks Humanism

24. Absolute Alpha and Absolute Omega

25. Gender Contrasts in the Noumenal and the Phenomenal

26. The Opposing Gender Ideals of Vanity and Righteousness in Axial Perspective

27. Male Salutations in Axial Perspective

28. 'Classical' music vis-a-vis 'beat' music

29. Why I am not a Christian

30. Like an Alien

31. Superman



Both Christianity and Islam are extrapolations from Judaism and therefore rooted, in their different ways, in Creator-ism and the notion, in consequence, of God Almighty in the Beginning.  Thus they are equally or, if you prefer, unequally irrelevant to the true religion of ‘Kingdom Come’ (when it comes) in which God or, rather, godliness is merely peripheral to Heaven and, hence, to metaphysical Soul, the Soul whose joyful release from bodily bondage is the precursor of Truth and thus of that which, as godliness, is but a reflection of its sublime essence – that essence perceived, as it were, from the outside.

Those of us  – principally myself at present – who hold with Social Transcendentalism (otherwise known as Social Theocracy) can have no truck with God in the sense of The Almighty, The Creator, The (so-called) Father, etc., for to us that is merely the scientific (metachemical) beginnings of religion on the most ‘bovaryized’ terms, not its properly religious (metaphysical) end that is beyond even intermediate ‘bovaryizations’ of an economic  or, especially, a political order.

All Creator-based religion is fundamentally false and therefore a convenient lie for enabling people – and men in particular – to live with the overwhelming dominance of Alpha-oriented and Alpha-stemming societies by females.

The great historical struggle of the coming decades and centuries is not simply to advance the cause of true religion (Social Transcendentalism) through Social Theocracy (its politico-religious front), but, in order that this may happen, to consign all the so-called world religions of the God-fearing traditions to the proverbial ‘rubbish bin of history’, so that evolution can move beyond man, or mankind, in relation to the progressive cyborgization of life on increasingly male (metaphysical) and pseudo-female (pseudo-metachemical) terms, served by an ideologically-motivated elite of Social Theocrats whose mode of cyborgization will be individual rather than, like the masses, communal in respect of gender alternatives.

There may even be more females in the ‘administrative aside’ to the ‘Centre-proper’ (of the religiously sovereign) than males, but those in higher authority, being closer to metaphysics than to pseudo-metachemistry, should always be male, to ensure that the structure favouring males (in metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry, lamb and neutralized lion-like parallels) continues to be honoured and served in the best possible manner.

For a religion that is Omega-orientated in its transcendentalism can only be to the advantage of males – unlike the Alpha-oriented or Alpha-stemming religions of the religious traditions which are, of course, ‘bovaryized’ from either scientific, economic, or political standpoints.

What is the difference, you may wonder, between Alpha-oriented and Alpha-stemming religion?  Judaism, being unequivocally Creator-esque, is Alpha-orientated.  Both Christianity and Islam, in their dissimilar ways, are Alpha-stemming, and therefore beholden to concepts of God that differ, in certain respects, from that of the Jews, even if they both acknowledge Judaic precedent and contain modified aspects of Judaism, including Abraham and Satan.

By turning its back, so to speak, on Judaism and, hence, Creator-ism, Buddhism is closer to true religion, but it still falls short of the heavenly requirements of ‘Kingdom Come’ and of that which would be proper to global as opposed to Middle Eastern, Western, or Far Eastern (not to mention Far Western) civilization, and cannot be regarded, in consequence, as other than one of the traditional religions, even if the most enlightened one!


Tempering imagination by logic is not good enough; nor would an imaginative approach to logic suffice to make one desirous of ‘Kingdom Come’, even if it constituted a mode of Christian ‘rebirth’ germane to the corporeal.  For anything subjectively ethereal, on the other hand, one needs to be purely logical and, hence, ‘mental’.

Generally speaking, women are more imaginative, have more vivid imaginations, than men, despite the pretensions of male artists, i.e. the generality of artists, to the contrary.  This fiery imagination of women usually suffices, through free will, to enable them to enhance and exploit their beauty … to propagative ends, since rooted not in psyche but in soma, not in the mind but in the body.

One could distinguish, on a fourfold elemental basis, between the imagination of metachemistry or, more correctly, of a metachemical disposition, which has a 3:1 advantage in free soma and bound psyche over pseudo-metaphysics, its subordinate (pseudo-)male gender counterpart;  the logical approach to imagination of a chemically-dominated pseudo-physical disposition; the imaginative approach to logic of a physically-dominated pseudo-chemical disposition; and, finally, the pure logic of a metaphysical disposition, which has a 3:1 advantage in free psyche and bound soma over pseudo-metachemistry, its subordinate (pseudo-)female gender counterpart.

This metaphysical disposition, commensurate with true religion, is antithetical, in every respect, to the pure imagination of the metachemical, as, in simple elemental terms, air to fire or, on a noumenal – as opposed to phenomenal – gender basis, as the Supermasculine to the Superfeminine, basing our generalizations in regard to ‘super’ on the preponderating (free psyche) and/or predominating (free soma) ratio factors of each position.

In between – and down below – one finds the contrary relative, or corporeal, approaches to logic and imagination which typify ‘the world’ in each of its principal Western ethnic manifestations – namely Catholic chemistry over pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so to speak, and Protestant (specifically Puritan) physics over pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point of said compass, whose relativity, being phenomenal, accords with a 2½:1½ ratio differential favouring either soma (chemistry) or psyche (physics) rather than with a 3:1 differential characteristic of the absolutism of the noumenal antitheses alluded to above.

All those imaginative jerks illustrate a deplorable want of logic and, hence, metaphysics or, in plain parlance, philosophy.


People have given ridiculous interpretations to the injunction, attributed to Christ, to ‘resist not evil’, even, like Henry Miller, suggesting that what was meant was that one should give-in to it rather than fight it, and thereby satisfy one’s lusts or desires.  But such injunctions are apt to be relative.

In the context of Christ, the notion of not resisting evil surely has to do with ‘turning the other cheek’ – in other words, not allowing oneself to get carried away with revenge or by anger into doing something, through resistance, that one may subsequently regret and that, at the time, would certainly upset one’s equanimity and, in all probability, land one in greater trouble, if not danger.  If, for example, one is only being bitched or slapped or slagged off by some vulgar person or otherwise upbraided, it would serve one’s purpose (of protecting one’s peace of mind) not to offer resistance, least of all physically, to one’s assailant or critic.

But it is all a question of degree, and that is what I meant by the term ‘relative’.  If one’s life is under threat from an assailant one has a moral duty to oneself, one’s soul or even person, to offer some kind of proportionate resistance in order not to be killed or seriously injured or wounded.  ‘Turning the other cheek’ is possible and even desirable to a point and within certain circumstances, but when it could actually endanger one’s life or reputation, then it would not be a mark of wisdom but, rather, of folly, if not downright irresponsibility in respect of one’s self, and one’s right, both natural and moral, to existence.

There are times when it is necessary to defend oneself or one’s position, and in such circumstances – rare as they may well be – ‘turning the other cheek’ as a means of not resisting evil and/or crime (and more usually crime) would be a luxury that one could ill-afford, least of all if it meant paying with one’s life.


Much as I hate to say this, I find from bitter and lengthy experience that to have any dealings with the British and, in particular, the English, whether professionally or socially, is to have one’s soul polluted.  An Irishman of Catholic and largely Gaelic descent will always have his soul polluted by the bitch-ridden English who, of course, in axial terms do not recognize soul as a viable ideal but only will and ego, disdaining spirit as unworthy of anyone centred in ego as much as those rooted in will are especially susceptible to disdaining soul, both of which, i.e. spirit and soul, are more germane to a church-hegemonic axial standpoint that, in the British Isles, one would traditionally equate with Irish Catholics.  Even Nietzsche said much the same thing about the English, namely that they were ‘sans esprit et sans genie.  How right!  And yet, one cannot deny their commitments to will and ego, those ruling attributes of state-hegemonic axial criteria which necessarily place spirit and, especially, soul ‘beyond the pale’ of the axial integrity of persons of Protestant ethnicity.


Those who are not prime movers – directors, producers, actors, performers, financiers, etc. – in the state-hegemonic axial exploitation of the Catholic generality at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass (chemistry over pseudo-physics at the foot of the traditional church-hegemonic axis) – namely, the Protestant proletariats, whether Anglican or Puritan, will be eligible for transference to the ‘triadic Beyond’ of the stepped-up (resurrected) church-hegemonic axis in the event of the eventual collapse of the state-hegemonic one following the deliverance, through salvation and/or counter-damnation, of the generality of Catholics, since they are effectively no less victims of commercial exploitation (with approximately rock ‘n’ roll mentalities) than Catholics or, at any rate, people of Catholic descent (including so-called lapsed Catholics), and should be treated accordingly.

Only prime movers in state-hegemonic axial exploitation will be excluded from a place on the revolutionary church-hegemonic axis, as befitting the exploitative nature of their fame-seeking and money-grubbing past.  The majority of Protestants, being proletarians, are no-less subject to a heliotropic-like deference toward the various exemplifications of somatic licence than their Catholic counterparts at the foot, by and large, of the church-hegemonic axis (southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass), where republican socialism traditionally holds sway and rock ‘n’ roll-like tendencies are not, by any means, an exclusively Catholic preserve.

Thus will the threat of radical Social Democracy be averted in the event of a general collapse of state-hegemonic axial criteria and the possibility of a drift by the Protestant proletariats towards some Bolshevistic, state-absolutist equivalence. They will become part of the initial and/or subsequent pluralism of revolutionary church-hegemonic axial criteria, pending its culmination – and transformation – in space-centre totalitarian apotheosis many decades or centuries later with what could only be a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical mainstream structure commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’ writ large, so to speak, in relation to a ‘celestial city’ resolution of the evolutionary process as pertaining to church-hegemonic axial criteria under the continuing auspices, it is to be hoped, of Social Theocracy and its commitment to a Social Transcendentalist culmination of religious evolution (through metaphysics) that will have the utmost counter-devolution as its pseudo-scientific (in pseudo-metachemistry) subordinate corollary, neutralized wolf and/or lion-like under the heavenly lamb.


Fame is a fatal flame that engulfs those males who get too fond of it and burns out their soul.


I have contended, in the past, that the superego stands to the superconscious as brain stem to spinal cord, so that there is a contiguous relationship between the two which tends to make the former partial to the latter, as in messianic pro-transcendentalism.

Hence just as ego and consciousness are twin aspects of the brain, so superego and superconsciousness are twin aspects of the Self, the core of the central nervous system.

Therefore I maintain that, being pro-superconscious, the superego is pro-godly or, better, pro-Heaven, since Heaven precedes godliness as the supersensibility (joy) of the soul precedes the superconsciousness (truth) of the soul’s effulgence, its halo-like corollary, which is one and the same as the soul, just as candlelight is one and the same as candleflame, and just as consciousness is one and the same as the ego which is its sensible precondition in the brain.

As consciousness is the outer manifestation of the ego, the ability to think, so superconsciousness is the outer manifestation of the soul, the ability to feel, and the interpretation of such feelings by the superego is what makes for conscience, which dictates that one remains true to one’s feelings and not allow conscience to be eclipsed, as it were, by consciousness and, hence, the domination of ego.

Being true to one’s thoughts, on the other hand, is the prerogative not of conscience but of the will, which rules the ego, that fulcrum of phenomenal self, as the eyes the brain, and such a concession to what is outer and fundamentally empirical makes for a secular approach to society, as to life, governed by female as opposed to male criteria, the sort of criteria that are rooted in perceptions (thoughts) as opposed, like the soul, to being centred in conceptions (feelings).

This is the principal difference between a secular (godless) and a religious society, and it is fundamentally one of gender.

The ‘Fall of Man’ from Self (soul) to ego has happened more than once – the Reformation was a more recent instance of ‘the Fall’, in this case from Catholicism to Protestantism and a change of axial domination from church to state, with heretical consequences.

It is not the soul (however imperfectly) that Protestants are loyal to, but the will; not the superego, but the ego, which is no less slave to the will than, by contrast, the superego is the conscience of the soul.

As in the Beginning, so, conversely, in the End.  But, in the End, the adherence, through super-egoistic conscience, to the soul will be synthetically artificial, not synthetically natural.

My only ‘god’, if I may put it that way, is logic, but logic in the service of higher feelings – metaphysical logic, which contrasts with logic in the service of will – physical logic, as the superego contrasts with the ego, or pro-godliness (in relation to Heaven) in superman with pro-devilishness (in relation to Hell) in man.


It seems to me that, in terms of hairstyles, global civilization begins with a centrifugal unparted hairstyle and ends, via centre-parted hair, with a centripetal unparted hairstyle, becoming, all the while, progressively shorter and shorter.

When I see the lopsided parted hairstyles of, in the main, middle-class people, I can’t help but conceive of a parallel with the Bible or, more specifically, with the lopsidedness of Old and New Testaments – the former, being somewhat longer, corresponding to the greater percentage side of the lopsided parting and the latter, as the shorter testament, to the lesser percentage side of the said parting, so that there is a suggestion of a Western – and specifically Christian – disposition about such people which, within the proletarian context of a global age, strikes one as anachronistic, even if inevitably so.

Likewise buttoned shirts with cuffs and collar (what a hassle vis-a-vis T-shirts and the like) together with trousers or equivalent attire sporting a centralized crease down either leg suggest a concession, some would argue, to ‘squareness’, which in turn implies a deference to metachemistry and thus to state-hegemonic axial criteria as the Western, but specifically WASPish, norm.

Indeed, the combination of buttoned shirt with some kind of triangular arrangement of collar and tie coupled to crease-sporting trousers … is frankly as state-hegemonic as it gets from a male and, in particular, middle-class standpoint, and I can well believe that men who dress like this on a regular basis have a female-biased social conscience conducive towards a strong work ethos.

Be that as it may, it would be unfair of me to conclude my polemic on a populist note; for surely the accusation of ‘squareness’ levelled at trousers with centre creases is precisely that, as though they necessarily implied an objective disposition at variance with anything subjective or, at any rate, subjectivistic, or loosely subjective, like jeans.

To be sure, this is indeed the first impression.  But there is an alternative perspective which may well be too arcane for the unthinking generality of males, with their preference for what are euphemistically termed ‘casual clothes’.  I mean, a kind of particle/wavicle dichotomy between, say, jeans and trousers, and therefore between the absence of a central (or indeed any) crease down the leg in the one case, and the presence of a central crease in the other case – surely a concession to wavicle criteria that, like the collar of button-up shirts and correlative recourse to ties (largely to hide the buttons), constitutes a sartorial reflection of sensibility rather than, as with particle-suggesting jeans, of sensuality, with a corresponding distinction, across the axial divide, between what may be called ‘bastards’ on the one hand and ‘sons-of-bitches’ on the other, the former middle-class educated males and the latter … well, comparatively uneducated hommes sensuels and/or naturels, for whom the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is more relevant than its ethnic antithesis at the southeast.

But even if the wavicle physical males would be inclined to despise the particle pseudo-physical pseudo-males, as puritans their mass catholic counterparts, there is still an axial dichotomy involved, and it just may be that, one day, the particle ‘last’ will become the wavicle ‘first’, albeit not on physical, and therefore properly middle-class, terms suggestive of a conversion to puritan-type criteria, but in respect of a metaphysical transfiguration or transformation which will elevate them beyond the corporeal phenomenality of their current particle lowness into a realm of what may be termed, in its ethereal absolutism, super-wavicle noumenality, the metaphysical outcome of a pseudo-physical disposition dominated, as at present, by chemical females. Such a metaphysical outcome is even now intimated at, it seems to me, through stripe-sporting joggers which, as far as wavicle-suggesting double or triple stripes down the side of each leg are concerned, may well be the metaphysical equivalent of centralized creases on trousers, as germane, by contrast, to a more physical class and/or ethnic disposition.


They claim that the British Empire no longer exists – indeed, that it ended, or came to some kind of formal end, in the 1970s.  Well, if that’s the case, why do they still hand out OBEs (Order of the British Empire), MBEs (Member of the British Empire), CBEs (Commander of the British Empire), and other such honorary titles to certain people every year?  It is now, at the time of writing, 2011, and the process shows no signs of disappearing or even abating.

Furthermore, besides all the islands they still ‘own’, scattered throughout the world  as well as the so-called British Isles, the British are head, through the monarchy, of the so-called Commonwealth, surely a euphemism for a new or, rather, post-WWII approach to Empire.

The British – and the intelligentsia above all – like to kid themselves that things have moved on and that the Empire no longer exists (though the British Commonwealth most assuredly does), but few intelligent people, especially of non-British descent, actually believe this to be so.  Mostly they are simply making money, through various projects and publications, electronic as well as traditional, with claims and assertions that conflict with the underlying reality that still persists in spite of them or, rather, their so-called radical claims and assertions, few of which bear any resemblance to truth, i.e. the facts, much less the Truth.  But as long as they are being published and getting paid for their ‘unconventional thinking’, what does it matter – at least to them?

Even if it were the case that the British Empire no longer exists, the consequences of it most manifestly do, not least in relation to the plethora of races and cultures which are to be found in Great Britain, as I would guess throughout the UK, many of whom would certainly have ancestral ties with the British Empire.


Any author worthy of the name is both authoritative and, by implication or, rather, definition, authoritarian, and therefore no apologist for democracy and its lack of respect for authority.

Civilization is truly at a low ebb when it is overly democratic.

The idea of mixing high culture with so-called low culture is a contradiction in terms that will only produce a mongrel which is neither fish nor fowl, but something akin to an experiment in comprehensive education.

That which is truly high, as what is beyond the comprehension and, indeed, interest of the generality of persons, who used, until comparatively recently, to be called ‘the People’, cannot be mixed with the low without losing something if not most of what it is, since it is what it is and only makes sense in relation to itself as a beacon of ‘highness’.

An anachronistic order of ‘higher culture’, on the other hand, is likely to be appropriated by ‘the People’, as some kind of cultural parallel to a constitutional monarchy which exists in conjunction with parliamentary democracy and is, in certain respects, subordinated to it – even – dare I say – appropriated by it, as with the so-called ‘people’s princess’ or ‘people’s king’ or what have you. But such anachronistic culture has no real life of its own and therefore only acquires a semblance of life, as of cultural relevance, in relation to the low culture of the democratic mean.

One could argue that ‘rock classical’ signifies a typical example of the accommodation of ‘high culture’, i.e. classical music, to ‘low culture’, or rock ‘n’ roll.  But things are never that simple, and one can be confident that there is much so-called ‘classical’ which is really quite low and some rock, whether as progressive or otherwise, which scales heights unknown to most classical and probably, in its instrumental brilliance or sophistication, to a greater extent than virtually any other kind of music, not excepting jazz.

In contrast to the above, I would like to conclude by saying that, in my experience, low people making out that they are high or superior is a fairly regular occurrence, not least amongst people of British descent.


More often, people abuse one another out of weakness, not least in regard to pressure or perceived pressure.  It is a lack of self-confidence which makes them gratuitously aggressive and … negative.  But such a lack of self-confidence derives, more often than not, from personal and/or social deprivation, as well as from basic genetic deficiencies which owe something, though not everything, to ancestry. For, at the end of the day, there is a sense in which ‘low people’, or those with an abusive disposition, are a fact of life that is not wholly attributable to environment or circumstances, but is more genetically inherent.


Contact lenses can only be a supplement to glasses, not their successors.  For all-round competence you need both or, rather, you need glasses for reading, writing, watching television, deciphering small print, etc., but can supplement them with contacts for outdoor or superficial activities, including shopping.  Due to their close proximity to the eye they easily ‘mist over’ indoors, where there is usually more heat, and have a limited focus – good for distance – precisely in consequence of that proximity.


The more ‘the People’ are left to their own devices, the more they degenerate into a female-dominated mob incapable of reason, logic, and dignity.  Democracy is the worst of all possible worlds, more especially when there is no alternative aspiration worthy of the name.

The difference, traditionally, between the Irish and the British masses, habituated to opposite types of worldliness, is that whereas the majority Irish have been encouraged, by the Roman Catholic church, to aspire – more credibly in the case of males – towards something higher and better than themselves, the majority British prefer to keep their feet firmly on the ground and remain, as they say, ‘down to earth’ because axially resentful of and polar to the monarchic/anglican establishment that, constitutionally, rules over them from a height that is fundamentally autocratic as opposed to theocratic, and therefore in a position axially antithetical to the Catholic hierarchy, so that, barring an accommodation with it through the acceptance of honours, knighthoods, peerages, etc., it has little or no moral appeal for the generality of, in particular, parliamentary/puritan persons and remains, in consequence, something they do not aspire towards.  On the contrary, they have more usually shown a predilection towards what I shall euphemistically term radical social democracy or, in blunt parlance, Marxist communism.


Although eras apart, there does seem to be a connection between Nazism and Rock music, insofar as both are perceived as being anti-intellectual and, hence, anti-bourgeois, the bourgeois intellectualism of ego-centred knowledge whether with reference to economics, politics, the Arts, education, or indeed anything else susceptible to an egocentric disposition and/or treatment.

Thus there would seem to be a sense in which latter-day Rock music, not least in terms of Hard Rock and Heavy Metal, is a kind of cultural parallel to Nazism as germane to that which broadly appertains to the southwest as opposed to southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass in relation to the foot of what are, in effect, diametrically antithetical axes deriving, by and large, from Catholic and Protestant criteria respectively.

Rock, like Nazism before it, may or may not be the last word in ‘mass catholic’ anti-intellectualism, but it is nonetheless at the foot of an axis capable of being ‘resurrected’ and thereby stepped up through a revolutionary overhaul of its traditional apex, so that the relevant masses, both pseudo-physical and chemical, can be delivered, whether through salvation (pseudo-males) or counter-damnation (females) from their lowly contemporary rock ‘n’ roll-like estates to something approximating ‘Kingdom Come’ in terms of a pseudo-metachemical deference, on the part of pseudo-females, to a full complement of metaphysics – something akin to, though still independent of, the Christian, meaning principally Catholic, tradition, insofar as it can only transpire following the democratic repudiation of metachemistry and all that, in Judeo-Christian vein, would constrain religion from attaining to a metaphysical apotheosis centred, for males, in free soul by dint of its adherence, in back, to free will.


The paradoxical thing about wearing spectacles is that one sees better but looks worse.

The vast majority of spectacles effectively, if not literally, signify an alpha-stemming structure of ‘circle’ within a ‘square’, or some degree of curvilinearity within a corresponding degree of rectilinearity.  In fact, they remind me of London bus stops, not to mention 'Big Ben', that rather pseudo-metaphysical-looking clock that exists within what is arguably, in its absolute rectilinearity, a metachemical framework suited to an Anglican if not fundamentally autocratic disposition..


At first these guru-like internet entrepreneurs are successful with their money-making schemes; they can even make a lot of money.  But after a while the novelty fades and people are less disposed to fall for and fork out for such schemes, with a consequence that, having become substantially richer in the meantime, the internet ‘gurus’ now find themselves obliged to sell their ‘secrets’, or so-called secrets, in order to sustain a higher standard of material existence or, at any rate, pay the bills and/or tax obligations that follow from an increase in wealth.  It is at this point that they will go to virtually any lengths to ‘share with others’ what was once so lucrative for themselves but is now only useful if other people buy it, some of whom may initially make money from it though, in comparative terms, not very much and not for long, since the product is by then well past its prime – one might almost say ‘sell-by date’ – and is no longer capable of doing for others what it once did for them, these internet entrepreneurs who, as a rule, are more disposed to prostitute themselves selling or advertising other people’s products via their money-generating schemes than would be the likes of those of us struggling to make ends meet – or even to sell anything – by standing on our own two feet with our own products.  And the moral …?  Well, quite simply, don’t be fooled!  Look before you leap, or think before you buy.  As soon as people are prepared to sell the ‘secrets’ to their money-generating schemes, you can rest assured that those schemes are no longer worth very much – at least not in themselves.


The dependence of the working class upon the employment-creating middle-class entrepreneurs, the bourgeoisie, call them by what names you like, is an inescapable fact of life.  For without the guiding intelligence of the business class, there would be little or no work for the working class.

The idea of working-class independence of the capitalist class, the job-creating middle class, is unworkable in practice, as socialist experiments in a variety of countries – most of which are dirt poor and only determined to cloak their basic lack of infrastructure and industry – have more than adequately proved.

Socialism in only valid in terms of the welfare of the working man (and woman) in relation to employers, so that he is not unduly exploited and/or underpaid.  Social justice is, in this sense, an accommodation of the working class to capitalism.  And capitalism – not socialism – is economic freedom, i.e. economics per se, with a free enterprise ethos.

However, having said that, I still believe that capitalism is state-hegemonic, and that a resurrection of church-hegemonic axial criteria in terms of Social Theocracy will require an alternative to capitalism.  Such an alternative would not be socialism, but a kind of super-capitalism that will be in the service of the ultimate religious ideal, involving the triumph of metaphysics, pretty much like the superego in relation to the superconscious or, in equivalent terminology, the brain stem in relation to the spinal cord where the core of the Self is concerned.


Existentialism, like existence, is a bitch, and therefore sucks.

All socialists are c***s.

Men may fuck, but women suck.


The Truth shall set you free – we even hear this from Rock stars.  But what exactly is the Truth, and from what are you being set free in the event of actively endorsing it?

For me, Truth is the free psychic corollary of Joy in metaphysics, and thus stands to Joy as godliness (I prefer not to say ‘God’, that much misused term) to Heaven, since metaphysics is the elemental context of Soul par excellence, and Soul trumps any approximation, no matter how attenuated or ‘bovaryized’, to ego in that context.  That, then, is Truth in any ultimate, or metaphysical, sense.

So from what or whom does it set you free, presuming you live by it?  Bearing in mind that it is Joy in the Soul (and not Truth in the attenuated ego of Heaven perceived from the outside rather than experienced from within) which is the metaphysical raison d’etre, its justification for Being, one can nevertheless state, with some confidence, that Joy/Truth, the free psyche of metaphysics, sets you free, as a liberated male, from females, or from being preyed upon, via an XX-chromosomal ‘cosh’ and ultimately dominated through their offspring, by females, and thus reduced as a subordinate adjunct, particularly though not exclusively if of a mass Catholic disposition, to a form of worldliness which, with chemistry over pseudo-physics, will be more pseudo-earthly than purgatorial, or more pseudo-physical than chemical.

That, in a nutshell, is what Truth, as an aspect of metaphysics, would set you free of.  But if you are subject, as a pseudo-male, to female dominion through, for instance, the family, then there is no way that you can be ‘set free’ of it except, in the event of a kind of democratically-mandated revolutionary transformation of society, through messianic intervention and a removal – the religious term would be deliverance via salvation – from the bound or, rather, pseudo-bound psyche of pseudo-physics to the free psyche of metaphysics, which would have to be coupled to a correlative counter-removal – or counter-damnation – of the chemical female from free soma to the bound or, rather, pseudo-bound soma of pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics at the northeast point of what I habitually term the intercardinal axial compass in polarity to the chemical/pseudo-physical southwest point of it on what is – or would be – a stepped-up – again the religious term would be 'resurrected' – church-hegemonic axis.

Assuming you are not, as a male, already metaphysical – and none of those who get picked off by female beauty/love and end-up marrying and having children ever could be – you are fated to remain anything but ‘set free’ in relation to Truth.

Sorry, but that’s the way it is, and that is what I, as a self-taught philosopher and self-proclaimed Social Theocratic messiah, have a moral duty to write, thereby doing justice to Truth to the best of my ability, irrespective of how unpopular – especially with females and ‘the worldly’ in general – this may make me.


Stauffenberg was a traitor to his country who not only planned but executed the attempt to assassinate Hitler – a blatantly criminal undertaking which he botched and was obliged to pay for with his life.  Here was a man who broke his oath to the Fuhrer, murdered and injured several fellow officers at Hitler’s East Prussian HQ, and generally disgraced himself.

I believe he became disillusioned with Nazism partly in consequence of his war wounds and the partially crippled state in which that left him.  He probably felt he had little to lose from being the chief architect of the planned assassination of Hitler.  He became, through unfortunate circumstances, one of the ‘bungled and the botched’, despite his aristocratic pedigree, and only succeeded in bungling and botching the attempt on Hitler’s life.

But it gave Hitler an excuse to avenge himself not only on Stauffenberg and his fellow conspirators, but on numerous high-ranking officers who were either implicated in the plot or of dubious loyalty and/or use.  This gave him additional power over the army and further increased the influence of the SS, which became even more powerful.  All in all, it worked out in Hitler’s favour, but not without cost both to himself and to those who had suffered the consequences of Stauffenberg’s treachery.

This man Stauffenberg was no hero, but a misguided reactionary lacking ideological integrity and a sense of honour.  He was a disgrace to Germany, as were those who plotted to overthrow the Nazi regime while Germany was fighting on at least three fronts and replace it with a largely military government that would have betrayed Germany to the Western Allies, failed to curb the Russian assault, and left the door open for Communists to infiltrate whatever degree of liberalism that they presumably would have introduced in an attempt to distance themselves from the Nazis, thus abandoning the struggle against ‘Bolshevism’.

But of course their ‘government’ wouldn’t have lasted long, presuming for the sake of argument that it could ever have materialized, since the Allies would never have accepted anything less than what subsequently transpired following Germany’s eventual defeat – that is to say, unconditional surrender and occupation, with its corollary of de-Nazification.

High treason! Treachery! Criminal irresponsibility!

For those who know the Arch Enemy song about despising your heroes, despicable heroes, etc. I can truthfully say that Stauffenberg readily comes to mind and that, for me, he is no hero but a contemptible coward whose criminal irresponsibility brought even more suffering and death upon his country at a time when it needed all the support and loyalty from the Army it could get.

He did not do anything, however one views this, for ’sacred Germany’; he was a product of ‘secret Germany’ and its anti-Nazi conspiracies founded upon caste and privilege, pretty much like a Masonic cult.  As a youth he had been a Socialist, despite or, perhaps, because of his aristocratic background and status.  One fancies that the struggle against Communism would not have had much appeal to such a man, who was probably happier with the Weimar Republic.


It is not the flesh which is weak, least of all in women, but the lust for it in men.


Another parallel to the age-old ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as ‘God the Father’ best-of-a-bad-job deal is snobbery hyped as nobility, so that the most metachemically ‘showy’ are regarded as being somehow noble.  Nothing, however, could be further from the case!  Nobility is found not in autocracy, the seat of snobbery, but in theocracy, and especially in that which is genuinely metaphysical.

The barbarous, being snobs, adore rank.

With snobbery hyped as nobility we are back to vanity hyped as righteousness, metachemistry as metaphysics, the Cosmos as the Universe (from universal or universality), and so on – everything that is at the roots of the Judeo-Christian tradition and which, not surprisingly, the Jews are especially adept at historically adhering to.


The feminine and the masculine, roughly corresponding to chemistry (water) and physics (vegetation), stand hegemonically (over pseudo-masculine and pseudo-feminine positions respectively) apart across the axial divide that distinguishes the mass Catholic chemical/pseudo-physical southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass from the mass Protestant (puritan) physical/pseudo-chemical southeast point of it, as though in antithetical manifestations of worldliness.

But flanking ‘the world’, in this specifically Christian and Western sense, are what may be called the superfeminine-dominated northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and the supermasculine-dominated northeast point of it, as though in a hegemonically autocratic/theocratic remove from anything hegemonically democratic (chemical) or plutocratic (physical), with a contrary appeal to the superhuman in consequence.

If there is a subhuman, or subhumanist position, however, it is less in respect of the metachemical alpha and the metaphysical omega, autocracy and theocracy, than with regard to a degeneration from bourgeois humanism to so-called proletarian humanism at the southeast point of the aforementioned intercardinal axial compass which would be ‘bolshevistically’ removed from liberal democracy, or so-called democracy, in the interests of a radically bureaucratic alternative, through communism and/or social democracy, to plutocratic capitalism and its physical/pseudo-chemical economic/pseudo-political integrity.

That which precedes Western humanism, whether pantheistically rooted in the feminine or humanistically centred in the masculine (a Catholic/Protestant axial dichotomy), is less subhumanist than superhuman after a superfeminine fashion, given the dominance of metachemistry (fire) and thus of materialism/fundamentalism in free soma and bound psyche.  This has historically tended to be Eastern (not least Middle Eastern) rather than Western (with particular reference to Europe), whereas that which succeeds Western humanism is less subhumanist (though that indubitably exists and has existed wherever Social Democracy has raised its justice-clamouring reductionist head) than superhuman after a supermasculine fashion, given the dominance of metaphysics (air) and thus of transcendentalism/idealism in free psyche and bound soma.  And this is essentially a global rather than either an Eastern or a Western phenomenon, having its origins, believe it or not, in Nazism, which was ranged, after all, against the ‘omega point’ of the West and its subhumanist social democratic proclivities extrapolated out, through proletarian so-called humanism, from the bourgeois humanism of liberal democracy.


Whereas one should say of the Noumenal Alpha, which is metachemically objective and therefore a matter of absolute particles, facts but no Fact, one can only say of the Noumenal Omega, which is metaphysically subjective in its absolute wavicle indivisibility, Truth but no truths.  For the Noumenal Alpha and the Noumenal Omega, unlike their phenomenal counterparts, are as antithetical as it is possible for any two extremes to be.


If the Soul is eternal, then the Will is infinite.  And if the Ego is temporal, then the Spirit is finite.

Therefore the Power and Glory of Will and Spirit, the infinite and the finite, contrast with the Form and Contentment of Ego and Soul, the temporal and the eternal, as Female Objectivity in the noumenal and the phenomenal with Male Subjectivity in the phenomenal and the noumenal, like Space and Volume contrasting with Mass and Time, or Heat and Motion contrasting with Force and Light.


In the end, justice must bow to vanity, as, across the axial divide, meekness to righteousness. But, conversely, where the subordinate gender positions are concerned, pseudo-righteousness must bow to pseudo-meekness, as back across the axial divide, pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice.  For pseudo-meekness is no less correlative of vanity on the state-hegemonic axis than pseudo-justice of righteousness on the church-hegemonic one, not overlooking the correlation of justice with pseudo-righteousness in the one axial case and of meekness with pseudo-vanity in the other, that being, of course, the church-hegemonic deference of meekness to righteousness (albeit on a truncated, short-changed basis, as it were, that comes from the extrapolative straining on the leash towards metaphysics on the basis of the Crucifixional paradigm from below whilst still being officially beholden, within the Judeo-Christian tradition, to metachemistry-hyped-as-metaphysics in the alpha above in back of anything specifically Christian) and, correlatively, of pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice on an axis which, being church-hegemonic (catholic) is effectively dominated by male criteria, i.e., the comparatively more authentic standings of meekness and righteousness (at least by contrast with their state-hegemonic/church-subordinate counterparts which, being pseudo-meek and pseudo-righteous, are under the dominance, in overall axial terms, of vanity and justice, as germane to the female side of the gender fence.

All of this is, of course, not new to my thinking, but just a further confirmation of the fundamental axial dichotomy typifying, for example, the relationship of the Protestant British (state-hegemonic) to the Catholic Irish (church-hegemonic) and of how this dichotomy is at the bottom not only of Anglo-Irish relations but of the history, stretching back several centuries, of the two peoples who are – and remain – axially incompatible.


Those of us who, from one standpoint or another, are axially inclined to the church-hegemonic axis stretching from southwest to northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass will prefer the use of ‘man’ or ‘bro(ther)’ to ‘sir’ or ‘mate’ which, by contrast, accord with state-hegemonic axial criteria stretching, in WASPish vein, from the northwest to the southeast points of the said compass.

Being philosophically metaphysical in my Social Transcendentalism, I like to think that I am more ‘bro’ than ‘man’, though I much prefer the latter term of address to ‘mate’ which, of the two alternative male axial salutations, has always depressed and even disgusted me the most, especially when applied to myself – probably because I have a degree of noble blood and have too many hairs on my chest, so to speak, to be complacent about a term which strikes me as having a female connotation in consequence of its applicability to those for whom the intrinsic dominance of state-hegemonic axial criteria by females is a more or less taken-for-granted aspect of their social conditioning.


The dichotomy (virtually axial) between ‘classical’ and ‘beat’ music can be reduced to an alpha/omega distinction between that which, as ‘classical’ music, is dominated by brass and that which, as ‘beat’ music, is characterized by percussive rhythms which, no matter how crude or exteriorized to begin with, can be evolved to levels of interiorization and refinement, or refinement through interiorization, that approximate music to the divinity of metaphysical Eternity, not least when exemplified by groups like Tangerine Dream, probably the most advanced example – even in an era of what could be called regressive electronica – of the interiorized (drum machine/synthesizer) transmutation of the ‘beat’ towards metaphysical resolution in the illustration of Eternity.

It is my belief that ‘classical’ music must die in order that ‘beat’ music, including electronica, may live more fully in relation to the omega and all that is contrary to metachemistry, with its fiery brass.

Classical’ music is fundamentally science and class (as suggested by the title), not religion and race, not least the universality of the human race.

Classical’ is fundamentally state-hegemonic, not church-hegemonic and capable, like ‘beat’ music, of being ‘stepped up’ towards metaphysical perfection in Eternity.

Classical’ and ‘beat’ music is the dichotomy – and struggle – between Space and Time (as to a lesser and lower extent volume and mass), as between Metachemistry and Metaphysics, Female and Male, Diabolic and Divine, Infernal and Sublime, Devil (the Mother) and Heaven (the Holy Soul), Will and Soul, Vanity and Righteousness, objectivity and subjectivity upon the noumenal planes of spatial space and repetitive time, wherein love/beauty and joy/truth have their respective freedoms, the former somatic and the latter psychic.

We who champion the ‘beat’ in church-hegemonic axial terms must ensure that the enemy is killed off when we are given, via the Electorate of certain countries more traditionally susceptible to church-hegemonic axial criteria, the mandate to institute ‘Kingdom Come’ and begin the process of delivering the People from servitude to metachemical tyranny, not least in relation to classical ‘space’, with its materialist/fundamentalist alpha in fiery brass that tends, like Creator-ism, to reduce, if not exclude, the transcendentalist/idealist omega of airy wind (or its synthetic equivalence), to the detriment of soul which, of course, has nothing to do with wilful emotions and everything to do with sensible feelings.


You’d think from the Bible that Man preceded the dinosaurs (are the latter even credited with ever having existed?), which is pretty difficult to take really, like so much else about Genesis that some old Hebrew scribbler fancied was ‘gospel truth’, letting his God off the hook for ever having created such monstrous creatures as huge reptiles with fearsome teeth and horns to begin with.  Or maybe he just didn’t know anything about dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures, including early Man.  With that kind of mindset there is no way that Man could be descended from anything less elevated than the ‘Garden of Eden’ – namely apes.  With that kind of mind, which most sane and/or intelligent persons would regard as decidedly limited and even fanciful, there is no arguing, since such people – and they exist even today – take accounts of Creation and other Biblical claims more or less literally, as ‘gospel truth’, even when science and historical research have manifestly exposed their shortcomings.

Frankly, Christianity would be less contemptible were it not tacked-on to the sorts of spurious teachings to be found in the Old Testament.  But, of course, Christianity has never been – and never could be – independent of books like Genesis, with its selective amnesia and want of  historical veracity, never mind scientific credibility.  Which is another reason why, when we eventually arrive at Judgement, as interpreted by me in relation to the struggle for religious sovereignty (as germane to ‘Kingdom Come’), we shall have to clear away all the old religious junk and consign it, most categorically, to the proverbial rubbish heap of alpha-stemming (not to mention alpha-oriented) history, in order that the omega-orientation centred in metaphysics of an ultimate (cyborgistic) order may proceed without undue hindrance from anachronistic texts rooted, Creator-wise, in degrees of theological clap-trap not even suitable, these days, to be spooned out to children as though the easiest and most convenient explanation for complex and, for them, unteachable or ungraspable facts.  With that sort of entrenched dogma, the product of limited mindsets whose origins were not even European and tempered by the sorts of wet and windy thought-provoking climates with which many if not most Christians are familiar, there can be no sitting on the proverbial fence, as at present.  Social Theocracy will require that we deal robustly with the lies and fictions that are passed off, by the ‘faithful’, as facts and truths.  When we move (democratically) beyond democracy, we shall also move beyond the scope of autocracy, not least the autocracy that wears, via the Bible, a theocratic mask, pretty much as ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as ‘God the Father’.

Even democracy should be condemned for its tolerance of autocratic lies, its acquiescence, if you will, in the Old Testament.  Those who sought New Testament independence of this, never had much luck.  They were roped-in to acquiescing, via the ‘King James Bible’, in it and continue, as Christians, to be subject to its rule.  That is why I am not – and never have been – a Christian.  Man, considered from a gender standpoint, does not even precede Woman, never mind exist in a world, namely Eden, made for his benefit without reference to dinosaurs and other such fearsome creatures that, to us, or at any rate to people like me, populated the globe long before man climbed down from the trees in some rudimentary form that scarce resembles even the proponents of Biblical fundamentalism, never mind their more rational, independent-minded antagonists!

Incidentally, while on the subject of Genesis, isn't it the case that Genesis and Revelations are the alpha and omega of the so-called Christian Bible, like the alpha-most book of the Old Testament vis-a-vis the omega-most book of the New Testament?  In which case, being as far apart as Jews and Christians, it should be possible to infer, even if one wasn't a Bible scholar, that they are manifestly incompatible, since deriving from opposite orientations - one that looks back to 'Creation', as conceived of by an ancient Hebrew scribe, and the other that looks forward to 'Kingdom Come' and 'Judgement', or the 'end of the world', as conceived of by St. John.  The Jews rejected the latter; Christians should reject the former and allow things to move on in due process of 'world overcoming'.


I have often felt, as a person of Irish Catholic descent living in Britain, that it is their world, not mine, since I merely exist on the periphery like a spectator of other people's conventions, including families and sex, not to mention, in the case of the British, state-hegemonic axial criteria, of which football and rugby are salient features.  To the extent that I am a non-British outsider of Irish nationality, I find it possible - and indeed easy - to identify with aliens, or the concept of alien surveillance of the 'world'.  I have even written elsewhere in my writings (I forget exactly where) that Salvation would be akin, through Social Theocracy, to alien abduction in its ideological remove from and moral opposition to the 'world' of mass or even lapsed Catholic female domination through 'Mother Church' or, in secular terms, Republican Socialism.  Compared to the generality of men one feels oneself to be very much of the Superman, with a superhuman disdain, via supermasculinity and its corollary of a kind of superchristian disposition (which I identify with Social Theocracy), for the merely human, fated, under female dominion, to reproduce the same worldly limitations over and over again, generation after generation, under a merciless and unforgiving Cosmos, of which the Sun - that effective 'fall guy' for stellar domination - is very much an active component.


I was the superfluous man who became, over a period of years, superman; the superfluous man to the world who, from a church-hegemonic axial standpoint deriving from his status as an outsider in Britain, became the advocate of otherworldly prospects through Social Transcendentalism; the superfluous man to Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, who became the advocate, through Social Theocracy, of a kind of Superchristianity; the superfluous man to worldly sex who became, via pornographic erotica, the transcender of sex; the superfluous man to the work-a-day-world who became, through Centretruths Digital Media, the publisher of his own works; the superfluous man to conventional literature who became, via aphoristic philosophy, the advocate of Truth; of that truth which is but the reflection of joy in heavenly soul; of that truth which, being metaphysical, is not rooted in appearances, like beauty, but in essence, and therefore has no image, being the godly reflection of Heaven with which, like candlelight to candleflame, it is One, since indistinguishable from the Soul, the ground of metaphysical Being, in superconscious beatitude.

Now that I am at the end of my extraordinary inner journey ... to Self, the journey to the centre of truth which I have characterized as centretruths, I can confidently and even categorically say that the joy, or bliss, which is at the centre of truth, the core of the Self, with its soulful kernel, or ground of Being, is the ideal of the Superman; for it is an ideal which transcends the world, and therefore man, in its rejection of ego through soul, its rejection of knowledge through truth, and the resulting superconsciousenss of the godly penumbra of light, halo-like around the soul, is truly beyond all understanding in its perfect reflection of Heaven, of that supersensibility of Heaven the Holy Soul with which it, as God-in-Heaven, is One, and without which it would have no existence whatsoever.  

Man cannot know this, for man is tied to woman and woman is rooted, through metachemistry, in the beauty of Devil the Mother and the love of Hell the Clear Spirit, which is no less in beauty than truth, its metaphysical counterpart, is in joy; but it is at the core of the Superman's belief, the essence of his ideology.  He alone knows that without Heaven there can be no God, for God (the Father) is the truthful reflection of Heaven (the Holy Soul), which is what metaphysics, and therefore true religion, is all about, and which it will be the destiny, I feel sure, of Social Theocracy to bring universally to pass.







Bookmark and Share