Op. 137


A Collection of Revised and Reformatted Weblogs by

John O'Loughlin

of Centretruths Digital Media

Copyright © 2012 John O'Loughlin




01. The Distinction between 'Plebs' and 'Nobs'

02. A Brief Philosophical Résumé

03. Truth and its Enemies

04. Beauty and Truth

05. A Creative Contradiction in Terms

06. Metaphysical Falsehood

07. Messianic Intervention

08. False Art Vis-a-Vis True Art

09. Expression Vis-a-Vis Impression

10. Heaven and Earth

11. Elements and pseudo-Elements in Gender Perspective

12. A Religious Contradiction in Terms

13. How the Intercardinal Axial Compass Adds Up

14. The Soulless Worshippers of Free Will

15. Defining Godliness in Relation to Religion

16. Axial Polarities Revealed

17. Power and Knowledge

18. Ethnic Fidelity through Race

19. What Truth Is

20. The Flesh Made Word

21. Why I tend to Avoid Public Transport in London

22. The Bastards

23. Callous Automatons

24. Hammering Workmen

25. Pus(s) in Boots

26. Virtual Criminals

27. Concrete and Abstract Distinctions in Music

28. Delius, I Salute You!

29. Mankind is not a Brotherhood

30. The Race Beyond Man

31. What was Sartre?

32. One Solution

33. Why People Couple

34. Religion of Free Males

35. Towards an Ultimate Creation

36. The Lie of Equalitarianism

37. The Metaphysics of Race

38. Papal Infallibility

39. The Love of Power Vis-a-Vis the Power of Love

40. Revolution in Ireland

41. The Axial Relativity of Sensuality and Sensibility

42. Male Intelligence

43. No Satisfaction

44. The Struggle between Sensuality and Spirituality

45. The 'Best' and 'Worst' kinds of Colloquial Job

46. Mind and Sense

47. Eschatological Alternatives in Axial Perspective

48. The End of the Lie

49. Short Attention Spans

50. Thoughts on Parents

51. The 'Religions' of 'Gods' Vis-a-Vis the Religion of Heaven

52. Why I am not Pro-Republican

53. Artists and Philosophers

54. State and Church

55. Around the (B)end with Some General Observations

56. Zarathustra's Mountain

57. Nietzsche and National Socialism

58. Random Thoughts

59. Provisional Fulfilment of Lord's Prayer

60. State Freedom in a Post-Church World

61. Traditional Dominance of Free Soma

62. From 'Hell' to 'Heaven' via Everything in-between

63. Ahead in the Clouds



Hi! I'm John O'Loughlin of Centretruths Digital Media, a multimedia but mostly eBook publishing platform working out of the UK, and I like to supplement my published library with weblogs about ... well, mostly philosophical subjects or subjects that can be treated philosophically, more usually in relation to the ideological philosophy of Social Theocracy/Social Transcendentalism which I have developed over a number of decades and extensively written about on the web.  Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope you enjoy these revised and reformatted weblogs which constitute the latest and hopefully last of several such collections by me.

                                                                      John O'Loughlin, London 2012




The distinction between the plebeian and the noble - in short, between 'plebs' and 'nobs', is essentially one between the ethereal and the corporeal, whether in relation to the concrete or to the abstract, viz. autocracy or theocracy in the case of the noble, and democracy or plutocracy in that of the plebeian, as, hegemonically speaking, between science and religion on the one hand, and politics and economics on the other.

Thus whilst science and religion correspond to antithetical modes of nobility, their plebeian counterparts 'down below', in the realm of the corporeal, are decidedly politics and economics, neither of which professions will normally appeal to a gentleman, be he of autocratic or theocratic disposition, which, incidentally, is nothing less than an alpha/omega antithesis between objectivity and subjectivity, soma and psyche, particles and wavicles, or, as noted above, the concrete and the abstract, each of which is as incompatible with the other as ... politics and economics - indeed, even more so, since corresponding, in their opposite ways, to the absolutism (3:1) of the ethereal rather than to the relativism (2½:1½) of the corporeal, whether with a bias, under female hegemonic criteria, for soma or, conversely, with one, under male hegemonic criteria, for psyche - a distinction, after all, between sensuality and sensibility.

Thus the distinction, to return to my opening argument, between 'plebs' and 'nobs' is one between the noumenal and the phenomenal, space/time in the antithetical case of nobles, and volume/mass in the antithetical case of plebeians, with space axially polar, on a female/male gender basis, to mass in relation to state-hegemonic criteria, and volume axially polar, on a like female/male basis, to time in relation to church-hegemonic criteria, the plebeian and the noble not existing in complete isolation from one another, but axially interdependent on opposite gender-conditioned terms which remain, to all intents and purposes, mutually incompatible.

Therefore whilst science and religion correspond to incompatible modes of nobility, and politics and economics to incompatible plebeian antitheses, the polarity, axially considered, between science and economics on the one hand, and politics and religion on the other remains as testimony to the interdependence of nobles and plebeians of one type or the other who are nonetheless incompatible with their antithetical counterparts. It is precisely in polarity that the one kind of axial interdependence is established and maintained in the face of the other kind, thereby defying an outright opposition of nobles to plebeians or vice versa.



In strictly gender terms, we can distinguish the will and the spirit of females from the ego and the soul of males, as one would distinguish heat and motion from force and light, or space and volume from mass and time, or beauty and strength from knowledge and truth, or love and pride from pleasure and joy, or protons and electrons from neutrons and photons, or elemental particles and molecular particles from molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles, or the absolute and relative concrete from the relative and absolute abstract, or superwomen and women from men and supermen, or squares and rectangles from ovals and circles, or science and politics from economics and religion, or materialism and naturalism from realism and idealism, or fundamentalism and pantheism from humanism and transcendentalism, or quickness and slowness from heaviness and lightness, or hotness and coldness from hardness and softness, or fire and water from vegetation (earth) and air, or hell and purgatory from the earth and heaven, or power and glory from form and contentment, or art and architecture from sculpture and music, or devil and woman from man and god, or metachemistry and chemistry from physics and metaphysics, or noumenal objectivity and phenomenal objectivity from phenomenal subjectivity and noumenal subjectivity, or history and literature from letters and theology, or drama and poetry from fiction and philosophy, or doing and giving from taking and being, or ... well, let's leave it there ... before I really get carried away and begin to address the subordinate gender (pseudo-gender) positions and/or equivalents along the lines of pseudo-space, pseudo-volume, pseudo-mass, and pseudo-time, with pseudo-space under time at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, pseudo-volume under mass at the southeast point of said compass, pseudo-mass under volume at the southwest point ..., and pseudo-time under space at the northwest point of the compass in question, which rather takes us back to the beginning with the rule of free will and the ungodly dominion of the superwoman over a kind of pseudo-superman.



Truth proper is not congenial to people who advocate the Lie (of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father), since where the Lie is hyped as Truth, there can be no place for Truth proper, as pertaining not to metachemistry (hyped as metaphysics) but to metaphysics.

Neither is metaphysical truth congenial to people who advocate the half-lie (of Woman the Mother hyped as Mother of God), since where the half-lie is hyped as Truth, there can be no place for Truth proper, as pertaining not to chemistry (hyped as metaphysics) but to metaphysics.

Truth, alas, is not even congenial to people who advocate the half-truth (of Son of Man hyped as Son of God, if not God), since where the half-truth is hyped as Truth, there can be no place for Truth proper, as pertaining not to physics (hyped as metaphysics) but to metaphysics, in which God is neither Father, Mother, nor Son, but merely Heaven perceived from the outside as a kind of halo-like effulgence surrounding and confirming the inner joy of Heaven.

We who advocate Truth can have no truck with the Lie, the half-lie, or the half-truth, and therefore no truck with those who advocate one or more of these in deference to scientific, political, or economic idols.

We are above and beyond Superwoman, Woman, and Man, as a kind of Superman for whom Truth is, if not paramount, then the necessary. inescapable corollary of Joy, as God of Heaven.

For the Truth to live, and live eternally, the Lie must be killed off, that is, democratically consigned to the rubbish bin of history, so that both it and its worldly extrapolations, viz. the half-lie and the half-truth (roughly corresponding to a corporeal catholic/protestant dichotomy), will permanently become a thing or, rather, things of the past, allowing for a brighter, truer, and more genuinely religious (metaphysical) future, in which the male will triumph over the female as metaphysical being over pseudo-metachemical pseudo-doing, or free soul over pseudo-bound will.

Was it not Nietzsche who said: 'Every time priests open their mouth to speak they lie' or words to that effect? If so, then Nietzsche spoke truly; for that is exactly what priests do. Though, in fairness, I have to concede that they sometimes manage the half-truth as well, if only to offer some consolation to the male side of life in the face, if not teeth, of the female dominion through power and glory, viz. the Lie and the half-lie, neither of which have any time for the half-truth, never mind the Truth!

Feminism is especially bad for the Truth. For it obliges one to bow to gender equalitarianism at the expense of Christian values, which, no matter how far short they may fall of Truth, and thus of anything effectively Superchristian, should not be - and never really have been - about deferring and succumbing to female dominion but, rather, about extricating oneself from such a dominion (leaving mother, sister, wife, daughter, etc., to take up the Cross) in order to have the benefit of peace of mind in psychic freedom, without which inner being there can be no 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the Self and therefore no Saint and (neutralized) Dragon-like metaphysical triumph over females, reduced, in that event, to a pseudo-metachemical subordination which is not in a position (as neutralized lion and/or wolf, so to speak) to do the 'lamb of God' or, rather, of godliness in relation to heavenly being (joy) any damage, least of all in terms of natural reproduction through sex and the perpetuation of 'the world' at the expense of 'otherworldly' criteria.



Keats's oft-quoted line about Beauty being Truth and Truth Beauty ... is really no different than Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father in Judaism, as what I have tended to regard as the 'best of a bad job' starting-point for civilization - always fundamentally barbarous - as we know it and have long known it in terms of the Judeo-Christian tradition, a tradition that, by today's global standards (more openly barbarous) is decidedly anachronistic and something that few if any of the truly contemporary (feminist-dominated proletariat) take seriously. But Keats was of course Anglican rather than Judaic, and at the time of writing that line of his a rather young man with not much longer to live.

It has been said, and even by so distinguished a musician as Frank Zappa, that Beauty is a lie. But it is actually a fact, and a metachemical fact above all else. When Beauty is hyped as Truth, on the other hand, one certainly has a lie, the Keatsian lie that parallels, as noted above, the Old Testament lie of Devil the Mother (representing Beauty) hyped as God the Father (representing Truth), and, as a kind of fiction, that should be distinguished as much from fact as illusion or, rather, delusion from truth, both of which are equally, if antithetically, false.



Despite the fancy of that ancient Hebrew scribe, presumed author of Genesis, life continues to favour the female sex (primary gender) as much now as before, and to render the concept of a male Creator so hugely implausible in relation to the underlying objective reality of both the Cosmos and Nature ... as to be virtually incredible, that is to say, inconceivable.

I, at any rate, can't bring myself to believe in 'Him', even though I have no doubt that, in relative terms, the stellar-like creative force, power, impulse or what have you, behind the Cosmos and even Nature was and remains fundamentally female in its noumenal objectivity and vacuum-divergent disposition, a metachemical power which I have long associated not with 'God the Father' but with 'Devil the Mother', even if the hype, as it were, of Devil the Mother as God the Father (and hence 'She' as 'He', Cosmos as Universe, metachemistry as metaphysics, Beauty as Truth, etc.) was, I have to say, an understandable and, from a male standpoint, even estimable subterfuge for palliating the overwhelming evidence of both female precedence of anything male and underlying female power through free will - the seductive power, not least, of beauty.

So the idea that a male Creator would so slant things against males as to give females all or most of the advantages ... frankly, it beggars belief. Which is something that the ancient Hebrew scribe signally overlooked, as might be expected from a male standpoint. For, after all, is it not better, nay, more natural for a male to put a male slant on things, despite ample historical or social evidence to the contrary of that particular slant?



Unless metaphysical bound soma, i.e. the Cruxifixional paradigm, is informed by a corresponding kind of metaphysical free psyche, specifically with regard to the soulful fulcrum of such in what I term Heaven the Holy Soul, the former is inauthentic and no more, in consequence, than a false order of metaphysics susceptible to being subsumed into a no-less false order of pseudo-metachemistry, so that, with an emphasis upon the so-called 'Sacred Heart' (at the expense of the entitlement of metaphysical bound soma to 'Sacred Lungs' in respect of the bound will of the 'Son-of-God' aspect of somatic binding), the pseudo-element in question can be accommodated to a corresponding type (in this case eyes and ears of a mankind, or Western, triangle) of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics in broadly humanistically triangular vein.

Such is the regrettable position of Western metaphysics which, being Roman Catholic, has always lacked the benefit of a preceding free psyche by dint of its Judaic roots in the metachemical anchor, so to speak, of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father.

Being merely an extrapolation from Judaic precedent, the Christian civilization of, in the main, Roman Catholic tradition has signally failed to achieve anything more than a false (because somatic) type of metaphysics which, corresponding to the negative side or aspect of the element in question, amounts to no more than illusion and woe in the so-called Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, neither of which can be authentic when there is a want - as for reasons already alluded to there manifestly is - of truth and joy or, more correctly, of joy and truth, the joy of Heaven the Holy Soul and the truth of God the Father or, rather, of Godfatherliness, which has nothing in common, as the outer manifestation of Heaven, with Devil the Mother, the beautiful 'First Mover' (stellar-like in its inception) whose free will precedes the 'once-bovaryized' (compared to anything chemical) free spirit of love, as Devil preceding Hell in positive, i.e. free somatic, terms - the metachemical antithesis to Heaven preceding God(liness) in positive, i.e. free psychic, terms, the terms which, in metaphysics, are always 'beyond the pale', so to speak, of the Roman Catholic extrapolation from Judaism which is the principal manifestation of the Judeo-Christian tradition prior to Protestantism in the West, that Christian anachronism vis-à-vis the inexorable march of globalization and its disregard for such traditions, including, I have to say, Eastern ones as well.



The masses breed only democracy, ruled over by a degree of autocracy, whether monarchic or presidential in style. This perpetuates the clockwise cycling of female dominion in metachemistry (over pseudo-metaphysics) and chemistry (over pseudo-physics) and continues the reproductive cycles that the masses, males no less than females, more or less take for granted.

It is precisely because of this want of an alternative disposition along radically theocratic lines that the democratically-inclined masses will continue to perpetuate 'the world', as of worldly traditions, unless subjected, in certain countries with the right sort of axial preconditions, to some degree of messianic intervention such that, opposing 'the world' and that which autocratically rules over it 'in back'', has the ability to bend the masses to its designs in the interests of what Nietzsche, albeit from a different standpoint, would call 'world-overcoming' through otherworldly (for males) and pseudo-netherworldly (for females) deliverance. In other words, through salvation of the pseudo-physical 'last' to metaphysics and counter-damnation of the chemical 'first' to pseudo-metachemistry, so that the chemical 'first', equivocally hegemonic over the pseudo-physical, will become pseudo-metachemically 'last', unequivocally subordinate to the metaphysical, and the pseudo-physical 'last', equivocally subordinate to the chemical, become metaphysically 'first', unequivocally hegemonic over the pseudo-metachemical.

If this process is taken far enough by a sufficiently-determined messianic resolve, the metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical, corresponding to netherworldly over pseudo-otherworldly positions, coupled to the physical and pseudo-chemical, corresponding to an earthly and pseudo-purgatorial kind of worldliness, will be 'put out of business', so to speak, for want of chemical and pseudo-physical prey, and their axial polarity, correspondingly state-hegemonic/church-subordinate, will collapse into a general damnation of the metachemical to pseudo-chemistry and a general counter-salvation of the pseudo-metaphysical to physics, thereby necessitating an accommodation, following judgement of the prime movers at each pole of the former axis by their respective proletariats, of the proletarian generalities, both metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical and physical/pseudo-chemical, to the stepped-up, or resurrected, church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in terms of a deference, on their respective parts, to the metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry of the already-saved and counter-damned gender positions 'upstairs'.

Such a deference, stemming from middle and bottom tier positions under the top tier of the Saved and Counter-Damned, will ensure that the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis is more or less uniformly disposed to a given structural directionality 'on high' such that, following centro-complexification (a term used by Theilhard de Chardin), will eventually become the sole dichotomy in a long-term totalitarian resolution of the initial pluralism with the apotheosis of the 'kingdom come' process, so to speak, in celestial city-like space centres which will have the capacity to merge, or be merged, into one ultimate Space Centre, the effective Omega Point of all evolutionary (and, for the pseudo-alpha pseudo-metachemical position, counter-devolutionary) striving within a context characterized by a hegemonic eternity.



False art is always a mirror of life, reflecting the outer values of the masses back at them in such fashion that they see and are confirmed in their ethereal and/or corporeal externality, their slavery to the concrete, be it absolute or relative, noumenal or phenomenal. For the masses continuously flee from self in the sense of ego or, better, soul. Their art, such as it is, necessarily reflects their natures as that which is dominated by female values, like beauty and strength, love and pride, will and spirit, which, to be sure, are primary in their, if you will, heathenistic virtuousness.

True art, by contrast, is always about inner values, paying little or no attention to the external world of objective domination, which is apt to be dominated by science in terms of an empirical disposition. Some would argue it is an expression of inner values, but I think that term a misnomer in this context, since soul, in particular, cannot be expressed but only portrayed or projected as an emanation of Self, an impression of Self, which is godly in its joyful beatitude or, better, truthful reflection of joy.

Much Western art, including music, falls well-short of giving an impression of Self due to the want of metaphysics in the Christian and, more specifically, Roman Catholic tradition and a regrettable tendency, in consequence, to regard the ne plus ultra of so-called 'spiritual values' in terms of what I habitually call pseudo-metachemistry, approximately equivalent, in its derivation from anti-metachemistry, to a pseudo-female position a plane down from metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, so to speak, at the apex of the traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.

Such an effectively penultimate position, corresponding to a pseudo-element, permits of an expression or, more correctly, pseudo-expression of pseudo-love in the pseudo-free psyche of pseudo-metachemistry which, together with pseudo-beauty, is merely the tip of a pseudo-elemental iceberg the greater proportion of which (3:1) remains below the church-hegemonic surface in terms of the state-subordinate pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hate of pseudo-bound soma, like the proverbial neutralized dragon under the saintly heel, the heel, however, not of pseudo-free psyche in relation to itself, but of what should be - but in the Catholic tradition rarely if ever is - the free psyche and bound soma (3:1) of metaphysics.

Be that as it may, the pseudo-expression of pseudo-love in pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche is no more than the pseudo-expression of pseudo-free soul and is of little artistic or religious consequence compared to the impression of soul in metaphysics, which would be a godly confirmation of Heaven, a truthful portrayal of joy and therefore the essence of all true art, not least in music, that most metaphysical of the Arts.

False art, on the other hand, which includes the expression of love through beauty in metachemical free soma, is everywhere the popular and more prevalent approach to art, one that, corresponding to the broad female-dominated masses, continuously reaps large commercial dividends as it glories in both the ethereal (beauty/love) and corporeal (pride/strength) objectivity of external values, the only values that the masses ever understand and the born enemies, in consequence, of true art, by which is meant abstract art the inner values of which, ever subjectively corporeal (knowledge/pleasure) and, more importantly and significantly, ethereal (joy/truth), could never be understood, much less appreciated and endorsed, by the beauty- and strength-slavering masses.

In simple heathen (secular) terms, life is ever on the side of false art, as of females. But in re-born Christian and more than Christian (superchristian) terms, true art is on the side of that which goes against the natural grain, whether in terms of the phenomenal abstraction of the temporal or, more divinely and of course truly, in terms of the noumenal abstraction of the Eternal, the true focus of which is ever metaphysical and therefore concerned not, like physics, with the impression of taking but with the impression of Being, which is soulfully rather than intellectually of the Self.



Just as I have conceived of an alpha/omega antithesis between objectivity and subjectivity, the concrete and the abstract (see, for example, 'False Art vis-à-vis True Art' above), so a like-antithesis obtains between expression and impression, conceiving of the former in relation to the concrete, which derives from the objectivity of a particle vacuum in nature, and the latter in relation to the abstract, which derives from the subjectivity of a wavicle plenum in nurture, the objective and the subjective having reference to a female/male antithesis between vacuums and plenums or, in subatomic terms, particles and wavicles, whether in absolute (elemental) or relative (molecular) terms.

Hence I would have no hesitation in equating the expressive with objectivity and the impressive, by contrast, with subjectivity, maintaining that that which is concrete is an expression of the objective, whereas that which is abstract is an impression of the subjective, whether corporeal or ethereal, phenomenal or noumenal.

Thus whereas the concrete, deriving from a vacuum, is somatic in its particle-based expression of the objective, the abstract, deriving from a plenum, is psychic in its wavicle-centred impression of the subjective. Will and spirit, in their primary, or metachemical and chemical, manifestations (both of which are female), appertain to the former, whereas ego and soul in their primary, or physical and metaphysical, manifestations (both of which are male), appertain to the latter.

Thus whereas will and spirit express the objective in relation to the concrete (soma), which derives from a particle vacuum, ego and soul, by contrast, impress the subjective in relation to the abstract (psyche), which derives from a wavicle plenum. More correctly, whereas will and spirit are expressions, in their particle-based objectivity, of the concrete, ego and soul are impressions, in their wavicle-centred subjectivity, of the abstract, the only difference being that whereas will and soul are noumenally antithetical in relation to the ethereal, spirit and ego are phenomenally antithetical in relation to the corporeal - the difference, in sum, between the absolute and the relative, elemental particles vis-à-vis elemental wavicles in relation to the ethereal alpha (space) and omega (time) of will and soul, but molecular particles vis-à-vis molecular wavicles in relation to the corporeal alpha (volume) and omega (mass) of spirit and ego.

The human body is not the objectification of the Will, as propounded with some conviction by Schopenhauer. Or, rather, it is the objectification of both will and spirit in the case of females, some of whom will be less of the one than of the other, whereas, by gender contrast, the human body is what could be called the subjectification of both ego and soul in the case of males, some of whom will be more of the one than of the other, thereby confirming an alpha/omega antithesis between one kind of particle vacuum or another (ethereal or corporeal) and one kind of wavicle plenum or another (corporeal or ethereal) in the noumenal alpha and omega of will and soul, which are elemental in their absolutism, but the phenomenal alpha and omega of spirit and ego, which are molecular in their relativity.

Now just as will wars on soul through the noumenally objective expression of the ethereal concrete (elemental particles), so the spirit wars on the ego through the phenomenally objective expression of the corporeal concrete (molecular particles), making peace for both the ego and the soul correspondingly more difficult of attainment for those (males) who are naturally or, rather, nurturally egocentric and/or psychocentric.

Peace of mind for the male can only be guaranteed on the basis of a categorical rejection of both will and spirit, and therefore of females, who are the objective embodiments of expression (and here we concur with Schopenhauer, who, unlike Nietzsche, taught the necessity of rejecting the Will). Needless to say, any abstract manifestation, through psychic peace (grace) of such a categorical rejection will be relatively (ego) or absolutely (soul) impressive, not least in the context of the Arts which, when true (see the previous weblog, 'False Art Vis-a-Vis True Art'), will be abstract, whether abstracted from knowledge in the ego, as from the New Testament, or more genuinely, because metaphysically, abstracted from truth or, more correctly, joy in the soul. That is why 'true art', whether Christian or 'modern', is ever impressive, concerned not with a concrete expression of the objective, but with an abstract impression, by contrast, of the subjective which, whether corporeal or ethereal, physical or metaphysical, resides not in soma but in psyche, not in the body but in the mind, not in nature but in nurture, not in a vacuum but in a plenum, not in females but in males, not, finally, in will or spirit, but in ego or soul.

A Christian disposition may favour, through the New Testament, the ego, and hence knowledge (that 'forbidden tree' which the Jews categorically reject), but a Superchristian disposition, which I equate with Social Theocracy and/or Transcendentalism, can only favour the soul, and hence joy and the soul's impression, which is truth.



Heaven comes down to earth and earth rises toward Heaven through regressive electronica and progressive rock respectively, like, for instance, Tangerine Dream and King Crimson, two of the world's leading regressive electronica and progressive rock groups.


But what has come down, on descended, still remains above what has come up, or ascended, leaving a kind of gap between the two, as between that which appertains to the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and its polarity at the northeast point on what is effectively the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.



That which subordinately parallels will and spirit in metachemistry and chemistry can be called pseudo-will and pseudo-spirit in pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-physics respectively, pseudo-truth paralleling beauty in the one case and pseudo-pleasure paralleling pride in the other case.

The hegemonic gender positions in metachemistry and chemistry are, of course, female in power and glory, will and spirit, space and volume. The subordinate gender positions are, however, pseudo-male in pseudo-power and pseudo-glory, pseudo-will and pseudo-spirit, pseudo-time and pseudo-mass, with reverse ratio standings in soma and psyche to the hegemonic positions in the absolute and the relative, the noumenal and the phenomenal, the ethereal and the corporeal.

That which, by contrast, subordinately parallels ego and soul in physics and metaphysics can be called pseudo-ego and pseudo-soul in pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry respectively, pseudo-strength paralleling knowledge in the one case and pseudo-love paralleling joy in the other case.

The hegemonic gender positions in physics and metaphysics are, of course, male in form and contentment, ego and soul, mass and time. The subordinate gender positions are, however, pseudo-female in pseudo-form and pseudo-contentment, pseudo-ego and pseudo-soul, pseudo-volume and pseudo-space, with reverse ratio standings in psyche and soma to the hegemonic positions in the relative and the absolute, the phenomenal and the noumenal, the corporeal and the ethereal.

Thus when, in the absolute, the hegemonic position, whether female or male, is 3:1, the subordinate position is 1:3, whether in terms of free soma vis-à-vis bound psyche or, conversely, of free psyche vis-à-vis bound soma.

And when, in the relative, the hegemonic position, whether male or female, is 2½:1½, the subordinate position is 1½:2½, whether in terms of free psyche vis-à-vis bound soma or, conversely, of free soma vis-à-vis bound psyche.

The subordinate gender positions, which correspond to pseudo-elements as opposed, like their hegemonic counterparts, to elements, will always be pseudo-free and pseudo-bound, whether in terms of soma and psyche (pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-physics) or, conversely, in terms of psyche and soma (pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry). This is because they are conditioned by the hegemonic gender positions whose soma and psyche, roughly corresponding to body and mind, are either free and bound (metachemistry and chemistry) or bound and free (physics and metaphysics), with devolutionary (female) and evolutionary (male) implications.

Conditioned by the hegemonic gender positions, the subordinate gender positions become effectively mirror images, on reverse ratio terms, to them, and are thus decidedly secondary as pseudo-elements vis-à-vis the primary nature and/or supreme nurture of the hegemonic positions, depending on the gender case.



This notion of a male God in back (the so-called Creator) who makes woman whose seed, as all males will know, constantly wars on man, on the male sex, centrifugal attire to his centripetal, long hair to his short, sharp heels to his blunt, long fingernails to his short, made-up eyes to his plain, and so on, is so contradictory as to be, frankly, ludicrous and, what's more, an affront not only to common sense but to religion itself, not to mention the male sex, who have to live with the notion that the women who constantly war on them for reproductive ends do so at the behest of a male God who would have found nothing unusual or contradictory about such a predicament.

Frankly, this is just one of a number of reasons why I want to see conventional Creator-based religion consigned to the proverbial rubbish bin of history in due course, when we are in an ideological position to begin the long and arduous process of getting rid of it, as of ridding society of its duplicitous influence.

Even the notion of God having the power and the glory, as in the Lord's Prayer, is a gender contradiction in terms, since both power and glory appertain, in their proper manifestations, to the female side of life in relation to beauty and pride, the former affiliated to metachemical free soma as the fulcrum of will, and the latter to chemical free soma as the fulcrum of spirit. Neither have anything to do with male sensibility, whether in form or contentment, ego or soul, physics or metaphysics, never mind the pseudo-will and the pseudo-spirit of pseudo-power and pseudo-glory in pseudo-metaphysics and pseudo-physics, which apply to what could be called gender-subordinate positions (corresponding to 'sons-of-bitches') under the female hegemonies of metachemistry and chemistry, and which amount to no more than pseudo-truth under beauty in the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical dichotomy and pseudo-pleasure under pride in the chemical/pseudo-physical one.

The only religions power and glory have anything to do with are necessarily 'bovaryized' religions, which are designed to give a religious front, or semblance, to societies dominated by the rule of either science or politics. As for that type of society dominated by economics, of which we in this age are only too familiar, that too requires a 'bovaryized' order of religion which is less metachemical or chemical than physical in character, and thus no more than an alternative approach to 'the world', as to worldliness, than that represented by the rule of politics in chemical domination, a domination necessitating an emphasis upon glory as opposed to form, and one with very close gender ties to the scientific domination of religion by power, which is not only the most fundamentalist mode of religion but also that which is most 'bovayized' and thus furthest removed from metaphysical truth in its metachemical emphasis upon beauty hyped as truth, as, correlatively, upon Devil the Mother hyped, in Creator-esque vein, as God the Father.

We who champion the truth can have no truck with the half-truth of ego-bovaryized religion, never mind the half-lie and whole lie, so to speak, of spirit- and will-bovaryized religions, which grant undue importance to power and glory at the expense not only of Christian form, but of what could be called Superchristian contentment, the contentment of metaphysical soul which I regard it as Social Theocracy's duty to both uphold and advance in a world still dominated by the Lie and the beautiful rule, in consequence, of free will.



Just as at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass I would contrast the noumenal objectivity of metachemistry with the noumenal pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-metaphysics, so it should be possible, in this higher-order state-hegemonic axial context, to contrast noumenal expression with noumenal pseudo-impression, or noumenal divergence with noumenal pseudo-convergence - the former terms in each dichotomous pairing absolutely female (superfeminine) and the latter absolutely pseudo-male (pseudo-supermasculine), as between space and pseudo-time, power and pseudo-contentment, heat and pseudo-light, will and pseudo-soul.

And just as at the southeast point of the said compass I would contrast the phenomenal subjectivity of physics with the phenomenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-chemistry, so it should be possible, in this lower-order state-hegemonic axial context, to contrast phenomenal impression with phenomenal pseudo-expression, or phenomenal convergence with phenomenal pseudo-divergence - the former terms in each dichotomous pairing relatively male (masculine) and the latter relatively pseudo-female (pseudo-feminine), as between mass and pseudo-volume, form and pseudo-glory, force and pseudo-motion, ego and pseudo-spirit.

Now just as at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass I would contrast the phenomenal objectivity of chemistry with the phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity of pseudo-physics, so it should be possible, in this lower-order church-hegemonic axial context, to contrast phenomenal expression with phenomenal pseudo-impression, or phenomenal divergence with phenomenal pseudo-convergence - the former terms in each dichotomous pairing relatively female (feminine) and the latter relatively pseudo-male (pseudo-masculine), as between volume and pseudo-mass, glory and pseudo-form, motion and pseudo-force, spirit and pseudo-ego.

Just, finally, as at the northeast point of the said compass I would contrast the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics with the noumenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemistry, so it should be possible, in this higher order church-hegemonic axial context, to contrast noumenal impression with noumenal pseudo-expression, or noumenal convergence with noumenal pseudo-divergence - the former terms in each dichotomous pairing absolutely male (supermasculine) and the latter absolutely pseudo-female (pseudo-superfeminine), as between time and pseudo-space, contentment and pseudo-power, light and pseudo-heat, soul and pseudo-will.

Thus the state-hegemonic axis (which is also church-subordinate) provides us with a polarity between noumenal expression and phenomenal pseudo-expression on the female side of the gender fence and, in secondary state-hegemonic vein, between noumenal pseudo-impression and phenomenal impression on the male side of the said fence - the one polarity between vanity and justice, the other between pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness, as, in overall axial terms, between evil/crime (free soma/bound psyche) and goodness/punishment (pseudo-bound soma/pseudo-free psyche) in the one gender case, and between pseudo-folly/pseudo-sin (pseudo-free soma/pseudo-bound psyche) and pseudo-wisdom/pseudo-grace (bound soma/free psyche) in the other gender case.

Thus the church-hegemonic axis (which is also state-subordinate) provides us with a polarity between noumenal impression and phenomenal pseudo-impression on the male side of the gender fence and, in secondary church-hegemonic vein, between noumenal pseudo-expression and phenomenal expression on the female side of the said fence - the one polarity between righteousness and meekness, the other between pseudo-justice and pseudo-vanity, as, in overall axial terms, between grace/wisdom (free psyche/bound soma) and sin/folly (pseudo-bound psyche/pseudo-free soma) in the one gender case, and between pseudo-punishment/pseudo-goodness (pseudo-free psyche/pseudo-bound soma) and pseudo-crime/pseudo-evil (bound psyche/free soma) in the other gender case.

As noted above, there are equivalent terms, such as objectivity and subjectivity, divergence and convergence, which can take the place of expression and impression, not forgetting their 'pseudo' counterparts which pertain to the pseudo-elements as against, in the hegemonic gender positions throughout the intercardinal axial compass, the elements-proper.



A society rooted in free will necessarily excludes the possibility of free soul.

The fact is that 'God' didn't allow for free will, let alone encourage it, because what is taken for 'God' in back of the world is less 'God the Father', so to speak, than 'Devil the Mother', which is metachemical in its stellar objectivity, and therefore the source, in beauty or, rather, the Beautiful, of free will.

A society rooted in free will, as in metachemical doing, necessarily excludes metaphysical being, which is the essence of free soul.

In the West, such a society begins with the Protestant rejection, through heresy, of Roman Catholic aspirations, no matter how truncated due to the extrapolative nature of Western civilization from Middle Eastern roots in terms of the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition, towards metaphysics via the Crucifixional paradigm of bound metaphysical soma of the Christ 'on high', arms raised, in Y-chromosomal intimation, towards Heaven.

It ends, as at present, with the 'open society' secularity of the Western democracies, not least the WASP-dominated ones of Britain and America, where the soulless pursuit of material gain is not only taken for granted, but actively encouraged.

In football, the want of a point over the bar (as between the uprights in Gaelic football - an Irish Catholic sport) confirms this absence of any aspiration, no matter how imperfect or paradoxical, towards soul, and thus the possibility of the negation of free will through metaphysical being, which is of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' within the metaphysical self in which 'God the Father' (godfatherliness) has his throne simply as the external manifestation and confirmation of heavenly joy.

Such a negation of free will is, of course, more than just a rejection of metachemistry. It implies the subjugation of metachemistry pseudo-metachemically in the pseudo-bound will (contrary to female gender actuality but the consequence of metaphysical hegemonic pressure) of pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother, whose neutralized status in the pseudo-ugliness thereof would be akin to that of the neutralized dragon under the saintly heel (of metaphysics), as of the neutralized lion and/or wolf (pseudo-lion and/or pseudo-wolf) under the proverbial 'lamb of God', as of godliness, whose truth would be the reflection, candlelight to candleflame-like, of heavenly joy in the free soul for all Eternity.



Despite conventional appearances to the contrary, godliness is nothing special, since merely the outward show of Heaven, the face of Heaven, so to speak, which, as the fulcrum of metaphysics, as of anything metaphysical, is the joyful centre of all Being. Those who know what true religion is, i.e. a form of self-worship, don't go a whole lot on God, least of all when it, as a concept, has nothing whatsoever to do with metaphysics, let alone transcendentalism, but is either contrary to metaphysics in metachemistry or somehow intermediate between the two, like chemistry and physics which, being corporeal, are simply worldly alternatives in purgatory and the earth to anything either netherworldly, like metachemistry, or otherworldly, like metaphysics, which is what lies beyond 'the world' as opposed to what is behind, or anterior, to it, as in the context of netherworldly metachemistry, the hellish source and justification of all autocracy.

Whatever the case, whenever religion is false, like the cosmos-oriented metachemical variety, which can be associated, through Creator-esque beginnings (stellar), with materialism/fundamentalism, or half-false, like the woman-oriented chemical variety, which can be associated, through Marianism, with naturalism/pantheism, or half-true, like the man-oriented physical variety, which can be associated, through Christ with the 'Son of Man', that is, with realism/humanism, you have various kinds of idolatrous shortfalls from and/or antitheses to true religion and, hence, to Truth, which owes nothing to the Devil, woman, or man, but everything to God or, rather, to Heaven, the source of that godly effulgence, halo-like, which is the outer proof of the inner beingfulness of metaphysical soul, the soul per se which, in its transcendentalism, corresponds to what is superhuman (divine) in a supermasculine way, the noumenal, or ethereal, antithesis of anything superfeminine.

Therefore godliness, like heaven, is the prerogative of a certain type of higher male, let us say an idealistic male whose idealism is pledged to the service of transcendentalism, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything else, whether lesser than or contrary to it.

Religion hijacked by science, politics, or economics is simply 'bovaryized' religion, and the sooner such religions are consigned, like 'the world', to the rubbish bin of history by true religion, the better!



The materialism of metachemical free soma is polar, on primary state-hegemonic axial terms, to the pseudo-naturalism of pseudo-chemical pseudo-bound soma, as positive space to pseudo-negative pseudo-volume, whereas the pseudo-idealism of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-free soma is polar, on secondary state-hegemonic axial terms, to the realism of physical bound soma, as pseudo-positive pseudo-time to negative mass.

Correlatively, the fundamentalism of metachemical bound psyche is polar, on primary church-subordinate axial terms, to the pseudo-pantheism of pseudo-chemical pseudo-free psyche, as negative space to pseudo-positive pseudo-volume, whereas the pseudo-transcendentalism of pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-bound psyche is polar, on secondary church-subordinate axial terms, to the humanism of physical free psyche, as pseudo-negative pseudo-time to positive mass.

By contrast, the transcendentalism of metaphysical free psyche is polar, on primary church-hegemonic axial terms, to the pseudo-humanism of pseudo-physical pseudo-bound psyche, as positive time to pseudo-negative pseudo-mass, whereas the pseudo-fundamentalism of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-free psyche is polar, on secondary church-hegemonic axial terms, to the pantheism of chemical bound psyche, as pseudo-positive pseudo-space to negative volume.

Correlatively, the idealism of metaphysical bound soma is polar, on primary state-subordinate axial terms, to the pseudo-realism of pseudo-physical pseudo-free soma, as negative time to pseudo-positive pseudo-mass, whereas the pseudo-materialism of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma is polar, on secondary state-subordinate axial terms, to the naturalism of chemical free soma, as pseudo-negative pseudo-space to positive volume.

Hence the polarity of the positive vanity of beauty and love with the pseudo-negative justice of pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility, as of evil with goodness, on primary state-hegemonic axial terms, but of the pseudo-positive pseudo-meekness of pseudo-truth and pseudo-joy with the negative pseudo-righteousness of ignorance and pain, as of pseudo-folly with pseudo-wisdom, on secondary state-hegemonic axial terms.

Hence, correlatively, the polarity of the negative vanity of ugliness and hatred with the pseudo-positive justice of pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride, as of crime with punishment, on primary church-subordinate axial terms, but of the pseudo-negative pseudo-meekness of pseudo-illusion and pseudo-woe with the positive pseudo-righteousness of knowledge and pleasure, as of pseudo-sin with pseudo-grace, on secondary church-subordinate axial terms.

Hence, by contrast, the polarity of the positive righteousness of truth and joy with the pseudo-negative meekness of pseudo-ignorance and pseudo-pain, as of grace with sin, on primary church-hegemonic axial terms, but of the pseudo-positive pseudo-justice of pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love with the negative pseudo-vanity of weakness and humility, as of pseudo-punishment with pseudo-crime, on secondary church-hegemonic axial terms.

Hence, correlatively, the polarity of the negative righteousness of illusion and woe with the pseudo-positive meekness of pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-pleasure, as of wisdom with folly, on primary state-subordinate axial terms, but of the pseudo-negative pseudo-justice of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred with the positive pseudo-vanity of strength and pride, as of pseudo-goodness with pseudo-evil, on secondary state-subordinate axial terms.

Don't believe me? Those who have diligently studied my philosophical development thus far will, I am sure, have no difficulty in believing me. As for the rest - what do I care?



The idea that knowledge is power is, I believe, fundamentally false and thus misleading, not least when the presumed omniscience of God is equated with omnipotence, and we get this paradoxical notion of God as almighty - indeed, as The Almighty.

This, to me, is a contradiction in terms, since anything genuinely powerful because rooted in free will and able to exploit that freedom to the, let me say, beautiful limit or even, beyond or, rather, behind that, to an infinite degree ... is the antithesis of God or, more correctly, of the godly, as of godliness, conceived as the outer manifestation, in the nearest equivalent to ego that metaphysics has, namely superconsciousness, of Heaven, meaning the supersensibility of metaphysical soul which, contrary to popular prejudice, has less to do with knowledge than with the joyful peace that surpasses all understanding, not least that of the ego as a knowledgeable polarity, on state-hegemonic axial terms, to the beauty of free will.

Even on those axially-restricted terms, knowledge and power are two entirely different things and therefore in no way equivalent, but, as noted above, polar.

Omniscience, in the sense of metaphysical understanding, may be a godly attribute, but it is not the same as - nor should it be equated with - omnipotence, as though the ability to understand everything, including what is less than and even contrary to metaphysics, necessarily made one omnipotent and, hence, almighty.

The fact that, in conventional or traditional religion, God is equated with power is an indication of how limited and indeed fundamentally false such religion actually is, since power has more to do with Devil the Mother, so to speak, than ever it does with God the Father, notwithstanding the fact that the latter is in itself a misnomer that puts the metaphysical emphasis - presuming upon a metaphysical connotation - in the wrong place, namely on the nearest equivalent to ego that metaphysics superconsciously has rather than on the actual fulcrum of metaphysics, which I tend to equate with Heaven the Holy Soul - a term completely beyond trinitarian traditions.

But a religion that is not even falsely metaphysical but fundamentally metachemical, identifying Devil the Mother, as it were, with God the Father, as, if you will allow me, 'the best of a bad job' starting-point for religion, as traditionally understood in the West and even the Middle East, in terms of sugar-coating the overwhelming female dominance of life, as of the Cosmos in terms of stellar bodies, by hyping the former as the latter, can only make the theological mistake, if I may reverse my initial premise, of equating omnipotence with omniscience, as of vanity with righteousness, or power with knowledge, to the detriment of Truth, where even omniscience, as of enlightenment, is a halo-like superconscious by-product of a much deeper reality that is as far removed, in its impressive beingfulness, its metaphysical sentience, from any expression of power through free will as it is possible for any two entities to be.

The fact is that alpha and omega, will and soul, noumenal soma and noumenal psyche, Devil (the Mother) and Heaven (the Holy Soul), omnipotence and, for want of an alternative term, omniscience, have absolutely nothing in common, being completely antithetical.

But hegemonic positions on the same axis, namely a state-hegemonic one, are not antithetical - as across the axial divide - but simply polar, and therefore capable of interacting, or 'working together', in the interests of a common axial cause. Such is the case with will and ego, or, in simple parlance, power and knowledge, and the latter could be described as existing in a kind of Faustian pact with the former, as of knowledge put to the service of will for purposes of empirically exploiting what is not state-hegemonic but axially contrary to it - namely church-hegemonic, where the respective hegemonic positions are less will and ego than ... spirit and soul, less power and knowledge or, rather, form than … glory and contentment, in a like-polar opposition of gender.

These, too, form a kind of polar pact along what has been described as church-hegemonic axial lines. But the exploitation of glory by both form and power tends to preclude the triumph of contentment and the corresponding liberation of the relevant masses from the hegemony of glory, and that, for any religion that is in any degree true, remains a grave problem, but a problem which it should be within its ability to solve, to the satisfaction of metaphysics and its subordinate gender corollary, pseudo-metachemistry.



It takes centuries to create a culture based upon solid ethnic foundations - foundations that can be so easily demolished by racial dilution through miscegenation and/or cross-breeding between peoples of different cultural backgrounds.

These days, one has the example of America and, to a lesser extent, Great Britain to cite as an instance of what happens when various and sometimes incompatible races collide and blend into a melting-pot, as it were, which smacks not of the omega and culture, but of the alpha and barbarism, with its correlative subordinate gender factor of philistinism or, more correctly in relation to state-hegemonic criteria (secular), pseudo-philistinism in countries like Britain and America.

Such peoples are perpetually restless in their fundamentally expressive natures, and will tend to oppose racial discrimination (meaning, in this context, careful selectivity under the aegis of ethnic fidelity) from a standpoint rooted in class and therefore partial to domination and exploitation or, rather, to domination through exploitation, principally through the equivalent of a Faustian pact between the upper class and the middle class for the material exploitation of the lower class, the class less of class, so to speak, or even occupation than of sex which, through spirit, is the axial precondition of a racial resolution in soul - an eventuality - if not actuality - 'upstairs' at the apex of church-hegemonic axial criteria that it would be unwise to speak of indirectly or obliquely, as though via the enemies' terms, as 'classless' when, in point of fact, it is a uniquely racial outcome and, in a sense, flowering of sex in terms of culture and, for females, pseudo-civilization or, more correctly, pseudo-civility, the pseudo-metachemical counterpart to metaphysics and axial antithesis of anything metachemically barbarous and pseudo-metaphysically pseudo-philistine - the ruling principles of state-hegemonic axial criteria and therefore of those societies or countries rooted, autocratically, in upper-class values, the values of class per se.

I repudiate them and their occupational conspiracies against gender from a standpoint centred, Social Theocratically, in race, more specifically of the Gaelic culture that is testimony to ethnic fidelity through race, its underlying precondition.

In our own time it could be said that race has been set back and even besieged by class and, thus, by class-bound peoples whose allegiance is not to religion, as in the case fundamentally of the Catholic Irish, but to science, and therefore to that empirical objectivity which follows from an alpha-oriented disposition ruled, through females of a certain stamp, by the principle of class, not least in Hollywood-esque terms, which can only oppose 'racism', or racial selectivity, in its occupational exploitation of gender.

In such fashion are the gender-conscious and sexually active 'faithful' transfixed between the horns of a state-hegemonic axial dilemma which continues to war on them from the polar standpoints of class and occupation, meaning in the latter case profession, to the detriment of religious deliverance to an ethnically-conditioned culture attuned to the necessity of racial fidelity and, one might say, probity.

Unfortunately for the people concerned, who are in a natural sense 'the People', especially when Catholic or, more usually these days, lapsed Catholic (republican socialist), the old order of religious deliverance is inadequate to the task of delivering them from their worldly dilemma, which is why it must be overhauled, in countries like Ireland, by a new order of religion whose revolutionary nature will be up to the challenge and able, in the long term, to provide more 'spiritual sustenance', so to speak, than was ever possible before, i.e., in relation to the Roman Catholic tradition.

For me, there is only one solution - namely, Social Theocracy, about which I have written at great length over the years (see the best part of my published oeuvre).



The Truth is not something for me to reveal in public; it is for you to read in private.

Truth is not for everyone; by and large, most people lead lives contrary to it and could be expected to reject it ... from female and female-dominated male, or rather, pseudo-male positions (the so-called 'alpha male').

Christ spoke of being 'true to self', to one's self (though that can apply to either gender in opposite ways), but he didn't really know what Truth is, having asked a question to that effect. He fell short of it, as do many if not most so-called Christians, Roman Catholics not excepted.

Let me say, in a nutshell, what Truth is. Truth is the outer face, so to speak, of Heaven, the halo-like circle of light that subjectively results from the inner burning of the soul.

Truth, then, is the outer manifestation of grace, as a superconscious extrapolation from the inner manifestation of grace, which is joy in the being of soul. The analogy of candlelight to candle-flame is perfect for illustrating the relationship of Truth to Joy, as of God to Heaven, the superconscious quality of soul to the supersensible essence of soul, which is Being. All of which is metaphysical, and metaphysical in relation not to the bound soma of the Crucifixional paradigm, the Christic shortfall, as it were, from grace in wisdom, but to the free psyche of what may be called Heaven the Holy Soul, which is the necessary precondition of God the Father or, more correctly in this context, of godfatherliness, that psychic light stemming, halo-like, from the psychic flame that burns within and cannot be directly seen by empirical enquiry, only directly experienced and indirectly 'known' through its outer manifestation, which may well, at the genuinely human level (penultimate), be a close-lipped smile.



If Christ was 'the Word made Flesh', the pro-love flesh of 'Devil the Mother' turned, via the spirituality of 'Woman the Mother' or, more accurately in relation to the chemical resolution of metachemistry, 'Purgatory the Clear Spirit' (pride), into the so-called 'Son of Man', then I should like to think of myself as 'the Flesh made Word', the pro-heavenly word of 'God the Father' or, more correctly (for 'Devil the Mother' has been hyped as 'God the Father' for several millennia) the 'godfather' of Social Theocracy, without which there can be no 'Kingdom Come', but only a perpetuation of 'the world' beholden to 'Kingdom Gone', so to speak, as to the Flesh.

So instead of the Schopenhaurian noumenal-to-phenomenal regression, as from netherworldly to worldly criteria, let us rather endorse the superphenomenal-to-supernoumenal progression that leads from the world as we artificially know it to Eternity, and thus to otherworldly redemption for what can be termed the Elect of Metaphysics coupled to pseudo-netherworldly perdition for the Rejected of pseudo-Metachemistry, all those who, largely for reasons of gender, cannot be accommodated to the psychic freedom that will arise from the omega-oriented 'Word', or 'Superword', but must needs have their flesh constrained in what I habitually refer to as bound or, rather, pseudo-bound soma, neutralized lion- and/or wolf-like under the proverbial saintly heel of the metaphysically hegemonic (elect), for whom free psyche and bound soma would be a gender norm – psyche preceding and preponderating over soma in the case of males.



I have never been particularly partial to the London Underground, or of going anywhere in London by underground train, which, incidentally, I seldom if ever do. But I hadn't realized before now, whilst sitting in front of a painting of Piccadilly Circus and its underground steps in a north London café, what the London Underground signifies to me - namely, a kind of social democratic extrapolation from liberal democracy, as of proletarian humanism (sub-humanism) from the bourgeois variety, insofar as the Underground, coming off the street via flights of stairs that you can descend as into the jaws of hell, is the nadir of public transport, the nadir, one might say, of state-hegemonic axial criteria, stretching from northwest to southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, so to speak, and therefore something completely at variance with the sort of axial criteria that I, as an Irishman of Catholic descent living in London (poor fool!) tend to relate to - namely the church-hegemonic variety stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the said compass, which it would be my wish or intention to see 'stepped up', or 'resurrected', on more radically metaphysical terms, the terms, in a nutshell, of Social Theocracy, which would be completely independent of 'Cratorism' in back and therefore of the limitations accruing to an extrapolative 'straining on the leash', so to speak, that makes for a truncated metaphysics (bound soma) in the Crucifixional paradigm alluded to before.

Therefore as a self-professed Social Theocrat living in solitary exile in the British metropolis, it is no wonder that I find what I take to be a Social Democratic parallel, namely the London Underground rail system, unattractive and, indeed, downright repellent - as repellent, may I say, as homosexuality, which I also identify with a Social Democratic parallel, germane to the nadir of state-hegemonic axial criteria.

Since I have no time for such criteria, whether autocratic, so-called democratic (meaning plutocratic), or (in the neo-autocratic nadir) communistic, I make a point of avoiding the Underground, which to me is closer to being a social democratic nadir of public transport than to anything either bourgeois liberal or autocratically royalist.

Even standing in proximity to a square-topped bus stop, where, in London, there is a ringful red circle bisected by a horizontal bar inside the overall square design of the stop, is something I prefer to avoid, since that has always struck me as being tied-up with the ruling principle of state-hegemonic criteria, as though standing in a metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical relationship, approximately monarchic anglican in integrity, to anything physical/pseudo-chemical, that is to say, parliamentary puritan in character, like, presumably, most private cars and maybe even the mainline rail system.

Be that as it may, if standing in proximity to one of those square-topped London bus stops is bad enough from an Irish Catholic or, in my case, more radically Superchristian (Social Theocratic) point of view, what I find even worse is the eventual arrival of a red or predominantly red double-decker bus. For red has never been my favourite colour but, rather, one I would have no hesitation in identifying with all things hellish, including royalism, militarism, autocracy, materialism, fundamentalism, etc., quite apart from its proletarian association with the neo-autocracy of Communism, as of radical Social Democracy.

Rest assured that it is with the greatest reluctance that I step inside one of those red buses! It is certainly not something that I would go out of my way to do, any more than making a journey by underground train, since I am neither Social Democratic nor autocratic/plutocratic, but an Irishman of Roman Catholic descent unfortunate enough to have been brought up in Britain and to be still living in London, the capital of everything that I despise, including the four-square sequential time-keeping of Big Ben.

Funny, I haven't mentioned the congestion and crush of bodies going to and from work, nor the waiting, nor the ...



The so-called upper orders are always more conservative than the masses, meaning that they are prepared to 'go that extra mile', with good reason. For if they weren't, they wouldn't be on top for long. Therefore while they encourage the proletariat to take the easier, more convenient course, like dressing in T-shirts, they themselves make sure they keep to button-up shirts, with ties and buttoned jackets and/or coats, never or rarely zipper jackets.

To the proletariat, who do dress casually and, from their own standpoint, in a convenient and even hip or trendy manner, the bourgeoisie and their aristocratic counterparts appear conservative and 'old hat', even outdated and old-fashioned, since their habitual mode of attire is hardly 'hip'.

But, of course, it constitutes their ability to 'go that extra mile', the sort of mile the 'best schools', whether public or private, tend to encourage. For if you aren't capable of 'putting yourself out', 'going the extra mile', 'self-sacrifice', and generally making life difficult for yourself, as for others or, at any rate, certain others, you won't be 'on top' for long.

These people are conservative, in dress code as in so many other respects, because they are tough, both physically and mentally, and have to remain so in order to govern and/or rule. Casual this and that, which makes life easier if superficially predictable, is not for them. They are not 'mate' but 'sir', not 'love' but 'madam', and they strive to inspire fear in order to remain 'on top' in that predatory manner which has nothing whatsoever to do with Christian or more than Christian (superchristian) values, but is fundamentally heathen in its secular aloofness from such values, closer to the eagle than to the dove.



More than 2000 years after Christ, who was crucified by reaction, most people are so concerned, nay obsessed, with 'getting on in the world' that they have little or no time for anything or anyone else, and certainly little capacity for that human sympathy or even empathy (if suffering oneself) with suffering that comes from a feeling for one's fellow man.

To them, people are there to exploit for purposes of 'bettering their lot' and 'getting on in the world', even 'going up' in it. But there is a high price to pay, and their callous disregard for others, replicated and even exaggerated in countless films and other so-called cultural products like computer games and newspapers, is a symptom of it, of what could be called loss of feeling and abuse of soul, a peculiar kind of self-abuse that especially afflicts and characterizes state-hegemonic peoples as they go about their money-making careers and various exploitative schemes like so many automatons, bereft of soul and therefore of fellow feeling even, it has to be said, for one another.

These days, the only way to recapture one's soul or even to protect it, assuming you haven't lost it amidst the female-dominated materialism of the so-called 'free world', the secular world of the Christ-denying present, including, not least, the toilsome 'work-a-day' world of commerce and industry, public service and private gain, is to be against the system. For those who are against the plutocratic system that defers to constitutional autocracy, as in a Faustian pact with the Devil, grow closer to the spirit of Christ, which is compassion for others, though especially those who are the victims of this materialistic, greed-oriented, bitch-ridden, secular state-hegemonic system whose axis, the bitter fruit of schismatic heresy many centuries ago, is geared to predatory exploitation of what used to be called 'the meek', but what I shall simply refer to as the masses, whether lapsed Catholic or otherwise; though especially, I would say, to those who are axially opposed to state-hegemonic criteria, which should include the majority of Roman Catholics or people of Catholic or analogous descent, for whom the prospect of deliverance from their lowly plight is an article of faith which still requires to be realized. If there is still a shred of meekness (pseudo-males) and/or pseudo-vanity (females) in them, then they will go along with the prospect of righteousness (males) and/or pseudo-justice (pseudo-females) 'On High', with the Social Theocratic 'resurrection' of their church-hegemonic axis under approximately 'Second Coming-esque' (messianic) auspices in due course. For what alternative is there?



Hammering workmen are akin to boxers, that is, they are a species of 'sons-of-bitches', or pseudo-physical pseudo-males (so-called 'alpha males') who are objectively jerked and/or sucked off by an effectively, if not literally, female hegemonic control which results in persistent pseudo-subjectivity, or pseudo-convergence, along the lines of a punch or, in the case of hammerers, a hammer blow. The hammerer and/or boxer with his fist raised, in salute, would be a contradiction in terms. He is not really free, despite pseudo-free somatic appearances to the contrary, but preponderantly psychically pseudo-bound, under female-hegemonic control, whether in metachemistry or, lower down, in chemistry. His sinfulness precludes free speech or, more correctly, free thought, that is, psychic freedom, which, in any case, he despises or, rather, opposes and belittles. It is for this reason that the intellectual should not court the worker, but rather strive to master and control him in the long-term interests of his deliverance from his lowly plight.



Beauty wears a painted face and struts around in high boots, like some kind of autocratic highness determined to exploit her looks and movements to a reproductive end.

Sometimes an analogy with a German officer of the old, or Prussian, school crosses my mind in connection with these boot-strutting females, I can't say with any real pleasure.



Crime writers are virtual criminals, the lowest species of fiction writer whose literary criminality is only surpassed by the purveyors of crime drama, whether on the stage or in the cinema, that is to say, whether theatrically or cinematically - the difference, I suspect, between bourgeois (Western) decadence and proletarian (global) barbarism, which also includes television and the ever-popular serialization of crime drama. Ugh! A world in which the beauty of evil and the ugliness of crime, the love of the one and the hatred of the other, are literally as well as virtually sovereign.

Unlike vanity, justice is not an ideal, the ideal, so to speak, of females, but a mere concomitant of male hegemonic pressure in pseudo-righteousness, and therefore merely polar, on a low state-hegemonic axial basis, to the highness of vanity, which likes to parade its evil/crime all over the place, ever clear that it - and not the goodness/punishment of justice - 'calls the shots', not least in relation to crime drama and, to a lesser extent, crime fiction. Though, in fairness to the latter, the crime novelist, a pseudo-chemical pseudo-female (whether literally or effectively through male quasi-pseudo-female gender perversion), should be more interested in solving crime than in simply perpetuating it like, I have to say, so many crime dramatists.



In music, not least Rock, arguably the contemporary form of music par excellence, percussion (drums) is the most objectively concrete aspect of an ensemble's collective endeavour, and stands in marked contrast to wind, the most subjectively abstract instruments, like alpha to omega, or noumenal expression to noumenal impression, space and time.

Lower down and in between, as it were, comes the relatively concrete and abstract antithesis of guitars and strings or, for that matter, organs and pianos, as though in an alpha/omega distinction between phenomenal expression and phenomenal impression, volume and mass.

Without going into too much tricky detail (for some instruments can be both expressive and impressive, staccato and legato, like grand pianos), there are expressive/impressive differences within the guitar family of instruments, as between bass and lead, as there are within the strings family between the double bass and 'cello on the one hand and, rather more impressively, the viola and violin on the other hand.

Organs, too, are divisible, like pianos, in this way, with foot pedals giving more of an expressive, bass-like staccato dimension and, in contrast, wind-stops enabling the organist to explore a pipe-like legato effect analogous to wind, a family itself divisible between brass and woodwind, with the former apt to be more expressive or, at any rate, pseudo-impressive and the latter more consistently impressive, a distinction that also obtains in percussion, as between drums, particularly with the use of drum sticks rather than brushes, and hand percussion, the latter less expressive than pseudo-expressive, and therefore as much the subordinate gender corollary of or accompaniment to wind instruments like the flute (a combination traditionally much in evidence in Indian classical music) ... as brass instruments, including the saxophone, tend to accompany, albeit on a subordinate plane (as pseudo-time under space) the expressively percussive dominance of drums, particularly of the heavy driving rhythms so often found in jazz.

Even the human voice is divisible, along alpha/omega, expressive/impressive lines between its female and male forms, with the somatic objectivity of the female voice tending towards either pitch or melody, if not both, and the psychic subjectivity of the male voice, when properly employed as such, tending, by contrast, towards either harmony or rhythm, both of which are less concrete than abstract, if with what could be called a physical/metaphysical distinction between the phenomenal subjectivity, as it were, of vocal harmony and the noumenal subjectivity, higher up, of vocal rhythm, the chant-like nature of which would be rather more metaphysical than physical and correspondingly less molecular than elemental in its particular order of abstraction, in marked contrast to the 'female' distinction between the noumenal objectivity, as it were, of vocal pitch, ever metachemical, and the phenomenal objectivity, lower down, of vocal melody, which would correspond to a chemical status, in overall Elemental terms, that would be a rather more molecular than elemental mode of concretion, reflecting the female predilection for soma (body) as opposed, like male singing (when 'true' to itself) for psyche (mind), and thus for that which, in gender terms, can only be secondary in its impressive subjectivity, whether phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or ethereal, molecular or elemental, to whatever is female, because expressively objective and having more to do, in contrast, with particles than wavicles, with the individual, so to speak, than the collective, given a vacuous precondition that is in marked contrast to the plenum one would more usually characterize as male.

Thus whether in terms of artificial instrumentation or, indeed, natural (vocal) instrumentation, a distinction exists - and has long existed - in music between the concrete and the abstract, soma and psyche, body and mind, particles and wavicles, the will and spirit of elemental pitch and molecular melody on the one hand (female), and the ego and soul of molecular harmony and elemental rhythm on the other hand (male), the latter of which will tend, as a rule, to stand in a secondary relationship to the former, whether as harmony to melody in the phenomenal (corporeal) or as rhythm to pitch in the noumenal (ethereal); though this will be especially so in what could be called the deference, subordinate gender-wise, of pseudo-rhythm to pitch where metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics is concerned (northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass) and of pseudo-harmony to melody where chemistry and pseudo-physics is concerned (southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass), as between female and pseudo-male alternatives that rather contrast with male pretensions or aspirations to hegemonic dominance over females in metaphysics and physics, whether in terms of a pseudo-melodic deference to harmony in physics over pseudo-chemistry (at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) or of a pseudo-pitchful deference to rhythm in metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry (at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass), the latter pairing arguably the ne plus ultra of musical development and/or evolution, which tends to involve wind and hand percussion or some such synthetically artificial equivalents in our own time, germane to the most religious of contexts at the head of church-hegemonic axial criteria, so to speak, where we find a kind of St George and neutralized Dragon-like contrast (lamb and neutralized lion and/or wolf) between the male triumph of metaphysics, signifying the utmost rhythmic transcendentalism and/or idealism, and the female subjection to metaphysics in the form of pseudo-metachemistry, significant of the utmost pseudo-pitchful pseudo-fundamentalism and/or pseudo-materialism, as though symbolic, in overall gender terms, of pseudo-space under time, as of noumenal pseudo-expression (pseudo-objectivity) under noumenal impression (subjectivity), the structure proper to 'Kingdom Come' conceived as signifying the ultimate triumph of religion, as of soul, over what could be called pseudo-science, whose pseudo-will would be forever subordinate in pseudo-bound soma to the free psyche of metaphysical soul, the soul of souls and graceful end of evolution in true being.



Like Frederick Delius, who didn't think much of English music – had he never heard of Parry? - and believed his music existed in a league of its own, I, too, can say that, with the possible exception of Bertrand Russell, whose writings I avidly devoured as a youth, I don't think much of English philosophy and that my philosophy, the product of several decades' toil, exists in a league of its own, not particularly related to anything English or British.... Which makes a certain amount of sense really, since I am someone of Irish birth and of Catholic descent who, as an Irish citizen, happens to be living in England, compliments of a childhood transference from the land of my birth which happened, needless to say, without my knowledge or consent, and long before I was old enough to realize the enormity of what had transpired.

So as a Galway-born Irishman long exiled in England, home of heretical state-hegemonic axial criteria, I have every reason to believe that my philosophy exists in a league of its own, unrecognized by the British and never likely, in consequence of their inherent hostility towards church-hegemonic axial criteria, no matter how radical or revolutionary, to be granted recognition or endorsement by them, not only because of the above but also because they could have no advantage in crediting a man of Irish Catholic descent from the West of Ireland with philosophical genius when to do so would undermine or, rather, only emphasize their own want of such, quite apart from compromising their ethnic incapacity, as Protestants (presided over by Jews) to approach Truth from a religious and effectively church-hegemonic angle, as well as undermine their sense of entitlement to recognition of whatever paltry or ideologically insignificant philosophical pedantry rank and privilege, fostered by the 'best education' at the most expensive schools and colleges, has, in England, an almost 'divine right' to, irrespective of their own ethnically-conditioned limitations and incapacities as philosophers.

God forbid that a socially-disadvantaged Irishman of Catholic descent, born in the West of Ireland but brought up, after a fashion, in first Aldershot (the enormity of it!) and then Carshalton or, more correctly, Carshalton Beeches, should be recognized for his remarkable achievements in original philosophy at the risk of putting them, with all the education of social privilege that money can buy, in a poor light, one that not only emphasises the limitations inherent in equating rank and privilege with innate ability, but exposes the want of a capacity for Truth that are characteristic of certain types of ethnicity and therefore of an inability, on their part, to understand or relate to much of what I write, as well as prove that anyone who has a genuine talent for original philosophy will have a determination to carry on come what may, irrespective of circumstances and the obstacles that such people knowingly or unknowingly put in his way.

No, I expect nothing from these Englishmen and, to date, have not received one iota of encouragement, let alone recognition, from them with regard to my philosophy and writings in general ever since I began in earnest over three decades ago. We live in parallel if opposite axial universes, and I 'do my thing' in spite of them and their gross pretensions to philosophical or literary excellence. Like Delius, whose music I quite admire, since it was largely the product of a German mind and Germany, as we all know (or should know) remains a beacon of European culture and musical excellence despite more recent British pretensions in that field.

The British could never hope to compete with me, any more than they could compete with James Joyce; for, like him, I am a creative law unto myself which defies and transcends national boundaries, even those of Ireland, as I advance my universal cause through Social Theocracy and my philosophy in general - arguably the best since Aristotle in its Element-based comprehensively-exacting logical structures. Shaw, Yeats, Joyce ... O'Loughlin, if you want to add philosophical genius to that of drama, poetry, and prose fiction. For I am, after all, technically Irish, despite the seeming inability of the Irish literary establishment, like their English counterparts, to recognize me or my work and give credit where credit is due, largely, I suspect, for similar reactionary reasons identifiable with vested class interests and conservative thinking tinged with too much dramatic concretion and poetic fancy to be capable of acknowledging anything so abstractly removed from the usual alpha-stemming or even oriented patterns of contemporary life.

Too bad, but then being neither properly Irish nor properly English, Catholic nor Protestant, republican nor royalist, I am in the best possible position to identify with the Germans, whose culture, cinematic as well as musical and philosophical, I love and daily admire. As, I suspect, did the great Frederick Delius, idealist and Nietzschean scholar to the core. Saluté!



Mankind is not the same as a 'brotherhood of man'. Even a 'brotherhood of man' implies brotherly relations between males, and makes no reference to females, who could only be described in terms of a 'sisterhood of woman', or something to that effect.

But, of course, there could be no possibility of a 'brotherhood of man', a physical term which I prefer, as a self--professed Social Theocrat, to reinterpret in relation to metaphysics and thus to a 'brotherhood of superman', so to speak, if there did not also exist a 'sisterhood of woman' or, less chemically and more pseudo-metachemically, a 'pseudo-sisterhood of pseudo-superwoman', as it were, who would correspond to the proverbial neutralized dragon under the saintly heel, not to mention the neutralized lion and/or wolf under the lamb of godliness or, more specific to metaphysics, heavenliness, since metaphysics is an elemental context with a fulcrum in soul rather than ego, or the nearest equivalent to ego in this context, namely superego or, better (since I do not wish to confound brain stem with spinal cord) superconscious mind.

Such superconsciousness, whilst it might be godly, is merely the halo-like circumference germane to the inner feeling of the soul's being, and has absolutely no independent existence whatsoever, any more than candlelight could possibly exist without candle-flame - a metaphor dear to the heart of the Roman Catholic Church.

So a 'brotherhood of superman' requires, as subordinate gender corollary, a 'pseudo-sisterhood of pseudo-superwoman', if a structure favouring the former is to result and continue as the necessary structural mean, if not necessarily basis, for a context analogous, in its metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical differentiation, to 'Kingdom Come', one characterized not by humanist values, as with the proverbial 'brotherhood of man', but by superhuman ones, and thereby by that which is both heavenly and godly in the freely psychic male and, by gender contrast, pseudo-devilish and pseudo-hellish in the pseudo-unfreely somatic pseudo-female - a gender representative contrast, in relation to their opposite fulcra, between the free soul of metaphysics and the bound or, rather, pseudo-bound will of pseudo-metachemistry, thus equating, in overall terms, with a saint/neutralized dragon-like paradigm, to name but one of our paradigmatic options.

Now as for mankind, nothing, as I believe I have written before (see, for instance, 'Occupational Species' from A Visit to Hell, a collection of short prose going back to the late '70s) nothing, I say, could be further from the truth than to equate this term with some kind of 'brotherhood', since, quite apart from gender, one has to allow for the many other differences which put mankind on a par with the animal kind or the bird kind or even the insect kind, not to mention the fish kind (if there is such a term) and reptiles of one sort or another; that is, as a kind of life riven by predator and prey dichotomies, whether on the basis of class or of occupation or even of race and ethnicity, quite apart from the gender division alluded to above which I believe to be more fundamental to the perpetual friction and constant warring of mankind upon itself, as, no doubt, of the animal and other kinds upon themselves, and even of one kind upon another, as in the case of birds upon fish or of insects upon animals or, hardly less significant, of men upon everything else.

So, quite apart from their own frictional clashes, mankind also finds the time and inclination to war upon other kinds and to use them to their own advantage, whatever that may be. Because if you don't, in some sense, war upon them, they will as sure-as-hell war upon you, and sometimes with terrifying, not to say catastrophic, results, as in the case of those micro-organisms that decimate men and animals alike in their thirst for life and hunger for blood.

But is there not a dichotomy in mankind, over and above the normal predator/prey distinctions, between those who war the most and those who find themselves most warred upon - a dichotomy, in other words, that to some extent transcends gender, occupation, and class, since stemming more insidiously from race, from a certain ethnic disposition (when ethnicity can be identified with a given racial strain, viz. Caucasian, rather than religiously applied to peoples whose racial origins or characteristics might be of quite varied provenance).

I think there is, and in the twentieth century this proclivity towards war and aggression 'came out' most virulently in the form of the Nazis, with its 'blond beast' association of what was most Germanic and Nordic with blue-eyed, blond-haired Aryans. It may be that the Aryan is not always blue-eyed and blond-haired, but those whom Hitler (himself no archetype model) most esteemed certainly were. This 'coming out' of the Aryan or, more specifically, white race had already been in motion, as it were, for some time, even before the twentieth century, and it seems to me that where most imperial aggression and interference in other cultures has taken place, it has been the product, by and large, of white nations, or of white peoples seeking nationhood, as in the case of European settlers in and emigrants to America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and other such places formerly occupied exclusively by coloureds.

Does it not seem, then, that a dichotomy opened up - nurtured during the emergence of Empires to world dominion - between white and coloured peoples, the latter of whom should not be confined to negroid or mongoloid racial types but also embrace the various Indian tribes and peoples, not to mention Arabs, who deserve better than to be regarded as a darker species of caucasoid, akin to the French or Latins.

Yet, whatever their racial origins or geographical locations, it can be said that coloured people have this much in common; not only are they more the victims of imperial aggression and exploitation than the perpetrators of it in recent centuries (with the possible exception of the Japanese) but, in contrast to white people, they all look approximately alike, that is, they have some degree of brown skin, dark hair, dark brown if not black eyes, thereby contrasting with the greater heterogeneity of the white race, who can have as many different hair and eye colours as you care to name, not just the aforementioned blue-eyed and blond-haired characteristics of the archetype Nordic.

Therefore if there is indeed a dichotomy between white and coloured, as based on the evidence of recent history, surely it is one between polychrome and monochrome, that is, between alpha and omega, sensuality and sensibility, divergence and convergence, centrifugal and centripetal, expression and impression, devolution and evolution, as between will and soul on the ethereal planes of space and time, and spirit and ego on the corporeal planes of volume and mass.

It would appear that the polychromatic disposition of white peoples connotes with an alpha-stemming if not, in some instances (for instance, Jews) alpha-oriented disposition which not only puts them at loggerheads with the generality of coloured peoples, but gives them an aggressive tendency, rooted in a vacuum, which leads to imperialism and thus to 'world domination' and to the correlative subjugation, as so many slaves or cheap labourers or menial servants, of the coloured peoples upon whom they prey.

And yet the inner disposition of the majority of these preyed-upon coloured peoples is to remain, in unapologetic self-fidelity, true to the ideals of culture and civility and to carry on, as best they can, with the cultivation of art and personal not to say universal standards that most whites would be at pains to comprehend, let alone pursue themselves.

I believe that we do not understand history until we get to the bottom of what drives it and has led to today's world which, despite its horrors, is not without hope for the consolidation and development of ends that require monochrome preconditions and could not exist, much less flourish, without a racial predisposition towards being.



Man has brought about his own downfall - through the Machine.

What began with the Industrial Revolution in Britain and Europe has gathered worldwide momentum as it accelerates towards its apotheosis in the Cyborg, not only robots and cybernetics, but the actual supersession of Man through cyborgistic self-overcoming and the eventual rule of the race destined to supplant the human race in the evolutionary chain.

Even now man is nothing to himself or to others; a mere means, as salesmen, to the end of the Machine or, for those with the latest technologies, a vehicle for their utilization and implementation, by which I mean the pleasure of using them on others or showing off their use or just being seen with them, with a view to enhancing one's prestige as somebody who, scarcely human any more, is nevertheless 'with it', if not exactly hip then at least trendy, and able to impress others with one's technological prowess or, as some might say, know-how.

With a dwindling number of exceptions, people are no longer interested in people for their own sake; only on account of the machines they possess or, failing that, their willingness to act as technological guinea pigs or to submit to inter-machine relationships. When, for instance, they communicate with one another (to the extent that they still do) via their mobile phones or their laptops or tablets or pocket PCs or what have you, most of them are actually communicating with their machines, with the person with whom they are in conversation as a kind of means to that end, an opportunity to use the cell phone or hand-held device or whatever.

Many if not most conversations could just as easily be carried on face-to-face, over dinner or in some public space, not to say in the privacy of one's home, but, although a degree of that necessarily still happens (doubtless after a desultory fashion), such a back-to-nature approach to human relations wouldn't suit those for whom other people are merely a voice, necessarily distorted and/or transmuted, coming out of their machines or perhaps even a photo or video which it has been the good fortune of somebody to send by way of proving their ability to do so and aptitude for the 'high life'.

Then they have contemporary value and can be accorded a degree of qualified respect. But as people in their own right, independently of the photos or text messages or calls, forget it! The age of humanism is dead or dying, and dying so fast that nothing but a faint echo of former times remains, times when it was still possible, despite the gradual encroachment of the Machine, to hold actual face-to-face conversations with somebody.

Oh well, what the hell. Man's overcoming will be all the easier for the race that lies beyond mankind, like an alien in his flying saucer or space ship, who is only interested in his final downfall, his last gasping breath and ultimate demise. That day is not so far off as some people may think; for man has paid a considerable price for his industrial and technological gains, a price akin to having sold his soul to the Devil in return for material wealth and so-called technological progress, and there is only one way that he can be redeemed and rescued, by a godly race enamoured of Heaven, from the sorry state of hollowness, or loss of soul, in which he now finds himself, and that is through the eventual filling of the void of that hollowness with artificial or synthetic substances that will return him to something approaching a state of grace, not, however, as a human being (which to all intents and purposes he ceased to be some time ago), but as a higher order of being akin to the Cyborg that, with the benefit of enhanced technology and new, altogether unprecedented applications of cybernetics to himself, will have the ability to handle the synthetic enhancements of self, and therefore of soulful being (coupled, subordinately, with pseudo-wilful pseudo-doing for pseudo-females), in a way and to a degree that would be impossible on any other basis, including the contemporary pro-superhuman basis that is in large part a revolt against the Machine and its materialistic culture but not, on that account, the final solution to the problem of what happens when the world becomes nothing more than the technological plaything of the Devil.



I can't believe that Jean-Paul Sartre was a philosopher - at least not a genuine one. What makes it especially difficult, apart from the turgidity and obscurantism of much of his work, is that he also wrote plays and, to my way of thinking, plays and philosophy are completely incompatible - even absolutely antithetical on the noumenal (ethereal) planes of space and time, where we have a kind of alpha/omega distinction between objective concretion and subjective abstraction, as between completely opposite and unrelated worlds, like beauty and truth - the former superfeminine in its metachemical elemental particles and the latter supermasculine in its metaphysical elemental wavicles.

Therefore unless Sartre's drama is to be regarded as pseudo-dramatic, which, if less will and more spirit, less action and more speech, it could well qualify as being, there is no way that one could also be a serious and, to any appreciable extent, genuine philosopher; though a pseudo-philosopher, more essayistic than aphoristic in form and generally given to turgid if not prolix verbiage of the sort Sartre seems to have favoured from time to time, he assuredly could have been, albeit from a contrary gender standpoint (masculine male) than would characterize the writing, not to say writers, of genuine drama (with its superfeminine female implications in relation to free will).

If, indeed, Sartre was given to both genuine drama and pseudo-philosophy, as I suspect, he would have been state-hegemonically polar with gender cross-over from free will in the one context to free ego in the other - an uncommon but not improbable paradox for a Frenchman of Protestant ethnicity.

If, on the other hand, Sartre was more partial to pseudo-drama and genuine philosophy, which I doubt, he would have been church-hegemonically polar with gender cross-over from free spirit in the one context to free soul in the other - an equally uncommon but not improbable paradox if, unlike Sartre, you happen to be a man of Irish or even French Catholic ethnicity.

Either way, one has a kind of bi-polar literary disorder that is difficult if not impossible to justify or rationalize, especially since the alpha/omega alternatives, whether noumenal (ethereal) and absolute or phenomenal (corporeal) and relative, involving both genuine drama and genuine philosophy on the one hand, but pseudo-drama and pseudo-philosophy on the other, defy ethnic pigeon-holing and either make no gender sense whatsoever or, at least in the case of phenomenal relativity, suggest a creative, not to say axial, instability that is both ethnically and sexually paradoxical, with an antithesis between free spirit and free ego, strength and knowledge, pride and pleasure, volume and mass, objective concretion and subjective abstraction within the corporeal context of a distinction between the femininity of chemical molecular particles and the masculinity of physical molecular wavicles - an incompatible not to say implausible state-of-affairs, since free spirit can only function properly if there is no competition from the ego, as from masculine male criteria, which has to be neutralized for such spirit, avowedly feminine female in character, to have its objectivistic concrete way, and then at the expense not of philosophers, still less novelists, but of poets, the type of the pseudo-man par excellence.

What, then, was Sartre? I think I have answered that question satisfactorily. He was certainly not a genuine philosopher, or metaphysical aphorist with a leaning towards the transcendent (although there are intimations of such in his notebooks, as though in a personal aside to his principal publications). Neither, as far as I can tell, was he a genuine dramatist, more given to will than to spirit, to a Shavian dramatic pose within a context overly disposed to action as the supreme mode of drama or dramatic presentation. I think he toyed with drama largely from a polemical point of view, as in 'Nakrassov' and, to a lesser extent, 'Altona', without, however, wholeheartedly committing himself to a theatrical vocation, like, say, Wilde or Shaw or even Samuel Beckett, not to mention Ionesco. I believe he was more of a fiction writer, both short and, especially, long (novel) prose, who dabbled, whenever he could or had to, in other things, not excepting journalism and ... pseudo-philosophy, which is probably the closest one comes to knowing who or what Sartre was, that is, a pseudo-philosopher who, like so many other writers both before and since, found it necessary, whether commercially or professionally or even politically, to cross over the gender fence from a masculine literary art form to a pseudo-feminine one (at least in the case of novels, i.e. long prose such as the 'Roads to Freedom' trilogy) without in the least suspecting that, by so doing, he was compromising - not to say undermining and vitiating - his integrity as a man, and precisely in terms of being a quasi-pseudo-woman. As they say, where ignorance is bliss ...



The particular individuality of the objective female vis-à-vis the wavicular collectivity of the subjective male - a perpetual struggle between alpha and omega, somatic freedom and somatic binding, psychic binding and psychic freedom, evil (to speak in general terms) and wisdom, crime and grace, in a world torn between conflicting antitheses and striving towards stability in some androgynous compromise which some people term Christianity and others, of a more secular persuasion, liberalism, but all of whom agree to be a moderate alternative to the exclusionistic absolutism of gender extremism.

For me, on the other hand, there is only one solution: the salvation of the unsaved and the damnation of the undamned; for that alone can lead to the end of 'the world' ... conceived, needless to say, in Christian or liberal terms ... and to all that, whether autocratic or democratic, bureaucratic or plutocratic, would preclude the coming to pass of 'Kingdom Come', the paradisical outcome of the historical process whereby the dialectical struggle between alpha and omega, particles and wavicles, objectivity and subjectivity, individualism and collectivism, is transcended in favour of a triumphant metaphysics for ever hegemonic over a vanquished pseudo-metachemistry, the neutralized dragon (pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother) of a pseudo-alpha under the victorious heel of the saintly ultimate omega of Heaven the Holy Soul.



For a female it is more natural to become part of a couple than to remain single. For a male, on the other hand, it is more sensible to remain single than to become part of a couple - as a rule, the lesser part. Indeed, it could be said that we males have a kind of God-given right to resist the blandishments and encroachments of females.

When females become part of a couple they usually do so in the interests of reproduction. When males become part of a couple they generally do so for purposes of coupling.

It may be, in an adult sense, sex that distinguishes the men from the boys, but in the case of females it can only be kids that distinguish the women from the girls.

If the female elects to dance in freely somatic vein, the chances are that the male or, more correctly in this context, the pseudo-male will go into a pseudo-trance, thereby playing 'second fiddle' to the female. If, by contrast, the male elects to go into a freely psychic trance, the chances are that the female or, rather, the pseudo-female will become obliged to pseudo-dance in pseudo-bound somatic vein, thereby playing 'second fiddle' to the male.

You can't really have it both ways. Either space (spatially) rules pseudo-time (sequential) in the case of free females and pseudo-bound males, or time (repetitively) leads pseudo-space (spaced) in the case of the free male and pseudo-bound female. The one couple is alpha and pseudo-omega; the other ... omega and pseudo-alpha.



With women cosmetically worshipping themselves and men sexually worshipping women, it is little wonder that most conventional religion revolves around worship - worship of the Given, whether of the so-called Father (Creator), of the so-called Mother of God (Mary), of the so-called Son of God, Son of Man (Christ), and so on, with hardly any place for the male transcendence of worship through psychic self-realization and a rejection, implicit or otherwise, of 'the world', meaning that female-dominated reality to which the majority of males usually defer and/or succumb, depending on one's point of view.

The masses will never de-mystify themselves wrote Ionesco in his Journal en Miettes, least of all, it could be added, from worship of the Given. And yet, while Western decadence in the form of Protestant Christianity persists, with females sometimes found in the pulpits of the principal Protestant churches, it can also be said that global barbarism/philistinism is becoming ever more prevalent, with its feminist disregard for 'bourgeois values' and effective atheistic contempt of Christianity and much if not all conventional religion.

But what does this mean for the male or, more correctly, pseudo-male 'sonofabitch' who does not, unlike sections of the bourgeoisie and the even older Catholic peasants and/or aristocrats, have the benefit of 'the faith' to draw upon. It means - does it not? - that he is all the more vulnerable to the predations of females and to any correlative occult religion which, unlike its Christian forerunners, is more open to all things alpha, including, not least, the dominance of females over contemporary society.

That, I have to say, is really quite a problem. But the only way of solving it, and of giving the pseudo-male the benefit of male faith in religious salvation, is through the gradual introduction of true religion, that is, of religion that is not about worshipping the status quo, at any stage or manifestation of its unfolding, but about male liberation from female dominion and the beginnings of a metaphysical transcendentalism/idealism that will have the moral authority to subordinate all things female to itself in terms of a pseudo-fundamentalist/pseudo-materialist pseudo-metachemical deference to metaphysical truth by that which, in pseudo-female guise, will no longer be in a position to 'call the shots', but have to acquiesce, through somatic neutralization, in the psychic peace through freedom of the liberated male. 

I call this the basic inner structure of 'Kingdom Come' and readers will know that I identify such a structure, together with its outer, or serving, counterpart, with Social Theocracy/Transcendentalism, in which self-realization for the metaphysical male will be a heavenly right premised upon complete independence from the alpha, and thus from any form or degree of Creator Worship.

This is the religion of free males, not of slaves to ... females.



All the snot that dwells in close proximity to the brain, and which we eject, usually by blowing one's nose, on a regular if not daily basis - how ironic and at the same time paradoxically indicative of the human condition, which is more complicated than words can describe.

All in all, I have always detested people who hold with 'The Creator', as though one should be grateful to such an entity - allegedly all-powerful - for life, irrespective of the countless afflictions, humiliations, disabilities, aches, pains, worries, fears, agonies, mental torments, etc., etc. which characterize it, even for comparatively fortunate people.

Really, it is enough to make one sick, to hear people going on about 'The Creator', as though it were some kind of benevolent Father-figure full of love for his creations, including women.

Well, let me say this: the sooner this attitude is not merely undermined but actively consigned to the rubbish heap of religious history, the better! Such a Creator, if it existed (which, in a manner of speaking, I guess it does, if rather more, I contend, in stellar than in solar terms) would be far more female than male in constitution and effectively equivalent not to God the Father (a convenient male-engineered subterfuge), but to what I habitually term Devil the Mother, meaning a stellar-like cosmic body at the roots not simply of the Cosmos but, by extrapolation, of nature and everything that naturally stems from nature in, for instance, animal or human guise.

A truly-civilized kind, more superhuman than human, would know what to think of this paradoxical subterfuge and, in rejecting it, would turn towards what properly appertains to God or, more correctly, religion as a manifestation of metaphysics, and not just any stage of metaphysics but, to anticipate the future, an ultimate (cyborgistic) stage of metaphysics commensurate with a metaphysical per se - namely, Heaven the Holy Soul and, by extrapolative implication, godliness and/or godfatherliness as the outer face, as it were, of Heaven, like candlelight to candle-flame.

But this would only apply to males, not to females, who more directly stem, after all, from Devil the Mother, or the so-called Father, Creator, Almighty, etc., whose beautiful free will, corresponding, in metachemistry, to power per se, has nothing whatsoever to do with the truthful free soul of graceful contentment which I have termed Heaven the Holy Soul, and know to be metaphysical.

Such an ultimate state-of-affairs, appertaining to 'Kingdom Come', so to speak, would have more to do with the attainment to an Ultimate Creation in supreme being (for the metaphysical) than with any traditional worship of the primal doing (on a metachemical basis) of the so-called Creator, which, as alluded to above, would have to have been consigned to the proverbial rubbish heap of history in order that its omega antithesis could be developed and properly established as the form of true religion, of religion that is completely independent of Creatorism, so to speak, and, hence, of the falsehood of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, the Lie at the roots of the Judeo-Christian tradition.



The progressive or, rather, ongoing democratization of life inexorably leads to ... what? More gender equalitarianism and such-like erosions of distinctions between the sexes that a higher order of society, whether autocratic or theocratic (though especially theocratic), would find not only feasible but morally necessary. Bah! Democracy reduces everything to the lowest-common-denominator, as, in a different way, does its corporeal antithesis - plutocracy, engaged in a Faustian pact with autocracy for the mutual exploitation of the democratic.

Relations between the sexes are characterized by sex, i.e. coitus, which means that, in general terms, the male view of females is as an 'ass' to fuck, which, it has to be said, is a rather low order of relationship and one that, except in the case of the overly corporeal and doubtless democratic male, would hardly merit an attitude of equality, much less of gender equalitarianism.

Contemporary life is less characterized by gender equalitarianism, in any case, than by the dominion of females, not just in relation to feminism but even, paradoxically, in terms of the bourgeois decadence of female priests, meaning vicars, ministers, etc., in Protestant pulpits. Such female vicars are unlikely to advise the males of their respective types of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate congregations to leave females, i.e. wives, sisters, mothers, girlfriends, etc., in order to 'take up the Cross' and follow Christ into a male hegemonic, if not exclusive, salvation from female dominion. Sadly, bourgeois decadence would be even less qualified to give that kind of advice than would the bourgeois rejection, through Protestantism, of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, which, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, at least grants a monk-like opt-out clause from the worldly norms of female predation and, via families, domination, even if few of the 'sinful' ever take it up, least of all in a comparatively secular age of republican socialism and some degree of 'Liberty Leading the People' (that famous republican painting by the inappropriately names Delacroix), meaning the male being taken for a reproductive ride, in clockwise fashion, by the dominant female, for ever identifiable with what is both democratic and - wait for it – autocratic, without even the benefit of church-hegemonic axial pretensions.

Beauty is not equalitarian.



In a global age, such as ours, the metaphysics of race is universal and therefore superhuman on supermasculine terms, whereas what could be called the pseudo-metachemistry of pseudo-class is pseudo-polyversal and therefore pseudo-superhuman on pseudo-superfeminine terms - supercross and pseudo-superstar of the elemental and pseudo-elemental equivalents of saint and neutralized dragon or, alternatively, lamb and neutralized lion and/or wolf, which amounts to a chromosomal distinction between the male Y (triumphant over his own X, as exemplified by the bound soma of the Crucifixional paradigm) and the female or, rather, pseudo-female neutralized XX.

The ultimate metaphysics of race and the ultimate pseudo-metachemistry of pseudo-class will remain in a seeming complementarity of Eternity and pseudo-Infinity as the appropriate structural mode of 'Kingdom Come' which, I contend, will only have come with the Social Theocratic Centre, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in the event of a successful utilization of the democratic process in countries with the right kind of traditional axial preconditions, necessarily church-hegemonic, by Social Theocracy to that end.

Other and anterior kinds of metaphysics, where race is either primitive in relation to its cosmic manifestation or tribal in relation to its natural manifestation or national if not international in relation to its humanist manifestation ... will have no relevance to this global metaphysics of racial superhumanism, which will become increasingly cyborgistic in its universal unfolding.



Papal infallibility may once have been useful for keeping autocratic monarchs in line, but these days, even though Catholicism is a Western anachronisms with universal pretensions, there would seem to be scant justification for it - at least in relation to monarchs, a majority of whom would be constitutional even in Catholic countries, never mind their Protestant counterparts in countries like Britain, whose apostate monarchic systems have mellowed over the course of time.

On the other hand, the concept of infallibility from a theological as opposed to politically pragmatic point of view is even less credible, in view of the fact that infallibility, if it is to mean anything, must surely mean infallible in relation to Truth, that is, incapable of error in relation to faith and morality, not to say doctrine.

But the Catholic Church manifestly falls short of Truth by dint of its adherence to Illusion, to the bound soma of metaphysics epitomized by the Crucifixional paradigm, at the expense of metaphysical free psyche, which has always been 'beyond the (catholic) pale' on account of its extrapolative nature from metachemical Creatorism and kind of straining on the leash via worldly relativity and an almost androgynous corporeality towards the furthest point from metachemistry, namely metaphysics, without being able to achieve, on such a basis, anything but a truncated metaphysics (bound soma) that is susceptible, for want of free psyche, to being 'done down' pseudo-metachemically, in terms of a 'sacred heart' parallelism, from fear that transcendental meditation could get out of the bag, as it were, of 'sacred lungs' to which metaphysical bound soma, including the Son-of-Godly Crucifixional paradigm and metaphor for bound will, would be entitled, but at the expense, necessarily, of the so-called Father (Creator), meaning, in effect, Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father as, historically, the 'best of a bad job' starting-point of monotheistic civilization in its Judaic roots and, subsequently, Christian extrapolative flowering, a situation that the Church could not condone, much less encourage, without putting its own existence as an alpha-stemming but somewhat limited omega-oriented phenomenon in grave jeopardy.

Where, then, is the basis for papal infallibility in a religion which is fundamentally false (metachemical) and only partially true (metaphysical) or, rather, less partially true (though knowledge-centred puritan Protestantism would qualify ably enough in this respect) than wholly illusory in relation to the Son-of-God order of truncated metaphysics?

I have long been against this Judeo-Christian tradition, as of all 'bovaryized' or fundamentally false religions, and I firmly believe that only Social Theocracy can claim to represent metaphysical truth and, hence, Truth per se. Therefore it should supplant, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in countries with the right kind of axial preconditions (such as those that, like Eire, are mainly Catholic), all the old Creator-oriented religions as a matter of global and evolutionary necessity.

Papal infallibility is just one more anachronism in a plethora of both Western and Eastern anachronisms that could have no place in a more evolved society - one effectively commensurate with 'Kingdom Come' in which the People, having voted for religious sovereignty, conceived as the ultimate sovereignty, had rights commensurate with that sovereignty which it would be the duty of Social Theocracy to serve.

As things stand, papal infallibility remains an obstacle to that process, being in effect a kind of disguised authoritarianism more germane to an autocratic age. The Church, alas, is not right, but fundamentally wrong, and therefore just one more institution that will have to be democratically consigned to the rubbish bin of history in the interests of Truth and, hence, what has loosely been described as 'Kingdom Come'.

If this can happen, then democracy will not have been in vain; for democracy, like 'the world' of which it is a manifestation, is not an ideal but, rather, the degenerative substitution of secular culpability through political sovereignty for religious, i.e. sinful, culpability, whose republican socialist face turns away from Roman Catholicism even as it pertains to the foot of the same axis, but without the benefit of even the most meagre surrogate grace. Rather, does it suck up to metachemical licence for evil and crime, and thus to that which is contrary to church-hegemonic axial criteria and rooted, all too vaingloriously, in a worship of Beauty and a love of Power, even unto the Almighty, whether in traditional or more contemporary (Hollywood-esque) terms!



The love of power, the power of love - what difference does it make? It's all a species of devil worship - the worst kind; that which appertains to metachemistry and, hence, to Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father correlative, in free soma, with the once-bovaryized spirit (compared to spirit per se, i.e. chemical pride) of Hell the Clear Spirit ,,, doubtless hyped as Heaven (if not exactly Heaven the Holy Soul, a term that would be beyond the comprehension of most people).

How I despise conventional religion, rooted, as it is, in the power of beauty and the glory or, more correctly, once-bovaryized glory of love! Worse, however, are the people who, in their conventional lifestyles as slaves to or worshippers of beauty and love, contribute towards the existence of such conventions in the first place. Bitches and sons of bitches!



Where Ireland is concerned, if you talk or think revolution, you talk or think in religious terms, not in terms of more republicanism, which only renders the masses more vulnerable to state-hegemonic exploitation from the WASP powers like Britain and America, so that they end-up worshipping female dominion.

The only revolution that can have any relevance to Ireland, meaning the contemporary pro-WASPish Republic, with its dotted-line axial sell-out to state-hegemonic criteria, is one that institutes a new religion using the Republic's own methods, namely the democratic process, which is what I envisage for Social Theocracy in the not-too-distant future, in order that the Republic may be democratically superseded by the ultimate theocracy, one characterized by religious sovereignty in the People and the rights accruing to that sovereignty, which it would be the duty of Social Theocracy to serve ... for all Eternity.

Hence without the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to a religiously sovereign end, there can be no meaningful, progressive change in Ireland, such that would lead away from both bankrupt republican socialism and quasi-WASPish deference to plutocracy, and thereby amount to the equivalent of the 'resurrection' of church-hegemonic criteria on terms commensurate, through Social Theocracy, with 'Kingdom Come'.



The plebeian success vis-à-vis the noble failure - how typical, one would think, of the age, of contemporary civilization in all its alpha-stemming as opposed to omega-aspiring orientations, its worship of power and glory at the expense of form and contentment, whereby those who are capable of just about anything in order to 'get ahead' (kind of going forward in reverse gear) do so at the expense of those who, more discriminating and even circumspect, would rather be true to themselves, as it were, and stick to what they believe in and know to be right, irrespective of the consequences.

These people exist in a kind of philosophic limbo to the side or, more accurately, on the right-hand wing of the brightly-lit stage upon which the successful plebs cavort and jive, to the best of their bodily abilities ...

But is that really the case? Not entirely. I think I have given a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial paradigm stretching from the southwest (plebs) to the northeast (nobs) points of the intercardinal axial compass. What, then, of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which stretches from the northwest to the southeast points of this compass? Do we not see the opposite there, namely strutting nobs and sedentary if not pedantic plebs? I think we do, and that is why the distinction between nobs and plebs, corresponding to the ethereal and the corporeal or, in my habitual terminology, the noumenal and the phenomenal, is not simply one of sensuality (plebs) and sensibility (nobs), or alpha and omega, but embraces both plebs and nobs at the respective alpha poles of each axis and, by contrast, nobs and plebs at the respective omega poles of each axis, so that we have a polarity between sensual plebs and sensible nobs on the one hand, that of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, and, by contrast, one between sensual nobs and sensible plebs on the other hand, that of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, the former axis characteristically Irish in a kind of Gaelic football/hurling polarity, the latter axis no less characteristically British in a kind of rugby union/association football polarity that forever distinguishes the sensual from the sensible, whether on phenomenal or noumenal, corporeal or ethereal terms.

So much, then, for my initial contentions!



I have no doubt that the development of male intelligence - which, incidentally, women hate and constantly war upon - partly derives, over the course of millennia, from male struggles against the whiles and treacheries of women, and that without the ability (freedom) to continue the struggle against women and their interfering leech-like tendencies, much if not most of what is now regarded as male intelligence, or the fruit of male intelligence, like religion and philosophy, would not exist.

If, however, that ability, based on freedom of manoeuvre, is undermined or even stymied, whether through ill-fortune or some misguided liberal agenda, then it does not take a great deal of imagination to see that the consequences are likely to be detrimental to male intelligence and, by implication, to what one would regard as intelligence in general.

The decadence and degeneration of Western civilization co-existent with - and partly attributable to - the burgeoning spread of global barbarism (which, don't get me wrong, is an inevitability requiring only to be exploited rather than repudiated) has contributed to the decline of male intelligence and, hence, to the intellectual life generally.

This has paved the way for the glorification of power and instinct and all the natural impulses which stem from women and are inextricably linked to female emancipation.



I can't get no satisfaction from ... the Rolling Stones. Try as I might, they bore me to death.

Deep down, the only British band I've ever really admired, apart from King Crimson, are Deep Purple, not least when the estimable Jon Lord was their keyboardist.

But even they pale to musical insignificance in comparison with or, rather, contrast to ... Tangerine Dream, the only band or group I truly admire, whose music I believe to be a cut or two above Rock 'n' Roll or any derivatives thereof, like Hard Rock and Heavy Metal.

Incidentally, a sure way to find out how you stand with your record or CD collection is to play it, over several weeks or months, chronologically, that is, from A-Z, so that by the time you get to, say, the R's and the eighteenth album in your collection by the Rolling Stones, you've got a fair idea of how you feel about them and what their music does or doesn't do for you. Believe me, this can amount to an immense test of the will ... to persevere. But I'm past picking and choosing, since these days I rarely if ever buy a CD, and, right now, this is the only way I can force myself to play anything.



If consciousness is, in some sense, the light or brightness of the brain (the unsensuous), then ego is both more and less than consciousness, being a product of how one thinks and feels and remembers and imagines in relation to consciousness, so that it is kind of intermediate between consciousness (psyche) and the brain (soma).

Likewise, if superconsciousness is, in some sense, the light or brightness (halo-like) of the lungs (the subsensuous), then superego is both more and less than superconsciousness, being a product of how one thinks and feels and remembers and imagines in relation to superconsciousness, so that it is kind of intermediate between superconsciousness (psyche) and the lungs (soma).

If consciousness is qualitatively characteristic of man, meaning he who is centred in ego, which is akin to a bridge between the unsensuous brain and consciousness, then superconsciousness is superqualitatively characteristic of superman, meaning he who is centred in superego, which is akin to a bridge between the subsensuous lungs and superconsciousness.

Without ego, consciousness would be like a balloon floating aimlessly above the brain, with no real sense of self or, rather, of unself. For consciousness is akin to self and unsensuousness to unself, the ego coming somewhere in between the two as a kind of alternation between self and unself, physical psyche and soma, which can be called the personal self, or phenomenal mind.

Without superego, superconsciousness would be like an air balloon floating aimlessly above the lungs, with no ideal sense of self or, rather, of subself. For superconsciousness is akin to superself and subsensuousness to subself, the superego coming somewhere in between the two as a kind of alternation between superself and subself, metaphysical psyche and soma, which can be called the universal self, or noumenal mind.

Floating free of soma, whether corporeal or ethereal, may be acceptable, if not inevitable, in death, but in life it could prove highly detrimental to the survival of ego and thus to what liaises between consciousness of one kind or another and its corresponding organ, be that organ corporeal (brain) or ethereal (lungs), unsensuous or subsensuous.

One can lose one's mind in death and experience the relief of being free of the ego and/or the superego, not to mention the brain and/or lungs, in the light of pure consciousness; but to lose it in life - apart, that is, from in the metaphorical sense of losing it to a woman's body - would indeed prove a grave affliction, leading to madness and partial or complete loss of identity.

For it is the ego and/or the superego which grants to the individual his sense of personal and/or universal selfhood, not the brain and/or lungs, still less the light consciously and/or superconsciously emanating from the brain and/or lungs as its means of achieving intellectual and/or spiritual knowledge about life or, rather, the world and its contents, via the egocentric and/or super-egocentric conclusions one is able to make according to one's experiences, education, social background, environment, temperament, etc., which constitute the sum-total of mind in relation to the form (ego) and contentment (superego) of the self, thereby putting the brain and/or lungs, if not both at once, at least temporarily at their ease.

However, where there is less ego or superego, as usually in the case of females, there will be correspondingly more of what could be called super-id or id, or will and spirit, neither of which requires a great deal of mind, least of all in relation to brain or lungs, but arise from certain bodily organs in relation to supersensuous (coupled to subconscious) or sensuous (coupled to unconscious) impulses and instincts which, whether metachemical or chemical, fiery or watery, deriving from eyes or tongue, so to speak, with heart and womb never very far away, constantly war upon the male sense of personal or universal selfhood, super-id upon super-ego and id upon ego, in such fashion that, even though tempered by a degree of mind, as of lungs and/or brain even in the female case, the latter are often confounded and undone, to greater or lesser extents, by the more basic natures whose origins are female and thus the born enemy, in sensuous barbarity, of conscious culture, as of that which derives not from nature (soma) but from nurture (psyche).

Unless reduced by culture to a civil acquiescence, if temporarily, in the hegemony of cultural values, the somatic power and glory of such natural forces will swiftly reduce the male to a philistine acquiescence in barbarity, the kind of acquiescence typifying the pseudo-male 'sonofabitch' with which we, in this female-dominated age, are only too familiar, and less in terms of ecclesiastical sin/folly than with reference, through republican socialism, to secular evil/crime, if, in relation to the chemical, of a comparatively pseudo-evil/pseudo-criminal nature (when compared to anything metachemical).

But nature can be defeated by nurture, as soma by psyche, or the body by the mind, and not simply in terms of a conscious defeat of the sensuous id, as of spirit by ego, but, more significantly, in terms of a superconscious defeat of the supersensuous super-id, as of will by soul, which will result not in a physical hegemony over pseudo-chemistry rendered axially subordinate, like an Anglican monarch's subjects, to metachemistry over pseudo-metaphysics, but, rather, in a metaphysical hegemony over pseudo-metachemistry and of the correlative necessity, for achieving this, of delivering the pseudo-physical under chemistry to salvation in metaphysics and, in parallel vein, the chemical over pseudo-physics to counter-damnation in pseudo-metachemistry, so that the chemical 'first' will end up pseudo-metachemical 'last', and the pseudo-physical 'last' wind up metaphysical 'first', for ever hegemonically triumphant over the pseudo-metachemical, as of superego over pseudo-superid or, to revert to a long-established parallel, the lamb of godliness over the pseudo-wolf (neutralized wolf) of pseudo-devilishness, or something to that eschatological effect.

The world may be a product of female sensuality, but the heavenly Beyond can only result from male endeavour to consciously overcome the world and establish 'Kingdom Come' as an otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly apotheosis of the historical or evolutionary process.



What could be called the best of a bad job, if I may speak colloquially, is metachemistry and all things metachemical at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, whose noumenal objectivity is commensurate with a vacuous beauty, whereas what could be called the best of a good job is metaphysics and all things metaphysical at the northeast point of the said compass, whose noumenal subjectivity is commensurate with a joyful plenum.

By contrast, what could be called the worst of a bad job is chemistry and all things chemical at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, whose phenomenal objectivity is commensurate with a vacuous pride, whereas what could be called the worst of a good job is physics and all things physical at the southeast point of the said compass, whose phenomenal subjectivity is commensurate with a knowledgeable plenum.

However, where the subordinate gender positions a plane down from the hegemonic ones are concerned, one should, I guess, speak of pseudo-metaphysics under metachemistry as signifying the pseudo-best of a pseudo-good job in terms of its noumenal pseudo-subjectivity being commensurate with a pseudo-truthful pseudo-plenum that defers to metachemical beauty, in axial contrast to pseudo-metachemistry under metaphysics as signifying the pseudo-best of a pseudo-bad job in terms of its noumenal pseudo-objectivity being commensurate with a pseudo-loving pseudo-vacuum that defers to metaphysical joy.

Likewise, one could speak of pseudo-physics under chemistry as signifying the pseudo-worst of a pseudo-good job in terms of its phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity being commensurate with a pseudo-pleasurable pseudo-plenum that defers to chemical pride, in axial contrast to pseudo-chemistry under physics as signifying the pseudo-worst of a pseudo-bad job in terms of its phenomenal pseudo-objectivity being commensurate with a pseudo-strong pseudo-vacuum that defers to physical knowledge.

However you look at it, 'best' is commensurate with noumenal and 'worst' with phenomenal, so that we have an ethereal/corporeal, noble/plebeian distinction between what is best and/or pseudo-best, whether 'bad' (objective) or 'good' (subjective), 'pseudo-bad' (pseudo--objective) or 'pseudo-good' (pseudo-subjective), and what, by contrast, is worst and/or pseudo-worst, whether 'bad' (objective) or 'good' (subjective), 'pseudo-bad' (pseudo-objective) or 'pseudo-good' (pseudo-subjective).



Mind is not what you see, but how you interpret what is seen.

Sense impressions do not constitute mind, or the Self, but are means whereby sense can be made of what is sensed, thereby allowing for meaningful interpretation by mind.

Would things, objects, etc., continue to exist if there was no mind to witness and, in an almost literal sense, make some sense of them?

This question is, of course, not new to philosophy, and can be confidently answered by concurring with those who maintain that they would not exist as intelligible objects, but only as meaningless things-in-themselves, which is to say as objects without meaningful purpose or significance.

What had been a chair to my mind would continue to exist if mind was not there to confirm it, though not as a 'chair', but rather as a meaningless thing-in-itself.

Without mind to fashion, interpret, recognise, remember, analyse, etc., the world as we know it would quickly cease to exist.  What was meaningfully existing in it now would become meaninglessly existential, and therefore devoid of significance.

But the withdrawal of all human mind from the world would not necessarily exclude other interpretations of existence - animal, fish, bird, etc., from continuing to lend non-human meaning to things or at least to those things which fall within their natural habitat or environment.  Even nature has some degree of sentient capability built-in to it which gives an even more restricted meaning to certain things, and so on, down to the merest microbe or atom.

Therefore whilst mind is not confined to human beings, it can certainly be said that human mind is more evolved than animal or natural or subatomic kinds of mind, much of which does not even attain to consciousness, much less interpret what is sensed via sense organs.

Yet even human mind is destined to be overhauled, I am confident, by a superhuman order of mind which will find its meaning solely within the Self, rather than in relation to objects.  Such an order of mind could only be described as divine, and the product, I contend, of cyborgistic overhaul of what is organic and, in a kind of Nietzschean sense, human-all-too-human.

Just as human mind contrasts with what, in nature, is unconscious (because sensuous), so the superconscious order of mind will contrast with what, in supernature, is subconscious (because supersensuous), and therefore merely existentially sentient. It will maximize Being, as that which transcends mere organic sentience.

No longer will it be enough to be consciously opposed to a sensuous disposition.  It will be necessary to be superconsciously opposed to a supersensuous one, in order that Being may triumph not simply over Doing, but also, both directly and indirectly, over giving and taking as well.  For that which is conscious (and unsensuous) is much more disposed to taking than to Being, and unfortunately its continued existence is only possible on the basis of a pact with Doing for the mutual exploitation of giving, as to that which, being predominantly sensuous, is only too disposed to a deference to supersensuousness ... nature without reproductive end.  



That which is pseudo-physical pseudo-taking under chemistry, like pseudo-mass under volume, at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass can be saved to metaphysical Being at the northeast point thereof, whereas that which is chemical giving can only be counter-damned to pseudo-metachemical pseudo-Doing, pseud0-space under time.

Therefore Being over pseudo-Doing is the church-hegemonic axial alternative to and in some sense resolution of pseudo-taking under giving - commensurate with the salvation of the pseudo-physical to metaphysics and the counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry.

In the-not-entirely implausible event of the pseudo-physical being saved to metaphysics and the chemical counter-damned to pseudo-metachemistry, the metachemical would be damned to pseudo-chemistry and the pseudo-metaphysical counter-saved to physics, neither of which would be sustainable alternatives to an axial polarity with metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics.

Therefore, irrespective of this fact and of the proper solution to it in relation to the church-hegemonic axis (about which subject I have written at some length over the years), that which is metachemical Doing at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass can be damned to pseudo-chemical pseudo-giving at the southeast point thereof, whereas that which is pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-Being can only be counter-saved to physical taking.

Therefore pseudo-giving under taking, as of pseudo-volume under mass, is the state-hegemonic axial alternative to Doing over pseudo-Being, as of space over pseudo-time - commensurate with the damnation of the metachemical to pseudo-chemistry and the counter-salvation of the pseudo-metaphysical to physics.



Man made in God's image? Give me a break!

Are we to suppose that this man-making God can't fly, not having wings to fly with?

If we are to continue in this ironic vein, I would argue that birds are a better candidate for 'godly images' than man.  Further, I would contend that the dove is probably closer to anything 'made in the image of God' or, at any rate, to anything 'godly' than most other birds, never mind man.  Does he not look up to the dove in religious sentiment, as to something more divine, if not heavenly?

But this whole notion of God and images and of man's being made in the image of God - does it not suck?  For a start, God-thingfulness, so to speak, is a lie, better suited to what I call Devil the Mother.  But it is a lie which allows most of them to 'have their cake and eat it', as the saying goes, enabling the generality of females and female-worshipping men to associate beauty and love, not to mention free will and power, with God (what God has joined together, etc.), to the detriment, needless to say, of joy and truth, that is, to anything properly religious in its metaphysical essence.

The Jews, in particular, have always profited from this 'best of a bad job' starting-point for civilization as generally understood not simply in Judaic but in Judeo-Christian and therefore Western terms.  Take away the Bible, and Jews would be deprived of the textural underpinning of their power through what is the oldest con trick in the book - namely God, the fount of those other religious impostors, the so-called 'Son of God' and the so-called 'Mother of God', neither of which are compatible terms, since the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father already exists with the Jews prior to Christianity, which doesn't leave room for a 'Mother of God' but only for a 'Mother of the Son of God', or so-called 'Son of God', who is as germane to the Christian tradition in the West as his so-called Father to the Judaism of the Middle East, where he is more fundamentally God for Jews, who of course spurn the New Testament, like a 'forbidden tree of knowledge'.

But when God is not really God but Devil the Mother hyped as such, for want of a genuinely metaphysical alternative in relation to the female-dominated masses, then not only is the so-called Virgin Mary not 'Mother of God', but her son is not really 'Son of God', being more akin to a 'Son of Woman', who, for ethnic reasons, Puritans prefer to call a 'Son of Man'. 

But even that leaves 'Man the Father' out of the equation, and thus that which would be the physical parallel, in egocentric free psyche, to any metaphysical 'God the Father' in the superconscious free psyche that was (or is) a product of Heaven the Holy Soul, the actual joyful fulcrum of metaphysics that precedes God or godliness or godfatherliness as candle flame the candlelight which is its aura or halo-like concomitant, joy preceding truth, neither of which get any credence or encouragement or, to coin a contemporary metaphor, are 'cut any slack' by the worshippers of beauty and love and, believe it or not, of beauty preceding love as free will the 'once-bovaryized' order of spirit that is no less an aspect of metachemical free soma than beauty itself, albeit one that plays 'second fiddle', rather like God to Heaven in metaphysics, to Devil the Mother, and precisely as Hell the Clear Spirit. 

Oh well, what difference does it make? You cannot educate the masses about these things because they don't want to know, being the alpha-stemming opposite of anything omega-oriented and ... properly religious!

Ultimately, the masses can only be imposed upon by a messianic intervention that will have the ability to exploit their system - namely the democratic process in properly democratic countries with a pseudo-economics, to a perfectly undemocratic - because profoundly theocratic - end, making of democracy not an end-in-itself but a means to a higher and final end that will be as far removed from the worship of free will as it is possible to be, being rather a question of the triumph, in 'Kingdom Come', of free soul, i.e., Heaven the Holy Soul and the end, in consequence, of God, meaning the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father.



An average person's attention span is considered to be pretty short, as though due to some inherent defect or want of training when, in reality, it is more likely to be a consequence of other people's interference and/or their putting an obligation on one to interact with them in such fashion that the focus of attention is diverted into any number of contradictory and sometimes conflicting channels.

Average people are the product, by and large, of environmental factors over which they have little or no control.  Too many people in a comparatively small space and what do you get - chaos!  It is not their fault nor, for that matter, is it really the fault of the system.  People breed, multiply, and the system is hard-pressed to keep up with them, if ever it does.

The problems of overcrowding, overpopulation, etc., arise from breeding, and that in itself is largely, though not exclusively, determined by environment and the people in it.

Nature is a bitch and a bitch that strives, out of necessity, to reproduce itself by every means at its disposal, including, when beauty and love are insufficient, ugliness and hatred.  The only solution to a world dominated and in varying degrees debased by overcrowding in consequence of female dominion in populous areas or spaces is ... the development of a system which has the ability to defy nature and, eventually, triumph over her, thereby precluding the overpopulation that is a consequence of natural reproduction within populous environments.  Such a system must needs overcome man and the sort of men, in particular, who are nature's born slaves and reproductive perpetrators, looking upon women as a means to pleasure rather than as potential if not actual breeding animals whose fecundity, whilst it may serve their own reproductive needs and aspirations, only leads to more social and environmental problems which stretches the system to breaking point.

Meanwhile, the irresponsible reproductive proclivities of these people, male as well as female, can only lead to an ever-more overcrowded world in which attention spans are correlatively short.

There is no liberal solution to the problem of overcrowding and a burgeoning population that puts ever more strain on the existing system.  Liberalism, rather, is a symptom of the current social malaise, not a cure.  That, on the contrary, requires something much more radical, not to say drastic, than liberalism; namely the theocracy which, being social in its basis and transcendental in its aspirations, is commensurate with true religion and the establishment, in consequence, of religious truth.

Only that which goes against nature can save the people from nature, including, indirectly, from the supernature which rules over it via a type of nurture polar to itself which, though antithetical to the strictly natural, is indisposed to 'man overcoming' on account of its humanistic essence, never mind 'world overcoming' and an end to the bifurcated world as we know it, including, not least, its alternative systems of politics and economics which, being mundane, either fail to succeed or succeed only to fail, leaving either a desire for deliverance or the deliverance of desire.



Every man has two makers - his father and his mother, neither of whom are solely responsible for his existence.

Reproduction is for women and men a kind of self-transcendence - the natural kind.

One out of two equals the transcendence of the two, like the dialectics of thesis plus antithesis equals synthesis, or woman plus man equals child.

The child combines the attributes of the parents and is therefore precious to both precisely because it represents the transcendence of each.

Women are pretty much of a piece - they look attractive, have and raise children, continue to look attractive in order to have and raise more children, and so on, in a reproductive cycle that functions like clockwork, being, in effect, cyclically clockwise.

Liberation from womanhood would not serve a woman's purposes. A childless woman is really a contradiction in terms, even a failure by female standards.

You are made in the image, after a fashion, of your parents, nothing more. And certainly nothing less.

Christians would say they are made in the image of Christ, who is effectively God for them even if technically regarded as the Son of God, but that would only imply that they behave like Christ, not look like him.

If to be Christian is to behave like Christ, turning the other cheek, leading a nomadic existence, performing miracles, living off the land, etc., then few if any Christians ever live up to the name.



All those dupes who believe in Gods of one kind or another do little service to religion.

Belief in God is the mark of a scientific, a political, or an economic bent, not of a religious one.

Religious people do not believe in God.  Rather do they believe in Heaven because they live in it whenever they can, effectively bearing witness to Heaven for others (which is God or godliness), since their manifestation of heavenly attributes can be termed or deemed godly.

The bovaryizations of religion through science, politics, or economics lead to concepts of God which are scientific, political, or economic, and only serve to undermine religion, since religion is then wrongly identified with scientific, political, or economic criteria to the detriment of God and, more importantly, Heaven.

It is as if religion is being identified with Beauty, strength, or knowledge rather than with Truth, or something to that effect. No wonder religion gets a bad name and even a bad press, allowing every secular fool to jump upon it with derisory abandon.

When religion is in the hands of the lackeys of science, politics, or economics (if not all three at once - sound familiar?), it will always be less than true, if not contrary to Truth, esteeming, through Beauty, the power of love, not to mention the love of power through the Almighty, free will, the creative impulse behind nature, etc., etc.

What God has joined together (through the power of love), let no man pull asunder, or words to that effect.  Is this not a scientific bovaryization of religion congenial to fundamentalists, aristocrats, High Anglicans, self-serving females, etc., whose notions of God revolve around metachemistry?

In truth, the achievenents or triumphs of Beauty, as of the Beautiful (including its aesthetic manifestations), have nothing to do with God, never mind Heaven and the godliness in Heaven, which is the halo-like 'appearance' or outer manifestation, so to speak, of Heaven.  Rather is it a mark of Devil the Mother (hyped as God the Father), whose beautiful free will has the power to project love as, contrary to God in Heaven, the Hell (albeit positive in free soma) in the Devil (and I don't mean Satan).

Words of the One (self-appointed philosopher king and godfather of Social Theocracy) for the Few, meaning those disposed to Truth, whether theoretically (through metaphysical philosophy) or in practical terms (as through theosophy, if I may use such a term less in relation to Truth than in relation to the Joy which underpins Truth from a practical standpoint and therefore has more to do with a spinal cord-derived superconsciousness than with, as in the case of metaphysical philosophy, a brain stem-derived superegotism which, being the nearest thing to the supersensibility of the Soul, can only be pro-superconscious and thus pro-godly.

In the future it may be that we shall speak less of the Soul than of Supersoul, meaning a Self (brain stem to spinal cord in the central nervous system) 'turned on' by the use (as a religiously sovereign right) of certain synthetically-artificial substances that will necessitate the correlative superhuman (if not in communal contexts supra-human) 'overcoming of man' through cyborgistic enhancements of and/or substitutes for the natural bodily organs if the use thereof is to prove viable and sustainable long-term.

Therefore man is indeed something that should be overcome, but not for the sometimes dubious reasons that Nietzsche gives.  On the contrary, man can never get beyond the soul, assuming through practices like transcendental meditation he even gets that far and isn't obsessed by will, spirit, or ego, whereas the Superman would have to be characterized in terms of Supersoul as the end-product of an ultimate metaphysics within a universal context deriving from the globalization of civilization under the aegis of a cultural or, rather, supercultural hegemony commensurate with the establishment of 'Kingdom Come', which students of my writings will know I identify with the triumph, democratically, of Social Theocracy and the espousal, in consequence, of religious sovereignty as the sovereignty that lies beyond the world in the otherworldly realm of Heaven, as of a society characterized by the hegemony of metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry, its pseudo-hellish concomitant that is the proverbial lion and/or wolf that 'lies down' (under sedation) with the godly lamb, pseudo-metachemically subordinate to it, a plane down from metaphysics, at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass at the top of what had been - prior to its own salvationist/pseudo-damnationist self-transcendence or self-overcoming, to use a Nietzschean expression - the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis.



Although born in the Irish Republic and technically an Irish citizen, I am not pro-republican but, rather, against what I have long taken to be a manifestation of the divide-and-rule policy of the English which manifests in the division of the green (catholic) from the orange (dissenter) by the white (anglican) in the Irish tricolour, and which precludes, through this division, the possibility of Irish unity.

It was always going to be only a matter of time before the republican socialist aspirations of the Irish Free State or, more correctly, the leaders of the 1916 Uprising would be eclipsed, following the somewhat Spartan birth of the Republic, by a quasi-state-hegemonic sell-out to the capitalist powers of the Anglo-American axis and its WASPish distaste for such aspirations, never mind implementations.

But the contemporary Republic, whilst it may be Anglo-Irish in character, has only succeeded, through greed and mismanagement, in making a hash of its capitalist pretensions, thereby exchanging one failure for another and compounding what was already an economically untenable not to say perilous situation by falling between the two stools of the 'special relationship' of the  Anglo-American alliance on the one hand  and the German-dominated European Union on the other hand, neither of which can be expected to offer a long-term solution to the perilous economic predicament in which the Irish Republic now finds itself.

For Europe and America actually pull in opposite directions, and Ireland is caught in the middle and effectively torn apart by conflicting interests - the largely political interests of the Franco-German alliance within the European Union and the mainly economic interests of Britain at loggerheads with Europe within the Anglo-American alliance.

Ireland is not only schizoid in relation to the North, to the six counties of the Province of Ulster which technically fall within the United Kingdom, but is also divided against itself within the so-called South, the Republic of Ireland, whose twenty-six counties (including the 3 from Ulster outside Northern Ireland) remain torn between the socialist aspirations of the anti-Treaty faction (epitomized by Sinn Fein and what is now Fianna Fail) and the pro-capitalist 'real politik' of the pro-Treaty faction (including what is now Fine Gael), though one might be forgiven, these days, for not detecting any great enthusiasm for republican socialism within all but Sinn Fein and the more radical Independents or convinced Socialists, some of whom are avowedly Marxist.

But the horns of the dilemma that divides the Republic only makes it more likely that latter-day Ireland will tear itself apart unless offered the prospect of a new ideology which, not being about the consolidation of one kind of worldliness or another, socialist or capitalist, republican or parliamentary, catholic or protestant, female or male, is rather about an end to the world and its ethnic divisions through the establishment and development of an otherworldly alternative which, were it to transpire, and do so with the People's democratic consent, would represent the overcoming of republicanism, in all its forms, and the institutionalization, under Social Theocracy, the ideology in question, of what I call the Centre, a politico-religious concept germane to my interpretation of 'Kingdom Come' and an end, in consequence, not only to state divisions and antagonisms, but to church divisions and antagonisms also, and even to the state/church dichotomy that can manifest in either church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, as with Catholic-derived republicanism, or state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, as with Protestant-derived capitalism, thereby signifying an Irish/British, South/North type division within Ireland between politics and economics, republicanism and parliamentarianism on the one hand, that of politics, and socialism and capitalism on the other hand, that of economics.

Progress cannot now - if ever it could before - be achieved in either of these antithetical terms, and that is why a new ideology, effectively synthetic in character, is absolutely necessary for putting an end to the divisive dilemma confronting Ireland in this time of crisis both internally and externally, in the recession-rocked world at large.

Social Theocracy can put an end to the divide-and-rule policy which afflicts the Republic, as of Irish Republicanism in general, but to do so it will need the support of the majority Irish people in order that church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria can be stepped up (resurrected) in a way and to a degree that could result in the deliverance of the lapsed Catholic, fundamentally republican socialist masses from their specific kind of worldly plight, itself divisible between chemical and pseudo-physical,  political and pseudo-economic gender positions, to positions in metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, religion and pseudo-science, commensurate with a Social Theocratic mode and degree of salvation and counter-damnation that the continuing rule of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, science and pseudo-religion, 'in back' of their worldliness (and germane to the apex of the other, i.e. state-hegemonic axis) signally precludes from transpiring.

Only the effective rejection of that through the utilization of the democratic process to a religiously-sovereign end can allow for the deliverance of the relevant masses to a full complement of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, and thereby enable them to gain release not only from their particular kind of worldly bondage, as much now given to pseudo-crime as formerly to sin, but also from the netherworldly and effectively ungodly freedoms that prey upon it to a capitalist end achieved at their financial and social, not to say moral and spiritual (soulful) expense.

However, for this to happen it is not enough that the tricolour should be replaced by the Supercross (coupled to pseudo-Superstar) of Social Theocracy; that which has the re-unification of Ireland in mind on this non-republican basis must also look towards the prospect of a union, federal or otherwise, with Scotland, and thus to the expansion of Social Theocracy to include not only Irish and Scots-Irish, but, no less significantly, Scots and Irish-Scots, as the necessary prelude to the further development, enhancement, expansion, or whatever, of the ideology in question and its determination to overcome, through a synthesizing process, the ethnic disunity that has resulted from the divide-and-rule policy of England.

That is why I am not pro-republican and why the 'ourselves alone' doctrine has nothing in common with Social Theocracy, least of all when, due to Northern or other pressures, it paradoxically takes  a Social Democratic form more congenial, if truth be told, to the nadir of state-hegemonic axial criteria than to anything resembling a new and ultimate church - a 'church' to end all churches which would necessarily have the capacity, in the state-like aspect of the Centre, to govern itself or, rather, to serve the religiously sovereign in the best interests of the Centre as a whole.  For the Centre transcends all state/church dichotomies in its otherworldly absolutism and is therefore commensurate, so I contend, with 'Kingdom Come'.



Expression and impression - the alpha and omega of human creativity, as between artists and philosophers - the former expressing their feelings emotionally and the latter impressing their thoughts intellectually.

The philosopher-artist (philosophical artist) and the artist-philosopher (artistic philosopher) signify a paradoxical amalgam of artist and philosopher, and might be described less in terms of Left or Right, like their more absolutist counterparts, than of liberal left (the philosopher-artist) and liberal right (the artist-philosopher), since they tend, in their synthetic relativity, to be of the world and, hence, worldly as opposed to either netherworldly (artists) or otherworldly (philosophers), the former with an aesthetic emphasis upon beauty, as of the Beautiful, and the latter with an ethnic emphasis upon truth, as of the Truth, which, unlike beauty, is highly metaphysical and therefore a product, through and through, of the Ideal conceived from a transcendentalist as opposed to fundamentalist or, more correctly, materialist standpoint, which is also equivalent to a distinction between autocracy and theocracy or, in contemporary usage, authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

Both artists and philosophers, when genuine, attain to a superhuman status, the one in terms of a superfeminine predilection towards the Beautiful, the other in terms of a supermasculine predilection towards the Truth.  Neither extremes, corresponding to left- and right-wing antitheses, have much in common.  In fact, they are as far apart as science and religion, metachemistry and metaphysics, in contrast to the more mundane antithesis between the philosopher-artist and the artist-philosopher, which only amounts to a distinction between politics and economics, chemistry and physics.

One might contrast, in relation to the above, the love of feelings with the pleasure of thought, or emotionality with intellectuality, whether on an absolute (noumenal and/or ethereal) or a relative (phenomenal and/or corporeal) basis, as between artists and philosopher-artists on the one hand, that of the Left (both extreme and moderate), and artist-philosophers and philosophers on the other hand, that of the Right (whether moderate or extreme).  The former options operate, on a female basis, within the realms of will and spirit or, more correctly, Will and spirit, whereas the latter options operate, on a male basis, within the realms of ego and soul or, more correctly, ego and Soul.

Will is hegemonically polar to ego on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, as between the Artist and the artist-philosopher, the Extreme Left and the moderate right (right liberal), whereas spirit is hegemonically polar to Soul on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, as between the philosopher-artist and the Philosopher, the moderate left (left liberal) and the Extreme Right.

The true Philosopher, being a man or, rather, superman of the Extreme Right, will always champion the Truth metaphysically and stand-up for that which is the Ideal from a transcendentalist point-of-view, a male point-of-view centred in the Soul and having as its objective, if I can speak in seemingly contradictory terms, the 'Kingdom of Heaven', which of course abides within the male Self, or Soul, as its metaphysical fulcrum, or kernel.  In his own day Schopenhauer was such a philosopher, as, in our own time, I would like to think I am, if only on the basis of several decades' consistently metaphysical or pro-metaphysical writings that have taken philosophy way beyond the academic perimeters of the intellectual establishment into realms which, frankly, are revolutionary in their implications for a future re-ordering of society in certain countries along Social Theocratic and/or Transcendentalist lines in the interests of otherworldly progress, the only kind of progress which is sensibly inner (of the psyche) and capable of delivering to the male that peace of mind which is the product, or consequence, of supreme being.



It could be argued that it would be more natural for the state to be independent of the church, as in state-hegemonic/church-subordinate societies, but civilization only attains to anything approaching a genuine culture when the state is subordinate to the church, as in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate societies.

When the state is independent of the church, as it tends to be in our own time, you have the separation, whether absolutely or relatively, of politics from religion and the development, within the state, of secular values, including economic and scientific freedoms.

The church, or various kinds of church, may still exist, but not as the guiding light of society.  Rather, either as a leftover from a bygone age or as some kind of newfangled cult which functions on the periphery, as it were, of a society characterized by secular values more usually identified with freedom in the modern sense, meaning, among other things, freedom from religious oppression.

This, however, is a comparative low-point of civilization since, as noted above, closer to the natural-world-order of female domination in which the meaning of life is interpreted solely in relation to reproduction and, hence, adherence to the laws of nature which, no matter how 'dressed up', as in relation to the 'sanctity of the family', etc., always revolve around the interests - and needs - of women.

In fact, women are never as free as when the separation of state from church is so complete as to be enshrined in law and considered one of the fundamental human rights, including not only the right to life on a purely natural basis but also, should the female decide, the right, equally, to terminate life in the womb as a kind of right- as opposed to left-liberal freedom.

Either way, women are in control of their destinies and society is going nowhere fast, least of all towards a cultural standpoint, conditioned by ethnic considerations, in which civilization attains to a kind of peak under male-hegemonic auspices and the female, even if not capable of culture to any significant extent, is constrained to a civility which defers to culture as to all that is best in civilization and most opposed, in its metaphysical essence, to the barbarity of the free female under the aegis of secular values through the separation of state from church in what more usually amounts to state-hegemonic axial criteria.

But one could - and in my view should - regard this as a kind of reculer pour mieux sauter, in that unless society steps back in order to leap further forward, there is no way that the state can be used, in its comparative freedom from church interference, as a springboard to a new and higher order of church that will not only dovetail state responsibility into itself ... but have the ability and moral justification to do away with the older forms of church in the interests of a new order of religion consistent with the Truth and therefore above and beyond petty state/church rivalries.



If there's one thing worse than (I nearly said listening to Carlos Santana) being alone with oneself in a hostile environment as an adult male, it can only be being in female company or, if you prefer, the company of a bitch in an environment more immediately hostile.

I've always felt a certain revulsion towards the fecundity of the coloured races.  To breed and not be in the slightest bit ashamed of it - that really astounds me.

The music of coloureds almost invariably revolves around sex.

All that romantic crap from Santana - how I loathe and despise it!  A world chock-full of coloureds - no wonder I have always been less than enthusiastic about it.  Soon the white race will cease to exist because buried beneath an avalanche of coloured promiscuity!

It may be that Hitler was the white man's last chance.  Now we live in a world increasingly dominated by coloureds as the inevitable outcome of bourgeois decadence and proletarian barbarism.

Man is to woman a beast to be sexually exploited for purposes of reproduction.  Generally speaking, women care nothing for men's intellectual or cultural achievements - except insofar as, within the occupational or professional context, they can be viewed as means to a reproductive end, serving to support the family.

The internet is full of crooks who leave one in the lurch with no apology or explanation.

The internet has been debased by money-oriented business to such a deplorable extent ... that it is no longer an attractive medium for artists or philosophers to work in.

The 'coming out' of religion from under a cloak of mysticism is a very difficult and even dangerous thing.  It means you have to 'come clean', as a male, about women being the enemy and live and act accordingly, which, for most men, is virtually impossible.

I can understand why some men maintain that things could never change, meaning that no matter how seemingly sophisticated and evolved the technology, etc., women will fundamentally remain in charge by dint of their beauty and ability to exploit love to a reproductive end.

Fear of giving offence means you are stuck in a liberal world without hope of meaningful change in relation to the gender status quo - a ghastly and, frankly, untenable reality.

Only the disillusioned are capable of truth; those who are not disillusioned but delusional - like most Americans - tend to be incapable of it.

All those little internet Satans who promise one the world ... if only one will sell one's soul to them, i.e. sell out and follow their money-generating techniques.  The price to be paid, even when it isn't immediately in evidence, is far too high.

The race beyond man will not be born of woman but of science and technology or, more correctly, of pseudo-science and pseudo-technology under the guidance of true religion.

Bertrand Russell was anti-religious from a scientifically philosophical point-of-view.  By contrast, I find that I am anti-science from a more genuinely religious standpoint than that to which Bertrand Russell applied his critical acumen in the manner of a left-liberal hommes de lettres.

The half-cultured imagine that French culture is the best in Europe and therefore, by implication, the world.   The truly or more genuinely cultured know that the only culture worthy of the name in Europe is Germanic, if not German.

The only time I am genuinely happy in front of the TV screen is when I am watching, via the DVD-Player, a good German film.  Needless to say, I tend not to watch anything else.

Sitting in front of a good German film, I attain to something approaching a state of religious devotion.

All those superficial sons-of-bitches who are only too ready to jump on the bandwagon of putting others - even complete strangers - down in public as 'tits', 'berks', 'chumps', 'wogs', 'fags', 'creeps', 'wallies', 'prats', 'pufs', etc., whether or not motivated by imperial tradition and presumption, simply expose themselves for the thoroughly unlikeable and unmanly bugbears they are!  But what is the cause of this mental or psychological disease? Inherent superiority? No, quite the reverse.  A want of self-confidence and self-respect that often arises from being at gender cross-purposes with themselves under female-dominated state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria.  They lack self-esteem precisely because the nature of the system they live under - and ancestrally have lived under for generations past - has deprived them of it, making them bitter and resentful and only too ready to take the female line of 'Who does he think he is?' in consequence of their own perceived social or individual worthlessness. I don't pity them; they are far too 'dyed in the wool' of this system for that and, besides, they remain unattractively objectionable.  No, I despise them and the system, dominated in state-hegemonic vein by females, which has made them what they are.  One day the system in question will cease to exist and then, with a combination of other factors, the mentality which characterizes them will also disappear, leaving only males who are deep and ... more given to self-respect and, by implication, respect for others, including, paradoxically, those whose destiny would be more a matter of self-restraint than of self-realization within parameters having less to do with free psyche than with bound soma.

To vote for any of those parliamentary politicians one would have to be mad or, which amounts to pretty much the same thing, British.

The 'big league' of singer/guitarists in the British Isles would have to be comprised of musicians like Alvin Lee (virtually unsurpassed), Gary Moore, Eric Clapton, Rory Gallagher, and Snowy White, whether or not one regards them all as equal or as unequal in their respective capabilities.

You don't get through this life without having been consistently warred upon by women, not to mention sons-of-bitches of one sort or another.

Bertrand Russell was in some respects closer to Nietzsche in his anti-Christian polemics (the mark of an Antichrist) than he would probably have wanted to admit, albeit still at some remove as an Englishman or, at any rate, Briton from the great Faustian iconoclast.

Koestler, as a central-European Jew, never got beyond a triangular, or tripartite, limitation in his thinking and approach, fundamentally scientific, to philosophy.  When metachemistry is hyped as metaphysics there can be no place for metaphysics proper, and therefore no place for a fourfold approach to logic which, also embracing chemistry and physics, enables a more consistently comprehensive perspective to emerge.  Koestler, for all his linguistic and intellectual cleverness, remains a limited thinker who was inferior even to Sartre as a philosopher, despite his pretensions to the contrary.

Spengler, like Bunyan, was capable of a fourfold approach to logical structure which makes him one of the more if not most enlightened thinkers of the twentieth century, worthy of comparison with Schopenhauer or Nietzsche, if not for obvious reasons Hegel, in the nineteenth.  In fact, Spengler, with his 'Second Religiousness', has more in common with Hegel's evolutionary geist than with Nietzsche's dynamic Superman, even if his analysis of Western decadence, as in 'The Decline of the West', leads to conclusions similar to those of Nietzsche in respect of the need for a German resurrection that, not necessarily taking the form of the Third Reich (though that's how things turned out), would save Europe from itself or, rather, its decline vis-à-vis the emerging powers of America and Russia on to the world stage.  Unlike Hitler, Spengler does not, any more than did Nietzsche,  specifically blame the Jews.  But his concern with Western decadence was certainly mirrored by the Nazis in their crusade to 'save' Europe from what was perceived to be the twin threats of Jewish-dominated communism on the one hand (Russia) and Jewish-dominated capitalism on the other hand (America), neither of which would commend itself to a church-hegemonic mentality.

I never felt that Sartre was a particularly French thinker, possibly because of the Schweitzer in him in consequence of his Alsatian mother.  Neither, for that matter, was Camus a particularly French thinker, but that's because of other factors.

I always admired Camus' openness to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche - rather like Hitler's.  He didn't have that resentment of German thought which characterizes so many Frenchmen and not a few Englishmen, including Bertrand Russell, whose motherlandish want of idealism more likely derives from female dominion under state-hegemonic axial criteria.

The English would never have built Zeppelin airships, harmonizing with the clouds, as it were.  I guess you would have to be German, with a sense of idealism foreign to the mainly Protestant British, to be disposed to designing and flying in machines which, in their leisurely elegance, would have made passengers feel they were in Heaven or, at any rate, in the closest thing to Heaven as they contemplated, while sipping on their drinks, the passing clouds of the skies from the comfort of the lounge.

The former imperial colonizers of coloured lands are now themselves the recipients of coloured colonization and are scarcely recognizable as a 'free people', if ever they were.

To oppress others from fear is not a mark of freedom, or of a free people, but rather of one enslaved by authoritarian tyranny even when and if it mellows into constitutional monarchy.  To be free and subjects of the reigning monarch at the same time seems to me a contradiction in terms.  Either one is free of monarchic rule, in a republic, or one is subject to it, in a kingdom, in which case one is not free but ... autocratically enslaved and correspondingly opposed to the freedom struggles of other nations.

Two high fliers who flew in opposite directions - Aldous Huxley, an Anglican Englishman who went to the Clear Light dogs, so to speak, and Teilhard de Chardin, a Roman Catholic Frenchman, who took God to the Omega Point.  Artist and Philosopher, alpha and omega, beauty and truth (or, at any rate, the nearest approach to it within a logical system hamstrung by Catholic mysticism and ever beholden, in consequence, to Christian dogma).

The Nazi Empire was one of the shortest empires in the history of the world - even shorter than the 12-year existence of the Third Reich itself.  But this was due more to external factors than to an inner collapse.

Bourgeois writers, by which is meant most if not all novelists and book-published hommes de lettres, tend to recycle sophisticated trivia because they dare not or cannot write truthfully and radically about matters of greater import, including politics and religion.  Besides, sophisticated trivia is the stuff of commercial success.

If Schopenhauer signifies rejection of the Alpha, meaning the Will, and Nietzsche rejection of Schopenhauer (and therefore implicit if not explicit affirmation of the Alpha), then Hegel, by contrast, may be said to signify affirmation, through evolving geist, of the Omega and Marx implicit if not explicit rejection of the Omega, as of history interpreted in terms of spiritual evolution, through the economic determinism of dialectical materialism as the governing principle of historical evolution.  Compared to early nineteenth-century philosophy, the philosophy of the late nineteenth century represents a decadence that, in the contrasting hands of Nietzsche and Marx, paved the way for the outright barbarism of the early twentieth century and the cataclysmic upheavals of both the First and Second World Wars, the post-colonial consequences of which we are still living with today as we await the dawn of civilization on a global scale with the emergence of what Spengler would have called 'Second Religiousness' and Hegel have interpreted in relation to the 'coming out', or triumphant resolution, of geist, but which I shall identify with Heaven the Holy Soul in relation to 'Kingdom Come'.



Zarathustra up his mountain rather like Moses on his, communing with whatever fiery inspiration came his way, though not necessarily in connection with thunderbolts from 'on high'.  But is this transcendentalism?  I rather doubt it.  More like fundamentalism if not, in effectively state-hegemonic terms, materialism.  After all, mountains are not necessarily airy places, least of all in hot countries like one finds in the Middle East.

Had Nietzsche lived to see Zeppelin flight he might have favoured a more idealistic if not transncendentalist experience 'on high', though there is, of course, no guarantee of it.  Suffice it to say that the meditative or contemplative guy in the airship is likely to be a different kettle-of-fish to Zarathustra, not to say Moses and his Tablets of the Law ostensibly received from God.

If you get to look down at Zarathustra from the seat of an aeroplane flying high above the clouds, how much more would you likely be to do so from the seat of an airship, leisurely gliding through the clouds en route to some distant destination.  A glorified slag heap and/or solidified residue of lava eruptions would not, as a kind of hill or mountain, be the best place  to sit upon if you wanted an idealistic break from materialism, or a transcendentalist break from fundamentalism.  On the contrary,  it would be one of those places to avoid, since traditionally the sort of place where castles and other manifestations of autocratic domination were sited.



Nietzsche - the Saxon of Calvinistic (approximately Puritan) descent, who disliked 'otherworldsmen' (otherworldly individuals) from a standpoint that believed, unlike Marx, in the 'overman', but avowedly not in terms of the kind of otherworldly disposition that can arise from a Catholic ethnic bias.  On the contrary, his will-affirming 'overman' has more in common with what are these days called 'alpha males' than with the kind of  'omega male' who, being properly male (subjective), is given, by contrast, to an idealistic if not transcendentalist orientation above and beyond 'the world', as of 'the worldly'.

Anybody who is effectively before and behind 'the world' is unlikely to be idealistic, much less transcendentalist, but rather fundamentalist if not materialistic in what amounts to an autocratic disposition at axial variance with anything even remotely theocratic.

You can see how Hitler was able to capitalize on Nietzsche, affirming the will in contrast to any Schopenhaurian rejection of it from a kind of  Buddhist standpoint given to sedentary quietism if not exactly to an outright transcendentalism.

With Hitler, there is far more Nietzsche than Schopenhauer, despite his evident respect for the latter.  There is also, one might say, far more Hegel than Marx, but that is another story, since 'natural selection' through the survival of the fittest is not necessarily compatible with the evolution of geist, or mind, in the historical process.  Rather is it a throwback to some more barbarous process having its roots in female dominion under heathenistic criteria stemming not only from nature but, more fundamentally, from Supernature, that metachemical fieriness in back of the watery world and effective fount of autocracy.

Hegel points towards Spengler and therefore to a new and ultimate theocracy compatible with the evolutionary consummation of geist.  Compared to this, both the alpha-rejecting Schopenhauer and the alpha-affirming Nietzsche are irrelevant.  So is the geist-rejecting Marx.  Only that which affirms the Omega leads on, via Spengler and de Chardin, to Social Theocracy and the possibility, thereby, of 'Kingdom Come', the true resolution of the historical process whereby geist 'comes out' as that which, in the guise of metaphysics, most characterizes the consummation of the evolutionary struggles within the aforementioned historical process.  Such a paradoxical 'coming out' of true religion implies the end of 'the world' and all that which is in dialectical conflict, as between female and male elements engaged in reproduction.


In Germany, National Socialism, a largely South German ideology deriving from founders and leaders of mainly Catholic descent, foundered on the rock of North German Protestantism, as any pretensions towards a new theocracy which may have initially characterized the movement were duly compromised by autocratic predilections more traditional to the Prussian-dominated North.  Idealism succumbing to materialism, transcendentalism to fundamentalism, the SA to the Army, with only a late revival, during the latter stages of the war, of Party idealism in the guise of the SS, by then severely compromised by circumstances and more militaristic than had formerly been the case.  Inevitably, the Third Reich collapsed under pressure of its own paradoxes, not unlike Nietzsche himself, whose Superman remained hamstrung by attributes more befitting the Superfeminine and the triumph, at the expense of geist, of the Will.  War always leads backwards, and the Nazi 'sell out' to the Prussian-dominated military ensured that, in Germany, National Socialism succumbed to the 'dogs of war' and thus to autocracy at the expense of theocracy, in the Nietzschean struggle with Marxism, a resurgent Alpha against a debased omega, the effective omega point of 'the world', 'overman' against 'underman', that neither Hegel nor Spengler would have foreseen, much less endorsed.  But then theory and reality are two entirely different things, and what came out of a struggle against Marxism and the injustices of the Versailles Treaty cannot be defined solely in relation to itself.  Nor, I should add, can it be regarded simply as a pro-theocratic movement without reference to historical pressures and processes which, if truth be told, were its primary reason for existence.  Such 'theocratic' pretensions, attributed to people like Himmler and Hess, both of Catholic descent, were merely the tip of an iceberg the vast bulk of which descended to depths of socialistic darkness undreamed of by those at the top, not excepting, in some respects, the Fuhrer himself.



I am not grist to that bitch's grinding mill.

Beethoven – Schubert; Brahms – Bruckner; Strauss - Mahler: what a (romantic) tradition!

If you can let others make a fool of you and yet shrug it off and carry on with your life, then you are truly wise.

Squeezed on every side, you still find room in which to manoeuvre.

Others come and go, but you remain steadfast, true to your self.

How can you turn a complex philosophy into a video?  The simple answer is that you can't.

Mummification preserves the form but not the content of the deceased.  It is a mark of a heathen people.

The soul only comes fully alive - albeit briefly - when you die, not before.

If truth were merely in the eye of the beholder, it would not have anything to do with Heaven, but would be a sham.

To move to a town without first having secured a job there would be akin to putting the proverbial cart before the horse and, as we all know, a cart without a horse to pull it doesn't go anywhere.

The complete 'sonofabitch' would have to be a hammerer by day and a boxer at night.

I don't see how, where sex is concerned, the relationship of men and women can possibly be equal.



Sometimes I think the Lord's Prayer was fulfilled, provisionally and up-to-a-point, with the Third Reich which, at least from 1933-39, provided the bulk of the German people with a level of cohesion and prosperity they had never known before.

The Third Reich met its end squeezed between the twin secular powers of America and Russia, neither of which could be described as particularly Christian nations but, rather, as states beholden to 'the star' and dominated, in one way or another, by Jews.  National Socialism was squeezed to death between the capitalist Right and the communist Left, America and Russia, and the nearest thing to 'Kingdom Come' that the world had yet seen was snuffed out by powers that, whether or not consciously atheist, have to be identified more with stars than with crosses.

The National Socialist Third Reich was a shot at the bullseye of 'Kingdom Come' that failed.  The next shot at the bullseye, which I hope will be Social Theocratic,  must succeed in hitting it, because only on that basis can the world be overcome and that which preys upon it and profits from it damned to perdition.  Then the race beyond man will be able to come properly into being.

I can conceive of a new dark age in terms of the reculer pour mieux sauter, the stepping back in order to leap further forwards parallel of underground bunker-like defences to space-centre apotheosis which, being germane to the inner light of psychic enlightenment, will be antithetical to the outer light of somatic licence which rules the contemporary globalized world as though from Hollywood heights.  This new dark age will be the necessary prelude to the full 'coming out' of Truth following its victory over Beauty.

A world ruled by Beauty, as the contemporary American-dominated one tends to be, gives small comfort to the elderly and all who, for whatever reason, cannot be identified with the effective aristocracy of the 'beautiful people' who dominate it, not least from the cinema screen.  What now is taken for granted as a secular right and even norm to be aspired towards will, in the more enlightened future, be castigated as superheathen. For the end of history, the triumph of geist, as of 'Second Religiousness', has to be Superchristian or nothing.  Such an end I identify with Social Theocracy, the political front of Social Transcendentalism, pretty much as the godly evidence of Heaven, the resolution, in metaphysical being, of all becoming.



It is almost tragically ironic that the people who most identified, through the symbolism of St George and the Dragon, with the defeat of metachemical evil (free soma) by metaphysical grace (free psyche), namely the English, should have unleashed the Dragon with the apostasy of Henry VIII and the ensuing rejection, following his excommunication, of Roman Catholicism in favour of a heresy that, in the guise of Anglicanism, pays homage to state freedom from religious interference, guaranteed by the fact that the reigning monarch is also head of the Anglican Church (the Church of England), thereby tying the Church in question to the royalist interests of the state.

This, unfortunately, is a repudiation of the ethos symbolized by St George and the Dragon (even though the defeat of metachemistry cannot be directly achieved by metaphysics), and the English have had to live with the metachemical consequences ever since.

In England, the monarchy does not bow before the papacy, as head of the 'one true church' in Christendom.  On the contrary, each individual monarch rules over what could, in relation to Catholicism, be called the 'one most false church', the church axially furthest removed from Catholicism and polar to the plethora of so-called 'free churches' that constitute the puritan-inspired alternative, in England, to anglican rule, standing to the Established Church like parliament to the monarchy.

Yet even they are false churches appertaining to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria which, even by Western standards, have 'gone to the dogs' (decadence) of female dominion in the guise of the legitimacy of female vicars - the nearest (bourgeois) equivalent to the outright barbarism of feminist proletarianism within the ensuring global context.

Since state-hegemonic axial criteria, rooted in metachemistry, implies the dominion of what is female, as of women, through the acceptance and even encouragement of somatic licence, it is small wonder that male vicars are allowed to marry and effectively commit to family life and values, which they do with evident relish and few if any exceptions.

This invalidates any pretension to spiritual leadership on their part.  For you cannot be the victimized evidence of female dominion through familial reproduction and represent those male-oriented values at the heart of Christianity which have to do with the ability of the male to live independently of women - and thus of female dominion - from a standpoint centred in a rejection of the world and, hence, of worldly ties.

Only the Catholic priesthood, adhering to celibacy in spiritual aloofness from familial ties, have traditionally represented the essence of the Christian ethos to the lay, thereby serving as exemplars of both worldly rejection and, correlatively, otherworldly aspiration, an aspiration not incompatible with a love of heavenly 'things' or, more correctly, values, including otherworldly symbols and the translucent riches of the inner paradise.

That is another reason, quite apart from axial orientation, why the Catholic Church can rightly be described, in relation to the Western tradition, as the 'one true church', even if it leaves something to be desired from a post-Western and, more specifically, more advanced global standpoint, the standpoint of a church to end all churches, so to speak, in 'Kingdom Come'.

It is interesting to note the extent to which 'decadent' Protestant writers, from Huysmans and Wilde to Gide and Huxley, affirm the otherworldly properties of gems, symbols, jewels, fabrics, vestments, scents, drugs, etc., in what could be described as a pro-Catholic about-face from puritanical rejection of the otherworldly which, incidentally, should not be confused with any netherworldly affinity having largely cosmic implications, not least in respect of stars and the perceived role of stars in religion, as germane, I contend, to a disposition closer, like Anglicanism, to the Judaic hinterland of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and therefore axially at variance with what properly appertains, via transcendent visionary experience, to the otherworldly.



The 'star' symbolizes, in its almost child-like spread limbs, free soma and is therefore contrary to the bound soma - or crucifixional paradigm - of the 'cross'.  But bound soma without the benefit of free psyche, especially in metaphysics, is not enough by itself, as history attests.  For if it had been, the Protestant revolt against Catholicism, culminating in the free soma which is such an integral part of the largely Protestant-derived secular societies which tend to characterize - and dominate - the world today, would probably not have succeeded as well as it did.

But, then again, if you go back to the roots of Western civilization in both its Catholic and Protestant manifestations, what do you find?  The cosmic (stellar) rule of free soma as epitomized by the free will of the 'Creator'.  No wonder there was always, not excepting the physical free psyche of Puritan intellectualism, a want of metaphysical free psyche in the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Nature continued, via women, to rule the roost in terms of free soma, even if its devolution from ecclesiastical to secular was a metachemical inevitability.

Even today, the term 'mental' is more usually used in a defamatory manner by those who take being 'physical' for granted, namely the great majority.  Such people, it has to be said, have more in common with 'stars' than with 'crosses'.



Hell is women, not other people, as was suggested by Sartre.

It was one of those awful overcast blustery rainy days in London, England, when, looking up at the sky, you can understand why people get turned off religion.

Any Movement that lets women into it on an equalitarian basis will almost certainly find itself going backwards, not forwards.

Those men who cannot defy women and live independently of them, whether alone or in male company, will never be able to accept the Way, the Truth, and the Life (eternal). For them, the world is a taken-for-granted inevitability dominated by the Infinite.

Women are more or less in their element on wet days, when doors and windows are likely to be thrown wide open irrespective of whatever inclemency is at large.

That writer is only worth reading who speaks for himself, not for others or out of consideration for others, like the populist and 'man of the people' who, as likely as not, doesn't have much to say that we haven't already heard from anyone else ... who lacks an independent turn-of-mind.

Males are fated to prey upon females because they have to like the look of the woman they propose to sexually engage with. There is also a sense in which they would rather strike first, as it were, than leave it to women to 'come on' to them, fearing a reversal of fortune in relation to the basic terms of life which, as we all know, are somewhat autocratic.

Living life on its own terms, presumably in relation to the autocratic dominance of women, is the mark of a philistine, not of a cultured disposition which, somehow or some way, always strives to, as it were, theocratically 'turn the tables' on nature.  But to be truly cultured, it is not enough to 'turn the tables' on nature; you also have to be capable of turning them on the supernatural ruler of nature whose authoritarian 'book' is comprised of stars.

The truly religious, who are metaphysical (and preferably so on more evolved terms than would be commensurate with either a cosmic, a natural, or a strictly mankind-esque predilection towards metaphysics), can only be atheistically ranged against the 'Great God Almighty' of things metachemical that rules over fundamentalist religion from a standpoint rooted, supernaturally, in cosmic materialism. Such supernatural materialism rather contrasts with the subnurtural fundamentalism of the other side, as it were, of the metachemical coin, pretty much as the free soma of Beauty and Love (state) with the bound psyche or Ugliness and Hatred (church).  And the fulcrum of metachemistry, namely free will, is the beautiful Devil the Mother hyped, in Creator-oriented and Creator-stemming religious traditions, as truthful God the Father.  This is the basic religious Lie that even the democratic, more accustomed to half-lies and half-truths, find themselves playing along with, if only because in their world, which is likely enough the world per se, females are still the dominating factor leading, invariably, to familial norms.

The philosopher, when 'true', is the least popular of writers, since essentially an ethereal thinker, and the People abhor thought that is not crassly corporeal, having an almost psychopathic sensitivity to it which, at times, makes one think of some kind of Pavlovian response to a predetermined stimulus and often gives rise, in my imagination, to the metaphorical 'cat among the pigeons'.

Freedom, in the modern democratic sense, is not freedom from sin, including women, as used formerly to be the (Christian) case, but rather freedom from autocratic/theocratic 'tyranny' on the one hand, and freedom of (democratic) choice on the other hand.  This is a kind of worldly alternative to both netherworldly and otherworldly traditions, whether in terms of otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly Catholicism or netherworldly/pseudo-otherworldly Protestantism (Anglicanism), the latter of which is of course closer, within the Western more-or-less humanist framework, to mainstream Judaism, which goes all the way back, via nature, to the Cosmos on approximately stellar/solar-like terms.  However, such freedom can and I believe should be used to choose a new theocracy, namely Social Theocracy, which would have the capacity to go further than any previous theocracy in achieving otherworldly/pseudo-netherworldly parameters within the framework of 'Kingdom Come', thereby invalidating everything else. For the world is not - and by corporeal definition cannot be - an end-in-itself, despite the inevitable protestations of the overly democratic.  It is only such, it would appear, for women and the unthinking heathen.

The difference between aeroplanes and airships is that whereas aeroplanes are akin to birds darting through the sky, airships more resemble the graceful passage of clouds.  They are, in a sense, more of the sky than aeroplanes, and are accordingly closer to Heaven.



He thought he saw the face of God in a cloud, but it soon disappeared as the light faded, leaving not a hint of soul.

The limitless variety of clouds, as they glide this way and that across the nebulous expanse of sky, never exactly repeating themselves, despite superficial appearances to the contrary.

Some clouds seem to be at the roots of mythological fancies, like dragons and griffins.  Others assume animal or human forms, and some are akin to dirigibles in their leisurely unfolding.  I have seen clouds that assume the heads of bears and others that of foxes or dogs, all of which are capable of morphing into something else.

Having one's head in the clouds, as on occasion did Wordsworth and Baudelaire, to name but two poets, is no bad thing from a metaphysical standpoint, since it suggests an idealistic disposition towards the subjectively ethereal and is doubtless preferable to losing one's head in some other fashion.

The contemplation of clouds, when they are of a sufficiently interesting and graceful nature, is a form of self-transcendence leading to a relaxed and even meditative state-of-mind, especially in the early evening when the sun is setting or has just set and the cloudscape assumes a passive countenance.

The distant church spire appeared to be wreathed in a halo of luminous splendour as the setting sun sank beneath the horizon.

Was it akin to raised dough, or was it more like candy floss?  There were gossamer-like wisps of cloud trailing from its amorphous bulk which dissolved into the ether and left no trace.  Now the candy floss turned into cotton wool and, before long, a cigar formed which mutated into an airship before collapsing towards a nebulous cushion that once more became a cloud and was soon past the window out of which I stared as though with hypnotized eyes into the depths of my otherworldly imagination.

Logic had taken a holiday, and he was more like a child, but without angst or suspicion.  He seemed to have returned to the artistry of his youth, but only for a brief moment.  Soon he was back at his desk, pushing logic to the limits of its endurance.

Plunging into the evening sky, he felt released from earthly bondage and flew heavenwards on wings of transcendent joy, far from the maddening crowd of snide bitches that polluted the public spaces.

A mottled cloudscape, disturbed only by the transient flight of a stray bird, met his gaze as he slowly lifted his eyes towards the heavens in hope of deliverance from earthly bonds and boors.

He was no common earth-grubber, to 'plunge into' the leaf mould or tufts of grass or grassy mounds which crossed his diurnal path.  Rather did he avert his gaze in disgust from such mundane growths.  The only reason he habitually looked down was to avoid stepping into or tripping over anything.  It never occurred to him to embrace the earth or what grew from it, like a John Cowper Powys obsessed by natural mysticism.

With his head in the clouds, he felt himself to be ahead of the world and its countless rats petulantly racing around in every direction but the one guaranteed to lead up and out ... towards otherworldly delights.