JESUS – A SUMMING UP!
(Of Supreme Theosophical Genius)
Copyright © 2005-12 John O'Loughlin
who has read my recent texts, not least those dealing with the Social Theocratic
Centre, will realize that I am hardly a republican in the conventional or,
indeed, radical Irish Republican sense.
For the ideology to which I subscribe would deliver the Irish people, in
the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a paradoxical
election commensurate, so far as I am concerned, with ‘judgement’, from the
sorts of axial dichotomy and exploitation which the tricolour would appear to
signify. For the Irish tricolour is
green, white, and gold and/or orange (depending on one’s ethnic and/or
geopolitical orientation) and therefore symptomatic, it seems to me, of the
distinction between the three main bodies of ethnic tradition in Ireland as a
whole – namely, Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans (which latter term embraces
Presbyterians as well as Methodists, Baptists, Unitarians, etc.). But that is reflective of the axial
distinction between British state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in
which Anglicanism and Puritanism are subordinate to Monarchism and Parliamentarianism
respectively, and Irish church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in which
the Roman Catholic Church is primary and the republican state secondary. Therefore the tricolour would appear to
endorse, despite its associations with
2. Authoritarianism is a pretty dirty word these days, and one can understand why persons of both republican and post-republican sentiment should take a poor view of a political stance which is rooted in monarchy of an overly autocratic and even absolutist nature. But looked at from a more etymological point of view, such a word is surely synonymous with authority, which is no bad thing, and even with the concept of the ‘author’, who is no better or worse than the book or document he writes. If I am the ‘author’ of a particular text, say a philosophical thesis, then I can be regarded as being something of an ‘authority’ on the subject to which I have dedicated my pen or, increasingly these days, word processor and/or personal computer. But is not an ‘authority’ in the above sense also, by definition, ‘authoritarian’, since one cannot be an ‘authority’ on any given subject, still less an ‘author’, without being ‘authoritarian’, that is to say, without having authority derived from much study and/or practice in one’s art. In this sense ‘authoritarian’ is merely adjectival, for what ‘author’, being something of an ‘authority’, is not ‘authoritarian’? One could of course say ‘authorial’, but that is rather lame and something of a cop-out. Let us not mince words, but simply acknowledge that the word ‘authoritarian’ can be divested from overly autocratic association and used in a more politically acceptable way which, after all, is no bad thing, since few if any people would trust someone who lacked authority to author a work that claimed to be true or in some sense philosophically or intellectually valid. Authors are or should be ‘authoritarian’, and therefore reliable authorities on the subjects to which they dedicate their creative zeal.
3. One could describe both Nazism and Sovietism as having been totalitarian with an authoritarian bias, since the rule of one man over a party is less totalitarian than authoritarian in character, and Hitler and Stalin were nothing if not authoritarian dictators who stamped their image on the totalitarianism of one party rule, Hitler doubtless more than Stalin, since Nazism was the beginning of global civilization rather than the culmination, social democratically, of Western civilization, and would have had more of an alpha than an omega tendency in consequence. Stalin, after all, was an infringement of the Bolshevik concept of collective leadership and therefore something of a quasi-fascist departure from communist ‘idealism’, but, in the circumstances, hardly fatal to the survival, into the immediate post-war era, of the Soviet Union and to its return to something like collective responsibility.
4. Collectivism is always more phenomenal and worldly than netherworldly or otherworldly in character, a symptom of the masses and of mass-participatory democracy and/or bureaucracy in the face of autocratic or theocratic alternatives. Individualism, on the other hand, requires either of the latter dispositions for its full realization, since one must be absolutist on either an objective (autocratic) or a subjective (theocratic) basis to pass muster as a ruler or a leader, a devil, as it were, or a god. The collectivism that fights shy of individualism is one thing, the individualism that strives to incorporate and transmute the collective is quite another. All the difference, in short, between state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria.
5. Communalism of a transcendentalist and/or anti-fundamentalist order should be regarded as the endeavour to transmute the collectivistic masses into an individualistic godhead and/or antidevil, not simply as the glorification or confirmation of a collectivistic ethic. Herds and flocks are collectivistic, but so what? They are preyed upon by lone wolves and led to higher pastures by lone shepherds.
6. Whereas the diabolic individual, effectively barbarous, exploits the crowd, the divine individual, his cultural adversary, seeks to deliver it from itself to an individualistic destiny of perfect self-realization. Crowds are simply there to be overcome, not endorsed. For that which is ethereal and absolute is always at an individualistic distance from the relativity of the corporeal, whose collectivism is the product not of noumenal transcendence but of all too phenomenal gravity and somatic want of psychic courage.
7. I spoke in the past of four points of an axial compass stretching from North West to South East on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, and from South West to North East on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, and conceived of such intercardinal points as being divisible into two positions in accordance with the gender differential that must exist at any given point. Let us now do compass-like justice to each of these positions, starting with the Northwest point which we contend to be divisible between metachemistry and antimetaphyiscs, the former diabolically female and the latter antidivinely male, the former accordingly North-northwest and the latter West-northwest, whereas down that axis of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria we have a point, duly Southeast, which is divisible between physics and antichemistry, the former masculinely male and the latter antifemininely female, and therefore the one effectively East-southeast and the other South-southeast. Across the axial divide, the Southwest point is divisible between chemistry and antiphysics, the former femininely female and the latter antimasculinely male, the one accordingly West-southwest and the other South-southwest, while up this axis of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria we shall find a point, duly Northeast, which is divisible between metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the former divinely male and the latter antidiabolically female, the one North-northeast and the other East-northeast. Confusing? Some may think so, but I am sure that the axial compass looks more comprehensively readable, and hence intelligible, on such a secondary intercardinal basis than would otherwise be the case. At no point, however, does this axial compass embrace cardinal points, since we are not concerned with a cross but with a diagonal axis between antithetical intercardinal points and, as noted above, their secondary extrapolations. Hence what was characterized as the Northwest point is now divisible, on a metachemical/antimetaphysical basis, between North-northwest and West-northwest, and what was characterized as the Southeast point is now divisible, on a physical/antichemical basis, between East-southeast and South-southeast, with a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial link, female gender to female gender, between metachemistry and antichemistry on the one hand and, male gender to male gender, antimetaphysics to physics on the other hand. Contrariwise, what was characterized as the Southwest point is now divisible, on a chemical/antiphysical basis, between West-southwest and South-southwest, and what was characterized as the Northeast point is now divisible, on a metaphysical/antimetachemical basis, between North-northeast and East-northeast, with a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial link, male gender to male gender, between antiphysics and metaphysics on the one hand and, female gender to female gender, chemistry to antimetachemistry on the other hand – the former in each case primary and the latter secondary.
8. The word ‘valuation’ is effectively a root word that can be divided into four different categories, viz. the metachemical category of devaluation, which is noumenally objective, and the chemical category of evaluation, which is phenomenally objective, both of which fundamentally appertain to the free female side of life and contrast with the physical category of revaluation, which is phenomenally subjective, and the metaphysical category of transvaluation, which is noumenally subjective, each of which essentially appertain to the free male side of life in what is, by comparison with its female counterpart, a secondary order of valuation. For valuations are primarily objective and only secondarily subjective, and therefore devaluation and evaluation, being objective, will be primary and revaluation and transvaluation, their subjective counterparts, secondary. But this is in effect to distinguish sensuality from sensibility and vice versa, and therefore to contrast barbarity and philistinism with civility and culture, the latter of which require a male lead of society at the expense of female freedom, which tends towards devaluation and evaluation in patently barbarous and philistine terms. But just as the male must be upended if the female side of things is to be hegemonically free, so the development of male freedom requires the correlative upending, or subordination, of female freedom, without which no lasting sensibility can be maintained in the face of sensuality. Therefore if we speak of devaluation in connection with metachemistry, which is noumenally objective, we must speak of its male corollary in terms of anti-transvaluation in connection with antimetaphysics, which is anti-noumenally subjective or, better, noumenally anti-subjective. Likewise if we speak of evaluation in connection with chemistry, which is phenomenally objective, we must speak of its male corollary in terms of anti-evaluation in connection with antiphysics, which is phenomenally anti-subjective. Contrariwise, if we speak, in relation to sensibility, of revaluation in connection with physics, which is phenomenally subjective, we must speak of its female corollary in terms of anti-evaluation, which is phenomenally anti-objective. And finally, if we speak of transvaluation in connection with metaphysics, which is noumenally subjective, we must speak of its female corollary in terms of anti-devaluation, which is noumenally anti-objective. Therefore we have to distinguish between the devaluating of metachemistry and the anti-transvaluating of antimetaphysics in relation to upper-class and anti-classless criteria germane, in general terms, to the Devil and Antigod, and contrast this, down the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, with a distinction between the revaluating of physics and the anti-evaluating of antichemistry in relation to middle-class and anti-lowerclass criteria germane, again in general terms, to man and antiwoman. Crossing to the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, we shall have to distinguish between the evaluating of chemistry and the anti-revaluating of antiphysics in relation to lower-class and anti-middleclass criteria germane, in general terms, to woman and antiman, and contrast this, up the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, with a distinction between the transvaluating of metaphysics and the anti-devaluating of antimetachemistry in relation to classless and anti-upperclass criteria germane, again in general terms, to God and the Antidevil. Thus, from a sensible standpoint, the standpoint of civility and culture, revaluations take precedence over anti-evaluations and transvaluations precedence over anti-devaluations, and that which appertains to evaluation in the one case and to devaluation in the other is adjudged ‘bad’ or morally undesirable, to be rejected and, where possible, avoided in the interests of sensibility. Contrary to which, a society not merely rooted in but effectively centred in or openly committed to sensuality, in short a heathenistic society whose standpoint is rather more barbaric and/or philistine, will allow if not encourage devaluations to take precedence over anti-transvaluations and evaluations precedence over anti-revaluations, whether because it is primitivistically ignorant of the possibility of transvaluations in the one case and revaluations in the other or because, having got beyond an older order of transvaluations and revaluations, it deems them ‘old hat’ and the product of superstition or oppression or elitism or what have you that should be avoided by the ‘progressive’ in the interests of sensual betterment or self-gratification (though I would normally use the term ‘not-self’ to describe somatic freedoms). Now while the former type of society is simply backward and in want of civilization, the latter type may well be technologically and environmentally pretty advanced but unaware, for all its liberation from the past, that it is simply the tails side of a coin that has yet to achieve redemption in the development of a heads side, a side beyond where it is at and capable, through an enhanced sense of revaluation or transvaluation, of exposing its limitations and overhauling what it will perceive to be the fruit of female domination and consequence of too much somatic freedom. Such a more advanced civilization may well be – and in the nature of national solidarity or social cohesion is almost certain to be – quite independent of the prevailing heathenistic type of society and not simply a development within it on a minority basis. It will emerge in consequence of a different historical pattern of culture and society than that typifying the somatically free nations, and will stand up for what is beyond the contemporary manifestations of barbarism and philistinism in terms of a new and altogether higher order, compared with anything traditional, of culture and civility. And, in doing so, it will affirm not merely revaluations at the expense of evaluations, in typically British revaluating and anti-evaluating vein, but transvaluations at the expense of devaluations and therefore be representative of the hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry, of classless transvaluating over anti-upperclass anti-devaluating.
9. The snag with revaluation at the anti-evaluating expense of evaluation is that it is only equivocally hegemonic and therefore subject to the subversion of physics by antichemistry acting in antithetical gender parallel with the rule of devaluation over anti-transvaluation in metachemistry over antimetaphyiscs back up the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a subversion that, in overall axial terms, ensures that devaluating and anti-evaluating take precedence over anti-transvaluating and revaluating in the primacy of the female input into the maintenance of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, a primacy which results in an antithesis between vanity and justice at the expense of pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness, whether in state or church. Therefore revaluation is not as morally significant as its advocates and devotees like to think, but rather tends to be co-opted to the service of anti-evaluation in consequence of the extent to which an unequivocal devaluation holds anti-transvaluation in antimetaphysical submission to its metachemical will, making not simply for state-hegemonic criteria but for the primacy of the female aspects of such criteria, as in relation to the polarity between metachemistry and antichemistry, a polarity which cannot but reduce antimetaphysics and physics to a secondary role, even if the one is unequivocally subordinate and the other equivocally hegemonic. Such a hegemony is a long way short of being metaphysically unequivocal in relation to a genuine order of transvaluation.
10. One cannot emphasize too often the female-dominated nature of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, and the fatality towards state absolutism which results less from the existence of liberal democracy vis-à-vis a constitutional monarchy, as in Britain, than from the degeneration of democracy from liberal to social democratic levels and the ensuing nazi-type backlash that will involve some degree or modification of autocratic criteria. One type of state extremism tends, in the modern age, to engender another, and the situation goes from bad to worse as the state fatality becomes more deeply entrenched and polarized in the name of opposite ‘ideals’. Yet, in reality, the only ‘ideal’, in the sense of freedom of action, is the somatic freedom of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, since democracy is, by nature, a creature of bound soma, of popular solidarity, and cannot reasonably endorse exploitative and predatory forms of free enterprise. The great democratic delusion is to suppose that you progress from liberal to social criteria, as from bourgeois humanism to proletarian humanism, when in point of fact you are simply regressing further down an axis and inviting an autocratic backlash from those who, for whatever reasons, would oppose the digging and levelling down of society into a kind of black hole of proletarian humanism, from which hole, as recent history has amply demonstrated, it is very difficult to climb back out. But this entire axis is the fruit of schismatic heresy and therefore of somatic freedom and psychic binding coupled, down below, to somatic binding and psychic freedom in what I have more than once described as the product of female dominion. It is, to be sure, the older and more basic if not always prevalent of the two axial inclinations, and one would hesitate to regard its Catholic counterpart as anything more, traditionally, than a dotted-line affair in relation to its heathenistic counterpart. But it invites state absolutism at the extremes, the pre-democratic or anti-social democratic extreme of the apex on the one hand, and the post-democratic or social democratic extreme at the base on the other hand, and in neither case is there much evidence of male values or of a male lead of society. On the contrary, the whole ethos of state absolutism arises out of a want of male resolve and through a rejection, in effect, of Catholic criteria such that results in the aforementioned state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis of Protestant antecedents which tends, in the course of time, towards an increasingly secular decadence or degeneration the more ineffectual pseudo-Christianity proves itself to be in the face of state-hegemonic values, of which vanity and justice are not the least! For it is the proletariat’s plea for justice that, if granted social democratic leverage, tends to encourage a backlash which would not be short on vanity if the extent to which its resort to public exhibitions and spectacles is anything to judge by! Justice is precisely the antichemical fatality of democratic societies, except that in the liberal case it is held in check, one might say, by the pseudo-righteousness of its physical counterpart and not encouraged, at least not consciously, to take on an absolutist form such that would result in the social democratic vengeance of the proletariat upon the bourgeoisie. Justice without pseudo-righteousness is the state absolutism of social democratic totalitarianism, and one can see without probing too deeply how much more female-oriented such a totalitarian outcome will be, since it is the logical extrapolation from antichemical justice and the enemy, in consequence, of physical pseudo-righteousness, which, in rejecting pseudo-Christianity (or what it takes to be Christianity and ‘the Church’), specifically with regard to its puritan aspect, it rightly adjudges bourgeois. Thus no longer a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate partnership but, on the contrary, the overly-justice affirming state absolutism which signifies the nadir of political and ideological degeneration, its digging down into a black hole of female-based totalitarianism. Frankly, could anything be worse? Is not an equally female-based reaction to this Bolshevistic nadir nazistically inevitable? History would confirm as much, and if the one is Marxistic then the other is surely Hegelian to a degree which leaves one in little doubt that any claim for ultimate or absolute justice by that segment of the people dubbed proletariat will be met by an equally absolutist approach to vanity, an approach no-less scornful of church-subordinate pseudo-meekness, and anxious to stamp out the tightening of somatic binding from a much looser and freer somatic vantage-point, one geared, in effect, to war and, ultimately, to total war as the vengeance of the metachemically reactionary upon the antichemically precocious.
11. Such antithetical state-hegemonic absolutist scenarios are virtually inconceivable within a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial context, as in the Republic of Ireland, where neither Hegelian nor Marxist state worship could hope to prevail against the male-led current which lifts life from a somatic emphasis, whether in binding or in freedom, to a psychic emphasis, an emphasis upon psyche which will be either bound and sinful and/or pseudo-criminal or free and graceful and/or pseudo-punishing, according to gender. Such a society, when not subject to a kind of blue-shirt reaction to secular encroachments of a communistic and therefore effectively alien or unrepresentative order in defence of the Church, will rather tend towards the possibility of a sort of church absolutism, which would not be incompatible with my own concept of ‘Kingdom Come’ in relation to Social Theocracy and hence the service, from a sort of administrative aside, of a religiously sovereign people should a majority mandate be forthcoming in the event of a paradoxical election in which the possibility of religious sovereignty was on the table as the only means by which the people could secure deliverance not only from their own – in relation to the axis in question – anti-omega/alpha worldly limitations, as already described, but also from those predatory exploitations to which they remain subject in the event of continuing exposure to the vanities and justices, coupled, in the male contexts, to pseudo-meeknesses and pseudo-righteousnesses of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society and thus, in effect, to the freedoms and bindings of the other axis, the secular product, with or without Hegelian or Marxist extremism, of schismatic heresy. Now such a new ‘absolutism’ as that to which I allude in the event of the aforementioned majority mandate in a paradoxical election, might well find itself confronted by a right-wing backlash analogous to fascism, whether internally or externally, and that problem would have to be dealt with in due course. For if Social Democracy invites a right-wing backlash in the form of Nazism, or some such defence of secular freedom, then it is not inconceivable that Social Theocracy would incur a similar backlash, relative to its own axis, in the form of a fascistic defence of traditional Catholic values, principally by those who hadn’t voted for religious sovereignty out of loyalty to the Church and fear or mistrust of the consequences. However that may or may not be, there can be no question that whether Social Theocracy would incur as much reaction, in its own church-hegemonic/state-subordinate context, as Social Democracy did in relation to state-hegemonic criteria, some reaction there would certainly be, though with less justification, as far as I am concerned, than attended the reaction to Social Democracy. For state absolutism of a bound, or democratic, order is not to be compared with church absolutism of a free, or theocratic, order, any more than one could compare bound soma with free psyche. The reaction to bound soma from the standpoint of free soma is one of state-hegemonic ‘idealism’ vis-à-vis a more radical departure down the state-hegemonic axis that takes somatic binding, or democratic solidarity, to a new and altogether more absolutist order of humanism commensurate with the proletariat. The reaction, hypothetically, to free psyche from the standpoint of bound psyche, on the other hand, would be one of church-hegemonic ‘realism’ vis-à-vis a more radical elevation up the church-hegemonic axis that aimed to take psychic freedom, or theocratic individuality, to a new and altogether more absolutist order of suprahumanism commensurate with God. No small difference! The ‘ideal’ on the church-hegemonic axis does not lie ‘down below’, with the broad masses, any more than does the ‘ideal’, somewhat materialistic and antifundamentalistic, of state-hegemonic axial criteria, but ‘up above’, and therefore any resistance to theocratic progress ‘from below’ would be ideologically and morally less justified than resistance, across the axial divide, to democratic ‘progress’ – in reality regress – ‘from above’, even if a certain degree of resistance or reaction to the said theocratic progress would have to be expected in light of the fact that not all those ‘down below’ are genuinely committed to ‘world overcoming’ and an end, in consequence, to their own worldly shortcomings and failings, never mind to deliverance from the sorts of commercial exploitations which, from a contrary axial standpoint, take full advantage of those shortcomings and failings. But, that said, it would be unrealistic to suppose that most of those ‘down below’ were predisposed to reaction from an unduly conventional or traditional Catholic standpoint when the great majority happen to fall into the category of lapsed or quasi-secularized Catholics, who are precisely the ones who would have most to gain from being delivered from the secular predations of the state-hegemonic, following the overhaul of their own church-hegemonic axis in the manner described.
12. For those who accuse me of ‘extremism’, let me say that the absolutism to which I, as a self-professed Social Theocrat, subscribe is not only contrary to any autocratic extremism, but the only means whereby the lapsed Catholic urban majorities of countries like Eire could be delivered from their worldly relativities, whether or not such relativities are commensurate with moderation, and thus from the kinds of predations that take advantage of them from a largely autocratic point of view, even if such autocracy tends to have its extremism militated by pluralism and by notions of democratic accountability. Sure, Social Theocracy is extreme, but you do not combat one order of extremism with moderation, with relativity, since such extremism has its own less than Social Democratic mode of relativity in economic partnership with it down the state-hegemonic axis, and the only other mode of relativity happens to pertain to those who are in the front line, so to speak, of being preyed upon by the vain and pseudo-meek fruits of commercial exploitation. God and his female corollary the Antidevil are extreme, or noumenally absolutist, as befits the respective ‘natures’ of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, and it would be a rare privilege for those who were less than godly or antidevilish to gradually find themselves becoming more so in proportion as they were delivered both from themselves and their netherworldly/anti-otherworldly exploiters, something that is not likely to happen as long as they remain the subject of relative restrictions taking place under the cover of moderation and other such simplistic if not duplistic terms. But human life cannot level with absolutism or extremism or noumenal sensibility – call it what you like – for long or in any great numbers, least of all where godly and antidevilish criteria are concerned, which is precisely why it can only be conceived of and developed in conjunction with cyborgization and the gradual transmutation of the relevant human material towards levels and stages of life which would be more at home in a comparatively absolutist context, and not simply for the sake of cyborgization, important as that is, but in order to remain at a discreet remove from the contexts in which commercial exploitation take place and to be able to handle the modified synthetic stimulants that would encourage inner development more painlessly and lastingly than would otherwise be possible, thereby turning life around, for those concerned, from a context in which they were subject to the impositions of, among other things, filmic outer light to one in which they were in control of their own inner light and able to develop an enhanced sense of inner freedom in consequence. For only psychic freedom of a metaphysical and, for females, antimetachemical order is commensurate with godliness and antidevilishness and, hence, with the righteous and pseudo-just retort to the tyrannical impositions of vanity and pseudo-meekness to which the quasi-vain (lapsed female catholic pseudo-vain) and quasi-pseudo-meek (lapsed male catholic meek) will otherwise continue to remain subject, to the detriment of their souls and of all that is graceful and wise in metaphysical transcendentalism and idealism, coupled, for females, to all that is pseudo-punishing and pseudo-good in antimetachemical antifundamentalism and antimaterialism, as described in previous texts in relation to this elevated distinction between noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality, eternity and anti-infinity, ‘celestial city’ and ‘anti-vanity fair’, the focal points not simply of truth and beauty but of the truthful approach to beauty and the beautiful approach to truth such as are the prerequisites not simply of joy and love but of the joyful approach to love and the loving approach to joy, joy no less soulfully heavenly than the joyful approach to love is spiritually heavenly; love no less spiritually anti-hellish than the loving approach to joy is soulfully anti-hellish and therefore the female compliment, for all anti-infinity, to the joy of Heaven. All this is incontrovertible. Whether the people will accept it remains to be seen, but then so, too, does the capacity to deliver salvation and counter-damnation to them more efficaciously, and thus to provide the necessary inducements which, stemming ‘from above’, should encourage them to leave their low estate for pastures new.
13. Some will think me anti-democratic, but I do not see myself in terms of being against democracy per se, like an authoritarian autocrat, but rather as someone who upholds what he believes to lie beyond democracy and to require a majority mandate from the electorate if, as Social Theocracy, it is to emerge as the logical successor to political sovereignty and in some sense as its fulfilment and vindication. For democracy will not have delivered the people from autocratic tyranny, whether such tyranny masks as theocracy or not, if they do not utilize it, in due course, to vote for religious sovereignty and thus for freedom not only from Creatoresque primitivity but, more importantly, for psychic self-development in relation to metaphysical and, for females, antimetachemical sensibility. Yet there are different approaches, it has to be said, to democracy, and clearly the British approach is not one that logically lends itself to notions of ‘world overcoming’ and psychic emancipation. Rather it is a sort of end-in-itself which, while fighting shy of Social Democracy, is held in check by Constitutional Autocracy in the form of the Monarchy and is thus the counter pole in the maintenance of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate continuity and consistency. If this is democracy per se, then it is axially incompatible with the prospect of ‘Kingdom Come’ in relation to the utilization of democracy to a Social Theocratic end. So, in that sense, democracy is incapable of its own self-overcoming except in the overly just context of Social Democracy, which would only signify a further regression of popular sovereignty. Clearly, democracy as an end-in-itself, whether on a liberal or a social democratic basis, is something I do not and cannot approve of; but that is only because, as someone of Irish Catholic descent, I do not relate to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria. Thus the kind of democracy I can condone, without being overly partial to it, bears little resemblance to the British variety, being, if anything, the traditional handmaiden of church-hegemonic criteria, if, in this age of Americanization, much less so than before on account of the extent to which the people of countries like Eire come under American cultural influence and think and behave in a quasi-state-hegemonic fashion, whether as quasi-vain chemical females vis-à-vis metachemical vanity or as quasi-pseudo-meek antiphysical males vis-à-vis antimetaphysical pseudo-meekness. Yet that is only a transitional phase, the way I see it, to the possibility of a renewal, through an overhaul of the traditional system, of church-hegemonic criteria in relation to Social Theocracy and thus of an end to the paradoxical state of affairs which, while theoretically rooted in traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, strains, almost heliotropically, towards the American brand of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate influence raining down from the overhauled manifestation of the schismatic axis, the manifestation that, contrary to Britain or to British tradition, is more genuine at the free somatic apex than at the bound somatic base and thus upholds its own version of autocratic freedom at the expense of democratic binding. The British, for all their talk of freedom, are traditionally and overwhelmingly a bound people for whom loyalty to the reigning monarch – ‘long to reign over’ them – is virtually sacrosanct, whereas the Americans, despite their adherence to what I would call pseudo-democracy ‘down below’, are much more open, in cultural terms, to that which appertains, in modified autocratic fashion, to the apex of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, as the exemplification, par excellence, of somatic freedom. But that is precisely the kind of freedom which the lapsed Catholic majority of countries like Eire need to be delivered from if they are to reap the benefit, through a renewal of church-hegemonic criteria, of psychic freedom, the noumenal antithesis, across the axial divide, to what passes for freedom in the contemporary Americanized world. Only with a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a paradoxical election can steps be taken to reorientate the concept and reality of freedom in such fashion that the Irish people will no longer be at cross-purposes, under American pressure, with their axial tradition but be enjoying the benefits of its Social Theocratic overhaul and renewal. For only the male lead of society towards a divine/antidiabolic salvation can put an end to the female rule of society in diabolic/antidivine undamnation, causing that which gradually finds itself bereft of unsaved antimasculine/feminine prey to collapse, for want of economic viability, down its own state-hegemonic axis into the just damnation of the antifeminine/masculine. For in saving the antimasculine/feminine the divine/antidiabolic will bring damnation to the diabolic/antidivine, whose only hope of redemption will lie with the antifeminine/masculine and the extent to which, in making the Damned over in their own image, they prove themselves worthy to be swivelled across, as it were, to the foot of the church-hegemonic axis and ‘made over’ in the image of those who had previously been saved up it to divine/antidiabolic pastures ‘On High’, thereby exchanging damnation for unsalvation as a precondition of salvation in due course, a process duly applying to their damned church-subordinate co-religionists, as also, of course, in respect of state-subordinate criteria and the inevitability of counter-damnation as the bound somatic corollary of psychic freedom.
14. All of this I have gone into before, so it is hardly new! I am not the mouth for the majority of British or even American ears, to paraphrase Nietzsche, but the majority of Irish ears and like-minded traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate peoples, and I speak less as an Irish Catholic than as a Social Theocrat, and therefore one who is beyond the Church even as he is beyond the democracy that appertains, if only in theory, to the Church, and axially distinct from anything Social Democratic. If Social Democracy is extreme Left statism, then Social Theocracy can only be extreme Left churchism, the theocracy of radical progress as opposed, on the state-hegemonic axis, to the democracy of radical regress. For there the people tend, when they are not liberal democratic, down, as into a black hole or vacuum of absolute justice, whereas over on the church-hegemonic axis of male-led criteria the people will have the possibility, when not overly Roman theocratic, of tending up, as into a white light or plenum of absolute righteousness coupled, for females, to pseudo-justice, the antimetachemical counterpart, in antidiabolism, to the divine righteousness of metaphysics.
15. Let those who shout the loudest for justice remember that justice and righteousness are incompatible, and that when justice has her way on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis righteousness can only be pseudo, whereas when righteousness has his way on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis then justice can only be pseudo and, hence, of subordinate significance. For justice is a female, more specifically an antifeminine female when genuine and an antidiabolic female when pseudo, but righteousness is a male, more specifically a masculine male when pseudo and a divine male when genuine. These are the sensible pairings of two separate and independent axes, two approaches to civilization, the justice/pseudo-righteousness pairing sensibly antithetical to the vanity/pseudo-meekness pairing of the female-ruled axis and the righteousness/pseudo-justice pairing sensibly antithetical to the meekness/pseudo-vanity pairing of the male-led axis, whether or not each axis is compromised by epochal overhaulings or modifications, as described in previous texts.
16. Speaking of two separate, independent axes, is it not the case that the square-topped bus-stops used in London and, presumably, in much of Britain connote the descending axis from noumenal sensuality/noumenal anti-sensibility to phenomenal anti-sensuality/phenomenal sensibility which, in geometric terms, is surely headed or, rather, ruled by squares, whether or not circles in squares (as in the case of London bus-stops) are correlatively in accompaniment, the same of course applying to rectangles in ovals or, more correctly once antichemical subversion of the physical is taken into account, ovals in rectangles for the relative base of the axis in question, both of which would contrast with the ovals in rectangles or, again more correctly when once the antiphysical subversion of the chemical is taken into account, rectangles in ovals at the foot of the ascending axis from phenomenal anti-sensibility/phenomenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility/noumenal anti-sensuality which, in geometric terms, would surely be headed, or led, by circles, whether or not squares in circles were correlatively in accompaniment, and thus by the type of bus-stops found in Dublin and, presumably, throughout Eire, which are demonstrably circular, or curvilinear, at the top and amply reflective, in consequence, of the distinction between theocratic and autocratic values which characterizes the two nations – Britain ruled by autocratic squares and Ireland, or Eire, led by theocratic circles. All the difference, in short, between a matriarchy, like Britain, and a patriarchy, like Eire, irrespective of intermediate democratic factors in each case.
17. I am often amazed, as an Irish citizen in Britain, a person of Irish birth, by the fact that I am in Britain at all. What the hell am I doing here? is a thought which is constantly brought home to me by the clash between my ideological insights and alignments and the state-hegemonic axial reality confronting me at every turn, not only at bus-stops (which I rarely stand under since I catch a bus – those shiny red things uncomfortably reminiscent, for me, of red phone booths and post-boxes – only as a last resort), but in any number of different contexts and circumstances, some of which are inescapable. My only consolation is that I was not responsible for bringing myself to Britain in the first place, though the fact that my father – an Irish Catholic – married a woman who turned out to be less Irish and less Catholic, despite her returning-from-Britain Irish-Catholic mother, than he may have at first supposed, is doubtless at the roots of why I never knew him but was obliged to grow up, first in Ireland and then in Britain, without the benefit of any paternal parenting at all and with a mother whom I quickly came to despise for her inability to take his place and fulfil his role. No wonder that when her mother died when I was about nine or ten and was packed off back to Ireland – yet again! – my mother lost no time in having me despatched to a Children’s Home in Carshalton Beeches and effectively washed her hands with me, since I must have been something of an imposition with no father around all that time and a painful reminder of their incompatibility, something that can only have been in consequence of her having been born and raised in Aldershot by dint of being the daughter of an Ulster Protestant who had joined the British Army as a youth and happened to be stationed there. But when he died from unnatural causes apparently incurred in consequence of military service overseas, then her mother, who had apparently met him when he was on a tour of duty in Southern Ireland, wanted back to Ireland again, and that meant, in those days of dependency, that her daughter would have to go too, even though she was partly of British descent. Thus Mary Aldershot – as I subsequently leant on a visit ‘home’ that various of my Galway relatives apparently thought of her – found herself marrying an Irishman (which ideally she would have preferred not to have done, so she once told me) who wasn’t long in growing disillusioned with his choice of wife and running out on her, leaving them to take care of their public house as best they could until, out of funds and with no prospect of keeping it going, they were obliged to return to their old lodgings in Aldershot … dragging me along with them. Thus I, the Irish-born son of a Catholic Galwayman, grew up in Aldershot, home of the British army! I was and continued to be an outsider and social anomaly, who despises women because he had too much experience of them in the one room he was obliged to share with his somewhat resentfully cold mother and rheumatic grandmother as a child. I am, if you will, an unfortunate bastard who cares nothing for families, sexual relationships, or any of the other norms of British or, indeed, Irish society, and it was in consequence of this anomalous background, extending, as it did, from a sort of Irish Catholic upbringing in Aldershot under my grandmother’s ethnic protection to an English Baptist upbringing in Carshalton Beeches once my mother was free to get rid of me and start again, that I was set on the road to becoming a writer and artist, even if on a necessarily unrecognized basis in keeping with my unrepresentative status and loner’s lifestyle. Meanwhile, with me out of the way and her mother too, my mother was able to get her life back together and make an attempt at carrying on as though nothing had happened, which, in her case, meant marrying a black West Indian and moving to Finsbury Park in north London. Years later it all came to nothing, but I never saw that much of them in any case and I have seen even less of my mother in recent years, while she, to be best of my knowledge, has never made any effort to visit or do anything for me. We are simply Irish/British poles apart, and would rarely or never agree over things like Northern Ireland, which I simply regarded as the consequence of British imperialism and not simply an indigenous struggle between what some would have us believe were warring tribes. I am myself a consequence of ethnic antagonism and incompatibility, whatever various people may have done to mask the fact, and even now I cannot visit Galway with any confidence that my surviving relatives there would really wish to see me, in view of the goings on between my father and mother in the past and the total want of any paternal input into my upbringing, never mind the embarrassment, from an Irish Catholic point of view, that it largely took place outside the country, in England, of all places, and in Aldershot and Carshalton Beeches in particular! I am, from their standpoint, something best ‘brushed under the carpet’ as something that never happened, ‘out of sight’ being, as far as they’re concerned, ‘out of mind’. Thus I am an outsider in my native country even as I protest my incompatibility with England and Britain in general, detesting the axial irrelevance to my own preference, from a male standpoint, for church-hegemonic criteria, albeit, in consequence of my exile and upbringing, of a very different order to what prevails in Eire. For I am after all a self-styled Social Theocrat, and therefore nothing but the democratic overthrow of religious tradition would suit me. If I have never loved my mother, I have only contempt and hatred towards my father, who proved himself useless to me and harmful towards himself. No wonder that my general attitude towards Irish males is cool to the point of sarcastic suspicion if not ironic contempt, since my father is no father in any real sense, and I tend to regard all Irishmen, in consequence, as guilty until proven innocent, the opposite, in effect, of the mass English position of being innocent (of crime) until proven guilty! But then Catholic males are effectively guilty of sin until proven innocent by the grace that attends penitential contrition. Well, they’ll get no penitential contrition out of me, Baptist upbringing or no Baptist upbringing, but only a merciless opposition to all things Catholic and Protestant that stand in the way of Social Theocracy, and which Social Theocracy and Social Theocracy alone can banish to the rubbish heap of history in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and an end to all things Christian and ethnically divisive in consequence! I detest this half-and-half religion of worldly hypocrisy and sanctimonious cant! I am absolutely incapable, with good reason, of honouring my father and mother, neither of whom honoured me, and long for the day when the Bible is no more, when, following the righteous judgement of the people, it can be consigned to the rubbish heap of history and cast out of evolving life, that life may evolve beyond anything rooted in Creator-worship and slavish adherence to the negative doctrines of the ‘thou shalt nots’. Not ‘thou shalt not’ do something negative (a consequence in large part of the arrogation of divine attributes to the diabolic which has the effect of muzzling its wilful freedom as a metachemical, or diabolically female, entity) but ‘you can and should’ do something positive would be the doctrine of Social Theocracy, not least in relation to ‘self-realization’ through a variety of synthetic hallucinogens or psychogenic stimulants. You can and should become, according to gender, either godly or antidevilish, and thus part company with your lowly estate in the alpha/anti-omega world, not least since what that makes you vulnerable to is considerably less than godly or antidevilish, being, even by Old Testament standards, devilish and antigodly! Away with this lie and anti-truth once the truth and its anti-lie female corollary sets you free. For only truth (coupled to the anti-lie) can set you free, as antimasculine males and feminine females, from yourselves and from those diabolic females and antidivine males who cynically avail of your limitations to commercially prey upon you and rip you off. But, really, it is males who will be set free of psychic binding in psychic freedom and, despite diplomatic rhetoric from above, females who will be counter-damned up from somatic freedom to somatic binding, as far as would be compatible with the main gender emphases in each case. For life is and remains a gender struggle, and who knows that better than I, who witnessed and experienced the consequences of gender incompatibility complicated by ethnic and even class factors as a child? A beautiful approach to truth and a loving approach to joy is all very well in secondary church-hegemonic terms, but beauty and love are still more significant from a female standpoint, and that is precisely the state-subordinate standpoint of antimetachemical bound soma which I like to regard as secondary (in theory) compared to the truthful approach to beauty and joyful approach to love of its male counterpart which, as we all know, is much less significant, as Son of God and Holy Spirit of Heaven, than God and Heaven in the truth and joy of metaphysical free psyche. Therefore just as primary state-subordinate criteria are an offshoot of primary church-hegemonic criteria in metaphysics, so secondary church-hegemonic criteria are an offshoot of secondary state-subordinate criteria in antimetachemistry. God the Father may be of more metaphysical significance than the Son of God but, believe me, Antidevil the Antimother is of more antimetachemical significance than the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, whatever rhetoric, aiming at church parallelism, may have to say to the contrary! And, by a like token, while Heaven the Holy Soul may be of more metaphysical significance than the Holy Spirit of Heaven, Antihell the Unclear Spirit can only remain of more antimetachemical significance than the Unclear Soul of Antihell. For even in noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality males and females remain different and separate creatures, for whom the age-old difference between psyche preceding and predominating over soma in the one case and soma preceding and predominating over psyche in the other case will continue, despite cyborgistic modifications in the course of time, to exist. In the final analysis there will still be Eternity and Anti-Infinity, not simply an Omega Point but an accompanying Anti-Alpha Point for that which is antimetachemically less than metaphysics and accordingly more anti-upperclass than classless.
18. It is this sense of the dual gender nature of ‘Kingdom Come’ that precludes me from falling into utopian error. For the utopian thinker invariably reduces everything to one gender, whether male or female, and simply subsumes the opposite gender into his reductionist ideal. But that is the last thing I could be accused of doing! With me two gender standpoints always have to be accounted for, and no sooner have you accounted for the hegemonic gender’s position in relation to God and Heaven than you must also account for the subordinate gender’s position in relation to the Antidevil and Antihell, as in the above-mentioned context of Eternity and Anti-Infinity, the former male and the latter female. An inability or failure to divide your thinking in this way will simply lead to utopian error, whereby it will be assumed that everyone can be subsumed into God and Heaven irrespective of gender. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth, and the sooner people come to realize this, in rejection of the contemporary tendency to undermine gender discrimination in all walks of life, the better it will be for all concerned, females included! Actually, what one has these days, in the wake of the undermining of gender differentiation and discrimination as a symptom of bourgeois and/or Western decadence, is the American-led tendency to go beyond Western decadence on an alpha-stemming global basis which is more openly sensual than degenerately sensible and consequently nearer to affirming gender inequality in terms of a female hegemony, the sort of hegemony which one would have characterized as being somehow compatible with the more blatant aspects of sensuality issuing via cathode-ray-tube technology and the like, not least in respect of females being coitally dominant over males. Frankly, there is about much contemporary Anglo-American culture a parallel with Greco-Roman culture whereby matriarchal criteria take precedence over anything patriarchal in typically heathenistic vein. Certainly the coming of Christianity changed all that, and it was not until the Reformation and the ascendancy of Protestantism that the balance began to tip back the other way, towards the secular openness we find ourselves living under today and the almost taking for granted of female hegemonic criteria in certain countries which, though not openly admitted to, spring from a want of gender discrimination and differentiation – indeed, crawl out of the gender equalitarianism which Western decadence, in the sense of bourgeois Protestant culture, encouraged. For if you give a creature who is a XX-chromosomal negativity a proverbial inch of liberal licence she will sooner or later take a mile of wilful illiberality in the sort of pluralistic autocracy which characterizes contemporary American-lead secular culture. Such is the heathenistic outcome of post-Reformation schism and heresy, and, frankly, it stinks to high hell! So let those of us who still cling, no matter how fitfully or pessimistically, to church-hegemonic criteria remain faithful – as, indeed, did the Nazis despite their state-hegemonic aberrations – to gender discrimination and the possibility of its overhaul and renewal via Social Theocracy at some future date. Let us continue to remain outside the Anglo-American liberal conspiracy against church-hegemonic values which both autocracy and democracy represent in their opposite ways, but let us work, more importantly, for the overhaul of traditional bureaucratic/theocratic norms in order that the majority of our people may be saved and counter-damned from the secular impositions which state-hegemonic societies continue to inflict upon their less secular and more traditionally faithful neighbours. For it is not our destiny to follow the Anglo-Saxon model of liberal secularity, but to lead others in the development of a radical theocratic alternative to this heathenistic blight which is the immoral fruit of schismatic heresy.
19. The church-subordinate pseudo-Christians may encourage the spread of female ministers, since their Anglican to Puritan axis is characterized by the domination of female criteria over anything male, whether unequivocally in the subordination of antimetaphysics to metachemistry or equivocally in the subversion of physics by antichemistry, but it would be quite out of order for the Roman Catholic Church to follow suit, given its tradition of male domination, whether equivocally in the subversion of chemistry by antiphysics or unequivocally in the subordination of antimetachemistry to metaphysics. Whether society is ruled by females or led by males is so crucial to the distinction between state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria … that it would be inconceivable for either approach to civilization to do a deal with the other and fudge the issue as of small moment. The Protestant situation is a consequence, in no small measure, of the liberal heresy of gender equalitarianism, and it is against this error that Social Theocracy must carry on from where Roman Catholicism left off, renewing the sense of gender discrimination which first Protestantism and then Liberalism did their best to eclipse, so that, with us, things become even more logically and methodically discriminatory than was the case in the Catholic past, when, in consequence of a genuine ‘below’ and a pseudo ‘above’, a true sense of metaphysics vis-à-vis antmetachemistry did not come to pass and the ‘above’ resorted to a verbal absolution ‘fudge’ that pandered, in some sense, to the ‘below’ while still being hamstrung, over and above this, by traditional alpha-based concepts of divinity which are themselves the product of an arrogation of divine attributes to the diabolic in the guise of Devil the Mother hyped as God. No wonder, then, that the omega-oriented position was less than properly differentiated along metaphysical/antimetachemical grounds. For a metaphysical postulate at the level – necessarily Christian – of mankind would not entail allegiance to the concept of ‘sacred heart’ so much as allegiance to the concept of ‘sacred lungs’, and thus to a TM-like break, Buddhist-like, with the tradition, open to either gender, of verbal absolution for penitential contrition. Such was never the case, and therefore the Church, for all its metaphysical aspirations, remained the victim of metachemical/antimetaphysical conventions stretching back, Old Testament-wise, to Judaism. This want of true differentiation above is what condemns the Church from a Social Theocratic standpoint and exposes its Western limitations even vis-à-vis Eastern transcendentalism, of which transcendental meditation is the epitome and acme of mankind’s departure from either natural or cosmic subservience. But even radical Buddhism, being Eastern, is of mankind and thus no long-term alternative to Roman Catholicism as the most religiously representative manifestation of Western civilization. Global civilization transcends both the West and the East, and is therefore beyond even TM in its commitment to synthetically artificial values, whether, as at present, with a sensual bias or, hopefully in the future, following a Social Theocratic revolution, with a markedly sensible one. And it is for us to develop the gender differential between metaphysics and antimetachemistry to its logical conclusions in the interests of a virtuous circle of Eternity and Anti-Infinity, Time and Antispace, Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, classlessness and anti-upperclassness, God and Antidevil, Heaven and Antihell, Yang and Anti-Yin, Lamb and Anti-Lion and/or Wolf, Truth and the beautiful approach to Truth, Joy and the loving approach to Joy, not to mention, where state-subordinate (bound somatic) criteria are concerned, the truthful approach to Beauty and Beauty, the joyful approach to Love and Love.
20. Thus we will not suffer from the Western-inspired fudge which tends to make a nec plus ultra out of Love, the concomitant of Beauty. As I said before, love is a very secondary deal from a heavenly standpoint, which, being primary church-hegemonic, will always be centred in Joy, as, where God is concerned, in Truth. But Truth, and thus joy, is not possible so long as the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God continues to hold anything noumenally contrary to itself, in sensibility, back from full revelation and realization, thereby causing Love (and Beauty) to be exaggerated out of all proportion to their actual (antimetachemical) worth. Only when this is rejected, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, will it be possible for what is really true to ‘come out’ and ‘stand tall’, independently of all alpha-based arrogations and able to master beauty and love and subordinate them to itself. Then it will not be logically possible to speak religiously in the name of Love but rather in the name of Joy as primary church-hegemonic and, from a female standpoint, the loving approach to Joy as secondary church-hegemonic … within the overall context of the Centre, relegating the joyful approach to Love and, for females, Love to primary and secondary, metaphysical and antimetachemical, manifestations of state subordination within that self-same or, more correctly, notself-same otherworldly/anti-netherworldly relativistic absolutism ... of post-church/state worldly relativity which I have identified with the Centre, whether or not one prefers to consider the ‘state’ aspect of it Social Theocratic and the ‘church’ aspect of it Social Transcendentalist as I, for one, would, if only because the service and protection of a religiously sovereign people would be a different proposition from their religious rights in the Centre-proper, not least in respect of their defence from internal subversion or even outside interference.
21. I spoke, a while ago, of the overhaul of traditional bureaucratic/theocratic criteria in relation to the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, which was of course contrasted with the autocratic/democratic criteria of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis. In reality, however, things are more complicated that that, since neither axis, whether traditional or overhauled, is commensurate with one criterion at either pole, so to speak, but is divisible between the ideological equivalents of both gender positions in each case, making for a distinction between, say, autocracy and antitheocracy in relation to the Northwest point of the state-hegemonic axis and between antibureaucracy and democracy in relation to the Southeast point of the said axis, with a similar, if contrary, distinction between antidemocracy and bureaucracy in relation to the Southwest point of the church-hegemonic axis and between theocracy and anti-autocracy in relation to the Northeast point of the same axis. Therefore contrary to a simple polarity between autocracy and democracy, we find that autocracy is unequivocally hegemonic over antitheocracy like Vanity Fair over Anti-Celestial City, while antibureaucracy is equivocally subversive of democracy like Anti-Slough of Despond of Mr Worldy Wise, autocracy and antibureaucracy being metachemically and antichemically antithetical in relation to female criteria, antitheocracy and democracy being antimetaphysically and physically antithetical in relation to male criteria. Likewise, contrary to a simple polarity between bureaucracy and theocracy, we find that antidemocracy is equivocally subversive of bureaucracy like Anti-Mr Worldly Wise of the Slough of Despond, while theocracy is unequivocally hegemonic over anti-autocracy like the Celestial City over Anti-Vanity Fair, antidemocracy and theocracy being antiphysically and metaphysically antithetical in relation to male criteria, bureaucracy and anti-autocracy being chemically and antimetachemically antithetical in relation to female criteria. Hence, in gender terms, a link, in the primary state-hegemonic case, between diabolic female and antifeminine female positions in respect of noumenal sensuality and phenomenal anti-sensuality is juxtaposed with a link, in the secondary state-hegemonic case, between antidivine male and masculine male positions in respect of noumenal anti-sensibility and phenomenal sensibility, and the overall axial context would be geometrically akin to a circle within a square above and an oval within a rectangle below, at the base of the axis in question. Similarly, a link, in the primary church-hegemonic case, between antimasculine male and divine male positions in respect of phenomenal anti-sensibility and noumenal sensibility would be juxtaposed with a link, in the secondary church-hegemonic case, between feminine female and antidiabolic female positions in respect of phenomenal sensuality and noumenal anti-sensuality, with the overall axial context being geometrically akin to a rectangle within an oval below and a square within a circle above, at the apex of the axis in question. Therefore far from a simple polarity between autocratic and democratic factors in the one axial case and bureaucratic and theocratic factors in the other, we find that the actual polarities, based in gender distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity and/or their respective negations, are rather more between autocracy and antibureaucracy coupled to antitheocracy and democracy in the case of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but between antidemocracy and theocracy coupled to bureaucracy and anti-autocracy in the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. Nothing, therefore, could be more misleadingly false than to contend that the axes are the result of simple polarities between two singular factors in each case. Both democracy in relation to the one axis and bureaucracy in relation to the other, the former male and the latter female, are merely equivocally hegemonic and therefore subject to subversion by their respective under-plane corollaries, viz. antibureaucracy and antidemocracy, acting at the behest of the corresponding unequivocally hegemonic gender position ‘on high’ which, whether autocratic or theocratic, is able to link, at the subordinate expense of antitheocracy or anti-autocracy, depending on the axis, with its gender counterpart ‘down below’ and permit of the latter’s subversive influence on the equivocally hegemonic factor, be it democratic or bureaucratic, to a gender-conditioned state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial outcome which will remain both consistent with itself and capable of lasting continuity and stability. The circle in a square leading to the oval in a rectangle of the one axis is no less the product of female domination in overall axial terms than is the rectangle in an oval leading to the square in a circle the product, in overall axial terms, of male domination. You no more achieve a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial integrity on the basis of a male lead of society than a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial integrity on the basis of a female rule of society. Rather, the contrary is true in each case, and that is why autocracy and antibureaucracy are the primary poles and antitheocracy and democracy the secondary poles of the one axis, but antidemocracy and theocracy the primary poles and bureaucracy and anti-autocracy the secondary poles of the other axis. Thus in overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms the upper-class objectivity of autocracy and the anti-classless anti-subjectivity of antitheocracy form a noumenal pairing which contrasts with the phenomenally anti-lowerclass anti-objectivity of antibureaucracy and the middle-class subjectivity of democracy as metachemistry links with antichemistry and antimetaphysics with physics, whereas in overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms the classless subjectivity of theocracy and the anti-upperclass anti-objectivity of anti-autocracy form a noumenal pairing which contrasts with the phenomenally anti-middleclass anti-subjectivity of antidemocracy and the lower-class objectivity of bureaucracy as metaphysics links with antiphysics and antimetachemistry with chemistry. Traditionally, all this does of course work from the top down, as outlined above, though increasingly we find that in a post-worldly age it is rather more from the bottom up, so that the relationships are somewhat reversed and we find that antibureaucracy leads to autocracy and democracy to antitheocracy in the one axial case and, at the risk of seeming precocious, antidemocracy leads to theocracy and bureaucracy to anti-autocracy in the other axial case, a case which has yet to achieve a comparable overall of its own axial integrity to that which characterizes the overhaul of British state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria by American axial criteria of a similar, if converse, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate bent, an overhaul that would shift the focus from the ‘below’ to the ‘above’ as the pseudo nature of the former increasingly came under the more genuine nature of the latter as things progressed towards a ‘Kingdom Come’-like scenario in which the ‘above’ sought to effect, in the manner previously described in this and other texts, a more efficacious and permanent salvation and counter-damnation of the ‘below’, thereby delivering both the pseudo-feminine and pseudo-antimasculine from their own pseudo-alpha/pseudo-antiomega worldly limitations and the netherworldly/anti-otherworldly predations to which they remain perforce subjected as quasi-vain (female) and quasi-pseudo-meek (male) departures from traditional catholic meek and pseudo-vain positions, their church-hegemonic/state-subordinate norms twisted towards quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria by the noumenally sensual/noumenally anti-sensible impositions which daily rain down upon them from the apex of the other axis and remove them from the sphere of conventional catholic salvation and counter-damnation. Only the overhaul, as I say, of this axis will permit salvation and counter-damnation to once more come back onto the agenda, and with a vengeance! For the salvation and counter-damnation of the pseudo-phenomenally anti-sensible and their female counterparts the pseudo-phenomenally sensual to genuine noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality in metaphysics and antimetachemistry will ultimately bring about the undoing of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria and effect the damnation and counter-salvation of those who now prey upon them down to their own ‘lower orders’, from where they will be judged and ‘made over’ in the pseudo-antialpha/pseudo-omega worldly images of those already there as a precondition of subsequent transmutation as and when it becomes politic for the latter to be swivelled across to the foot of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis and duly saved and counter-damned up in the wake of the lapsed Catholic majority of that axis. But that would be a very long-term process, and in the meantime there is much to be done to effect the overhaul of our own church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in such fashion that the majority are no longer removed from the possibility of salvation and counter-damnation but are able to embrace a totally new concept of deliverance from their worldly plight to pastures both new and higher, in their more genuine nature, than have ever existed before, with potentials for ‘world overcoming’ that would put the Catholic tradition to shame. For the world or, in this case, the pseudo-worldly positions of both the pseudo-feminine and their pseudo-antimasculine counterparts, is not to be taken lightly but regarded as something from which to be delivered if those who now avail of it in state-hegemonic/church-subordinate fashion are to be brought low and their pseudo-worldly victims raised up to new and altogether unprecedented heights of salvation and counter-damnation.
22. The overhaul of traditional, or worldly, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria by America has led to a society the reverse of Britain, or at least of what Britain used to be before it came under American influence and effective political domination, a domination which has played no small part in keeping Britain at loggerheads with much of continental Europe and its struggle for European unity. For while Britain could traditionally be described as a country whose sense of fulcrum or ‘ideal’, no matter how misguided, is, being democratic and puritan, of the Many, its American counterpart is decidedly a country whose active ideal, if not always sense of fulcrum, being autocratic and ‘anglican’, if not quasi-Judaic or Indian fundamentalist, is of the Few, meaning, principally, those who best represent its metachemical and even antimetaphysical freedoms in respect of soma, whether culturally, as in film, or socially, as in wealth in consequence of free enterprise of a highly successful order. America is much more a country where life appears to revolve around the Few, not least in respect of Hollywood, and what the Few are doing or about to do is of paramount interest, it would appear, to the lives of the Many. Now although Britain has a degree of this, not least in relation to the Monarchy, it is much less typical of the country overall, which would seem to be more interested in football and pop music and other manifestations of popular culture that, at times, veer towards social democracy without ever quite parting company with the liberal traditions of parliamentary democracy and Puritanism. Now in the traditional Irish case, for example, there is also a fair amount of interest in the below as opposed to the above, if from a contrary axial point of view, and I would argue that hurling and folk music are exemplifications of this alpha/anti-omega worldly situation. But if the overhaul of this axis, one which is traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, is not to happen elsewhere, like Australia, then there may come a time when the focus of attention will switch from the Many to the Few, the below to the above, since the new ‘above’ will not be priestly in character but, hopefully, social theocratic, and therefore dedicated to providing the means whereby a more efficacious order of salvation and counter-damnation may be provided to the Many with intent, little by little, to transforming them into the Few, lifting them out of their corporeal limitations via a system of procedures oriented towards the utmost ethereal freedom in respect of psyche. Thus, if the Many are bound to be the focus of attention in a system which cannot provide such a transformation in their predicament, then, with the development of an alternative and higher system geared to religious freedom of an ultimate order, the focus is bound to switch to the Few, both initially, during their consolidation of the means of enhanced elevation, and subsequently, as, following a process of centre-complexification, more and more of the Many are transformed into the Few as their corporeal limitations are overcome with the advancement of otherworldly and anti-netherworldly criteria. But this will be so antithetically contrary to the American approach to the Few as to bear little or no resemblance to it, being, if anything, inner rather than outer and centripetal rather than centrifugal, with an emphasis upon the light within as opposed, in cinematic vein, to the light without, the light that emanates from countless movie cameras and cinema screens and TV screens as the medium in which soma acts out her wilful freedom to the grim tune, more usually, of infinite death, not least in respect of the depiction of war and violence generally.
23. As I am writing this book on a blog-like basis, with more drastic shifts between one topic and another than is usually found in my work, I will continue now with a discussion of the relative axial merits of association football and gaelic football, which, as the reader may have discovered from earlier texts, I consider to lie at the opposite poles to rugby (or its American extrapolation ‘Gridiron’) in the one case and to hurling in the other case, so that state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria offer a polar distinction between the noumenal freedom of rugby (or ‘Gridiron’) and the phenomenal binding of association football (or ‘soccer’) within an axis primarily characterized by soma and only subordinately by psyche, whereas church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria offer, by contrast, a polar distinction between the phenomenal binding (to hurleys) of hurling and the noumenal freedom of gaelic football within an axis primarily characterized by psyche and only subordinately by soma. This much has, I think, been well established in the past, and it is not something I wish to enlarge on here. What I can say is that football, in the more prevalent sense usually associated with soccer, easily lends itself, despite its physical/antichemical association with liberal criteria, to social democratic proclivities wherein the antichemical aspect of such a duality tends, in its association with justice of a more absolutist order, to become prominent at the expense of physical pseudo-righteousness. Whether or not this is reflected in the way football is played, there should be no doubt that a game as phenomenally bound as football, which penalizes handling, would not and could not suffice to exemplify or accompany a social theocratic predilection, and that wherever it is played, which includes most countries these days, it can only have the effect of turning peoples, not least when Catholic, away from the possibility of Social Theocracy as it panders to a craving, expressed or unexpressed, for Social Democracy, since that is the only thing further down the said state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis that could be viewed as an alternative to liberal democracy. I am not saying that football is social democratic, but there can be no question that adherence to such a sport, which manifestly is not Catholic in character but of English Protestant antecedents, will not do much to encourage people to yearn for a social theocratic alternative to existing or traditional Catholic norms but, rather, will in some sense corrupt Catholic peoples from the path of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. Which is not an allegation one could level at gaelic football, that noumenally free game which is the national sport of the Republic of Ireland and one that is not only Catholic in character but, with Celtic factors, more than Catholic and potentially social theocratic or, at any rate, of a disposition which, given certain modifications suitable to an indoor arena, could level with a social theocratic ideological bent in a way that football never could, not even if and when subject to indoor or electronic roofing modifications itself. No, there can be no question that football is dangerously irrelevant from a social theocratic standpoint, and therefore more congenial to those who would advance social democratic criteria at the expense of traditional norms, whether Catholic or otherwise. Even the drug thing would seem, in its orientation towards psychic freedom, to have less relevance to a context like association football than to one which, like gaelic football, or so-called football, does manifest a transcendentalist dimension in the scoring of points over the bar between the vertical uprights that tower above the goal and its containing net, and therefore stands closer to a godly resolve such that would embrace Social Theocracy if it were to stand antithetical, across the axial divide, to ‘Gridiron’ and not merely, as at present within the overall context of the British Isles, to rugby. However that may be, there can be no doubt in my mind that the exporting of gaelic football to a variety of countries would do a lot to deliver them from out the shadow of Social Democracy with which, in certain instances, association football can be identified, and render them more susceptible to extreme left-wing tendencies that were manifestly social theocratic in character and therefore commensurate, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, with what I have all along contended to be ‘Kingdom Come’ and its promise of psychic freedom in synthetically artificial self-realization for the righteous of God and even, on the female side of the gender divide, pseudo-just of the Antidevil.
24. How horribly tragic is this orientation towards Social Democracy which, with its more extreme left-wing manifestation, is always going to invite an autocratic backlash in the form of some Nazi-like ideology of the Extreme Right! And how much does association football contribute towards this state-oriented fatality of the social democratic Extreme Left? Can you play a foot-low game and live or think high? I, for one, having lived so long in England, would be extremely sceptical and somewhat pessimistic that anyone who was deeply into football could ever be simultaneously committed to the path of theocratic liberation and freedom from the last bastion of tyranny which was also the first – namely, that of Old Testament Creatorism and everything associated, rather paradoxically, with the hyping of Devil the Mother as God. Now, as already stated in this and other texts, there is bound to be some reaction to the struggle for Social Theocracy from persons more given to Catholic tradition, whether out of vested interests or stupidity and cowardice or plain backwardness I must leave for them to judge. But such reaction, call it fascist if you like, can only be less justified – indeed, much less justified - than the reaction which greets social democratic radicalism which, despite the delusive rhetoric of its adherents, is distinctly regressive from a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial standpoint and therefore contrary to the female ‘ideal’ of free soma which dominates that axis from a metachemical basis in noumenal sensuality. Being contrary to such an evil ideal, the wilful licence of the diabolic, may seem justified to its social democratic opponents, as to a lesser extent to its liberal democratic opponents, but it is not enough to make for a righteous situation of itself, as the terrible consequences of justice absolutism continue to attest. Enhanced righteousness can only come with the extension of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis to new peaks of metaphysical and, for females, antimetachemical psychic freedom, though not to the total exclusion of pseudo-justice or justness the way pseudo-righteousness was often excluded from the more blatantly totalitarian examples, including Stalinism, of state-hegemonic justice. On the contrary, there must continue to be a partnership between righteousness and pseudo-justice if an overly church-hegemonic absolutism is not to ensue, with reactionary consequences from the phenomenal below. Indeed, this partnership must be articulated in such fashion that it is better understood and acted upon than was the case in the Catholic past or with traditional Catholic approaches to salvation and what I have called counter-damnation, when, more often than not, such a distinction was not properly made and the issue was fudged in something approaching a totalitarian manner that, paradoxically, would have equated righteousness with pseudo-justice when not excluding righteousness altogether! For only a partnership between righteousness and pseudo-justice, church and state, will allay the fears of the phenomenal below and permit those who were more sinful than pseudo-vain or, conversely, more pseudo-vain than sinful to find their proper niches in the noumenal above, thereby undermining the justification for reaction and allowing society to progressively develop along more elevated terms in adherence to the male ‘ideal’ of psychic freedom, which is only possible under the guiding light of a metaphysical hegemony in noumenal sensibility such that, with Social Theocracy, would be determined to keep antimetachemistry in its subordinate noumenally anti-sensual place. For unless what passes, in antidiabolic female vein, for antimetachemistry is kept in subordination, there will be precious little righteousness and little evidence, if any, of a virtuous circle of God and Antidevil, Heaven and Antihell, Time and Antispace, Eternity and Anti-Infinity in what, with the Northeast point of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, I have subsumed, in quasi-Bunyanesque terms, under the descriptions of Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair.
25. Truth pertains no less to the egoistic aspect, in form, of noumenal sensibility than joy to its psychoistic aspect through contentment. There can be no Heaven without God, and no God without Heaven. Outside and beneath these psychic manifestations of metaphysics, which we call transcendentalist, are the somatic manifestations of metaphysics, which we have called idealist. Thus the truthful approach to Beauty appertains no less to the bound will, in antipower, of noumenal sensibility than the joyful approach to Love to bound spirit through antiglory, neither of which would have any meaning, as Son of God and Holy Spirit of Heaven, apart from God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul. But neither would there be much evidence of Antidevil the Antimother, in the antimaterialism of antimetachemical bound will, or of Antihell the Unclear Spirit through the antimaterialism of antimetachemical bound spirit, were it not for the influence of metaphysical bound soma acting upon them via the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, and without Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit there could be no possibility of the antifundamentalism of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil in antimetachemical free ego or of the antifundamentalism of the Unclear Soul of Antihell in antimetachemical free soul, which are germane to the beautiful approach to Truth and the loving approach to Joy which stem from the Beauty and Love of Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit. Therefore no possibility of a virtuous circle of metaphysical and antimetachemical factors in both psyche and soma, church and state, unless both the transcendentalism and idealism of metaphysics are in situ to condition the antimetachemical towards antimaterialism and antifundamentalism in secondary state-subordinate and church-hegemonic terms, terms which then parallel the primary manifestations of state-subordinate and church-hegemonic criteria as their female complements.
26. Are church bells alpha or omega or, when once the clapper is also taken into account, are they omega-in-the-Alpha or alpha-in the Omega? In other words, does one have a circle in a square or a square in a circle? Are church bells indicative of the female entrapment and domination of the male, as in the hollow case surrounding the clapper, which forms the greater part of what we regard as bells, or are they rather more indicative of the male entrapment and domination of the female, as would be the case were we to interpret the hollow casing of the bell as a circle with a sort of square in it in the form of the clapper? One could ask other such questions, and answer them in contrary ways, not least with regard to a sort of distinction, irrespective of the shape of bell towers though also allowing for that, between bells appertaining to Anglican churches and those appertaining, by contrast, to their Roman Catholic counterparts, neither of which would find much echo in a majority of Puritan churches. However that may be, I would like to think that, considered singly, the bell is less illustrative of the female entrapment and domination of males than of a square (the clapper) within a circle (the hollow case), bearing in mind that bells are used to signify time, and time, at least when repetitive, is of eternity and hence more germane to noumenal sensibility than to noumenal sensuality, noumenal anti-sensibility being somewhat more sequential in character and thereby implying the simultaneous positioning and utilization of a number of bells in any given tower, a factor which could well be closer to signifying the female entrapment and domination of the male than a singular repetitive manifestation of time would allow. And if that were the case, then one could not categorically accord bells a specific status in relation to noumenal sensibility but would have to allow for noumenal anti-sensibility as a manifestation of the domination, from spatially above, of noumenal sensuality. In which case, church bells would be less a manifestation of transcendent independence of the alpha of things in Creatorism than a metaphorical and indeed symbolic illustration of the dominion, Old Testament-like, of antimetaphysics by metachemistry, of antitranscendentalism by fundamentalism whether or not church-hegemonic criteria were otherwise more prevalent in relation to a variety of Catholic proclivities. For to see the bell as signifying the dominion of metaphysics over antimetachemistry, of transcendentalism over antifundamentalism (presuming here, as above, upon the irrelevance of state-subordinate criteria) would be to exaggerate the significance of the notion of square within a circle at the expense of those more prominent material characteristics which suggest the subordination of antimetaphysics to metachemistry, whether in relation to the surrounding and encompassing of the clapper by the bell cone or, indeed, to the vacuous metallic shape and substance of the hollow case as such. Yet this does not exclude the possibility of repetitive time, even though, in typically Christian fashion, such singular ringings can be replaced, according to occasion, by sequential ringings of several bells played in quick succession, thereby confirming a status, arguably more High Anglican than Roman Catholic, of omega-in-the-Alpha and, hence, of the female entrapment of the male such that would accord not only with high church weddings but, more fundamentally, with the whole ethos of Old Testament-based Creatorism.
27. I have never maintained that Anglicanism is Old Testament and Puritanism alone New Testament, for that would be to deny to Anglicanism any Christian relevance even by church-subordinate standards. What I believe is that Anglicanism is more Old Testament than New Testament and Puritanism more New Testament than Old Testament, though that is not to deny to Puritanism its capacity to dissociate the New Testament from the Old and act in relation to the New Testament alone, as my own receipt as a boy of a grey softback Gideon New Testament would seem to confirm. But if Anglicanism were to do the same with regards to the Old Testament, then it would be less than Christian and in some sense closer to Judaism, with its Old Testament-like Torah. High Anglicans may prefer the Old Testament to the New, but no church that calls itself Christian, no matter how pseudo its Christianity may happen to be when judged from a church-hegemonic standpoint, can afford to entirely dispense with the New Testament, the testament, par excellence, of Christianity. Ironically, it has been my way to regard the Bible as more Protestant than Catholic, with the split between Old Testament and New Testament mirrored, axially speaking, in the distinction between Anglicanism and Puritanism, the church-subordinate complements to Monarchy and Parliamentarianism in Britain. For while not denying to Roman Catholicism its commitment to Scripture, I have preferred to conceive of the church-hegemonic axis, with its dotted-line departure from heathenistic fundamentalism, as owing much if not everything to faith in the concept of a post-resurrectional or risen Christ whose transcendent remove from both the world and ‘the Creator’ justifies both eschatological and ecclesiastical intervention vis-à-vis the ‘faithful’, whose faith continues to be confirmed by penitential contrition for sin and whose reward of verbal absolution from the priestly intercessor is what restores them to grace in relation to ‘God’, which is to say, the Risen Christ. Yet this Christ ‘on high’, having eschatological attributes, is potentially capable of returning to the world, with Judgement, to manifest the divine presence to the faithful as the Second Coming. Therefore he is potentially freer than church-subordinate criteria in relation to the state-hegemonic axis, governed by a more pedantic approach to Scripture, would allow, and this is what makes and keeps him almost uniquely Catholic and, in some sense, Scripture-transcending. Yet, even then, Catholicism is a product of Western civilization and only approaches what could be called eschatological futurity, or Messianic intervention in relation to ‘Kingdom Come’, from a Christian standpoint, which is to say with a Western shortfall from global universality and a Christic shortfall, in the Son, from godly sublimity, which requires, at a truly universal and therefore global level of its unfolding, that terms like the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ are understood to metaphorically signify the precedence of soma by psyche as the male reality, whether physical, in relation to Man, or metaphysical, in relation to God, where the ratio of such precedence is rather more absolute, i.e. 3:1 than relative, i.e. 2½:1½, and thereby symptomatic of transcendentalism and idealism as opposed to humanism and naturalism. Therefore, quite apart from the irrelevance of Western criteria to the establishment and furtherance of global civilization (an irrelevance shared, incidentally, by the East), the emphasis upon a concept like the Second Coming (of Christ, i.e., the Son) does little to address the necessity of putting the horse, as it were, before the cart, and allowing for the precedence of soma by psyche, of bound soma (hitherto so dramatically exemplified in the Crucifixion) by free psyche, and thus of Son by Father, the actual godly being or manifestation of godliness whose Word should, if followed, pave the way for a Son-like implementation of it in accordance with the binding of soma to psyche and, in political terms, of state to church. Thus an ultimate coming of the Father precedes a Second Coming of the Son, for until the Word has been recognized and acted upon there can be no ‘Kingdom Come’, and recognizing and acting upon it, i.e. implementing it, may take quite some time – at least if the Father and the Son do not transpire to being two sides of the same metaphysical coin which leads from psyche to soma in the same universal ‘person’ the way that theory sometimes leads to practice by the same individual acting under different circumstances. For ultimately, if and when we arrive at a society which is religiously sovereign rather than simply politically sovereign, the religiously sovereign people will have rights in relation to both theory and praxis, and the Father and the Son, not to mention for females the Antimother and the Antidaughter, will be germane to the same individual in each case, two sides – psyche and soma, free and bound – of a universal destiny which it would be undesirable and unethical to separate out or divide up, as though between different persons, the one vastly different to the other and the subject, in consequence of his remoteness in time from the ‘Father’, of idolatrous worship. In the future, as of now, Father and Son will appertain to the same person, Antimother and Antidaughter likewise, since they are two sides of the same coin, as of the individual who, in one way or another, is both psyche and soma, self and not-self, church and state. For it is precisely to avoid repeating the error of a chronological approach to the concepts of Father and Son, so characteristic of Christianity as a paradoxical half-way stage between the Alpha and the Omega, the cosmic Beginning and the universal End, that one should so regard the distinction between these two aspects of male reality and ensure, in so doing, that the female distinctions follow suit on their own reversed basis of soma preceding psyche.
28. If I am not antidemocratic it is because I am theocratic, and if I am anti-bureaucratic it is because I am pro-antiautocratic and thus in favour of an ultimate partnership between theocracy and anti-autocracy in what, colloquially, has been described as ‘Kingdom Come’, a context divided by me between Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair which would exist at the Northeast point of our axial compass whether or not we ascribe a North-northeast status to the Celestial City and an East-northeast status to Anti-Vanity Fair in an attempt to delineate more sharply the one from the other. For they are as separate as God and the Antidevil, metaphysical classlessness and antimetachemical anti-upperclassness, and cannot or should not ever be confounded. The ultimate totalitarianism, if and when it comes to pass, will be relativistically divisible between the genders and neither a totalitarian fudge, such as we encounter in relation to Catholic tradition (with its tendency to subsume metaphysical into antimetachemical factors by dint of the extent to which metachemistry still obtains across the axial divide), nor a totalitarian absolutism of the type that would raise everything, irrespective of gender, to metaphysics. It is not simply that you can’t raise the Antidevil to God; rather is it a case that you should not, for the sake of what is godly, even attempt any such thing. For if the ultimate point, from a cultural standpoint, of the axial compass is to work, it requires a virtuous circle of gender differential and complementariness. Such a circle cannot be established on the basis of God alone, and even within metaphysics you cannot have God the Father without the Son of God being somatically in attendance, the same applying to their soulful and spiritual corollaries, Heaven the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit of Heaven. It is this, more than anything, which caused me to reject and eventually repudiate Christian thinking in respect of a Trinity which, with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, fell short, on a Western vis-à-vis global basis, of the required quadruplicity of metaphysical factors, with divine ego passing through bound will and spirit leading to sublime soul as the vindication of the self. Christianity, like in another context the British philosopher Arthur Koestler, is simply wrong to reduce things, whether in life or thought, to Trinitarian or tripartite parameters as though there were only three elements or three aspects to every element. That, as I hope to have shown throughout my work, is simply not the case and smacks, rather illogically, of some kind of extrapolation from the classical Greek notion of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. In actuality, goodness does not qualify for consideration along with the True and the Beautiful, being axially antithetical to evil as an attribute of Strength which ranks with Knowledge as the phenomenal counterparts, in antichemical and physical sensibility, to the noumenal virtues, in metaphysics and antimetachemistry, of Truth and Beauty. Therefore Truth as noumenally antithetical to Illusion, or Falsity, and Beauty as noumenally antithetical to Ugliness, with Strength phenomenally antithetical to Weakness and Knowledge phenomenally antithetical to Ignorance, the latter of which, together with its chemical counterpart Weakness, makes for the axial antithesis of Truth and its antimetachemical counterpart Beauty, as grace from sin and pseudo-punishment from pseudo-crime. But even metaphysics and antimetachemistry have to be divided into a fourfold distinction between Truth and the truthful approach to Beauty, which is God the Father and the Son of God, and Beauty and the beautiful approach to Truth, which is Antidevil the Antimother and the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, not to mention, where soul and spirit are concerned, between Joy and the joyful approach to Love, which is Heaven the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, and Love and the loving approach to Joy, which is Antihell the Unclear Spirit and the Unclear Soul of Antihell. Even at the Northeast point of our axial compass a simple dichotomy between Truth and Beauty is not enough to do justice, so to speak, to the context in question. For if there is anything worse than tripartite or triadic thinking, in this respect, it can only be dualistic thinking and the settling for a simple dichotomy between two seemingly related or contiguous virtues. Beauty, or the Beautiful, as I think I have already stated, is merely antimetachemically bound somatic and therefore not equivalent, on a church-hegemonic basis, to Truth. And even Beauty, in the antimetachemical sense we are addressing, would be less than recognizably or dependably beautiful as an antimetachemically bound somatic factor if the truthful approach to Beauty, stemming in metaphysical bound soma from Truth, were not instrumental in conditioning and constraining it to a secondary state-subordinate role in the interests of the beautiful approach to Truth (not to mention loving approach to Joy) which has been identified with secondary church-hegemonic criteria. Thus neither Beauty nor the beautiful approach to Truth would significantly exist, within antimetachemistry, without the prior and primary input of first of all Truth and then its somatic offshoot the truthful approach to Beauty, each of which stems from an unequivocally male hegemony in metaphysics. Let us not, for the sake of Truth and its metaphysical and antimetachemical concomitants, give any encouragement to those who would dismiss gender discrimination in these matters as either anachronistic or misguided or in some sense immoral. Anachronistic a certain level and manifestation of it may be from a post-worldly and strictly contemporary point of view, which tends to be more American than anything else, but from the standpoint of that which regards itself as lying beyond the contemporary, American-led form of globalism in an approach to globalization which is genuinely universal and thus led by transcendentalist and even idealist factors germane to metaphysics, nothing could be more detrimental to the development and consolidation of Truth in relation to godliness than an inability or unwillingness, born of ignorance and sloth, to adequately discriminate between the genders and allot to each their separate status or place within the overall context of ‘Kingdom Come’, of a point on the axial compass that would truly be commensurate, in its metaphysics and antimetachemistry, with the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, as with otherworldly and anti-netherworldly alternatives in the gender distinction between Eternity and Anti-Infinity, an Omega Point and an Anti-Alpha Point of the Yang and Anti-Yin of the End and the Anti-Beginning, as far removed from anything corresponding to the Beginning and the Anti-End as it were possible to get.
29. In the Beginning were the somatic death of Devil the Mother and her anti-ending ‘fall guy’ the Antison of Antigod, both of whom would have taken free somatic precedence over the bound psyche of the Daughter of the Devil and Antigod the Antifather. In the End will come the psychic life of God the Father and his anti-beginning ‘fall doll’ the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, both of whom will take free psychic precedence over the bound soma of the Son of God and Antidevil the Antimother. In the Beginning were evil (somatic metachemistry) and pseudo-folly (somatic antimetaphysics), crime (psychic metachemistry) and pseudo-sin (psychic antimetaphysics). In the End will come grace (psychic metaphysics) and pseudo-punishment (psychic antimetachemistry), wisdom (somatic metaphysics) and pseudo-goodness (somatic antimetachemistry). These are the overall alpha/anti-omega and omega/anti-alpha antipodes of noumenal existence, which have nothing in common with each other except their ethereal opposition to the contrary orders of corporeal existence in the phenomenal below, where, on state-hegemonic and church-subordinate terms, good (antichemistry) and pseudo-wisdom (physics) stand in somatic polarity – bound vis-à-vis free - to evil (metachemistry) and pseudo-folly (antimetaphysics) as punishment (antichemistry) and pseudo-grace (physics) stand in psychic polarity – free vis-à-vis bound - to crime (metachemistry) and pseudo-sin (antimetaphysics), while, on church-hegemonic and state-subordinate terms, sin (antiphysics) and pseudo-crime (chemistry) stand in psychic polarity – bound vis-à-vis free – to grace (metaphysics) and pseudo-punishment (antimetachemistry) as folly (antiphysics) and pseudo-evil (chemistry) stand in somatic polarity – free vis-à-vis bound – to wisdom (metaphysics) and pseudo-goodness (antimetachemistry). In the worldly Beginning was the somatic death of Woman the Mother and her worldly anti-ending ‘fall guy’ the Antison of Antiman, both of whom would only have taken somatic precedence over the bound psyche of the Daughter of Woman and Antiman the Antifather when there was insufficient axial interplay with the polar above, in the sense of a male link, psychically, between God the Father and Antiman the Antifather coupled, in soma, to the Son of God and Antiman the Antison and, stemming from this, a female link, likewise in psyche, between the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and the Daughter of Woman coupled, in soma, to Antidevil the Antimother and Woman the Mother to tip the emphasis from soma to psyche in the interests of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. In the worldly End, however, was the psychic life of Man the Father and his worldly anti-beginning ‘fall doll’ the Antidaughter of Antiwoman, both of whom would only have taken psychic precedence over the bound soma of the Son of Man and Antiwoman the Antimother when there was insufficient axial interplay with the polar above, in the sense of a female link, somatically, between Devil the Mother and Antiwoman the Antimother coupled, in psyche, to the Daughter of the Devil and the Antidaughter of Antiwoman and, stemming from this, a male link, likewise in soma, between the Antison of Antigod and the Son of Man coupled, in psyche, to Antigod the Antifather and Man the Father to tip the emphasis from psyche to soma in the interests of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria. But, of course, axial continuity and consistency demands that sufficient axial interplay does take place on either basis, and that is why, paradoxically, the worldly beginning and anti-ending remained open to the prospect of the anti-netherworldly anti-beginning and otherworldly ending, whereas the worldly ending and anti-beginning remained subject to the dominion of the netherworldly beginning and anti-otherworldly anti-ending. Some distinction! And some paradox!
30. Being of Catholic Irish birth and ancestry I am not, and could never, be partial to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, such as exists in Britain, and therefore I do not endorse either the netherworldly/anti-otherworldly positions or the omega/anti-alpha worldly positions, whether in respect of autocracy and antitheocracy above or of democracy and antibureaucracy below, the latter of which is phenomenally subversive of the former in the interests of overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate continuity and consistency when once the link with autocracy, in metachemical to antichemical fashion, is understood as the ruling principle of the axis in question. For males could not, independently of female pressure and overall dominion, be expected to endorse state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria when, in gender terms, they are the converse of soma preceding and effectively predominating over psyche, being of a disposition that, when true to itself and in an axial position to dominate females, will prefer church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in keeping with their gender actuality of psyche preceding and effectively predominating over soma. Therefore if the British male is resigned to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria it must be because he is powerless to do anything about it because systemically conditioned to take such criteria more or less for granted, in complete contrast to his representative Irish counterpart who, when not Protestant, will tend, from systemic conditioning that owes more to male than to female pressures, to take church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria more or less for granted. Now this is, from a male standpoint, much to be preferred, since it is in sync with male gender actuality. Whether females will be quite as committed to it is, of course, a moot point; but if they are more resigned than categorically opposed to it, then that would be due to systemic conditioning of the type which is manifestly lacking in Britain where, if the evidence is anything to judge by, females are not conditioned to take such criteria for granted, and are consequently likely to be more than resigned to the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate status quo, even where the generality of females are concerned, who, of course, would be rather more somatically bound than free. But if that, and therefore goodness as the bound somatic manifestation of justice, is a damned misfortune from a female standpoint, excepting those who might prefer counter-salvation, it is still a far cry from being psychically bound or free in relation to criteria which, traditionally at any rate, make it church-hegemonic/state-subordinate policy to relegate somatic freedom and binding, in antiphysics and metaphysics coupled, for females, to chemistry and antimetachemistry, to a subordinate status vis-à-vis their male-conditioned psychic counterparts. However you analyze it, Britain and Ireland could not be more antithetical, and that is why over the centuries there has been such friction and mistrust between the two islands, and why, at the time of writing, the island of Ireland is still divided between the Irish Republic, with a Catholic majority, and Northern Ireland with its falsely contrived Protestant majority in consequence of the way it was partitioned by the British to placate the Protestant reaction to the prospect of integration in an all-Ireland state characterized by a Catholic majority. The curse of partition in Ireland is ample reflection of the gender struggle and distinction between the two peoples which continues to keep Ireland divided even with Protestants in the so-called South and Catholics in the North, neither of which would be representative of their respective ‘nations’ to anything like the extent of the respective majorities, however contrived or uncontrived, as the case may be. But life is a mixed-up and gender-ridden thing, and the British Isles is doubtless only one of a number of countries or regions where similar, if less marked, divisions are to be found. What is the solution? Well, I have spelled it out in a great many texts, and can say that if such divisions were almost inevitable during a worldly stage of civilization, when the relativity of things is more pronounced, then they can only be increasingly irrelevant to a post-worldly stage of civilization, whether such a stage is neo-pagan or, more to the post-worldly point, transcendentalist in character and therefore likely to pull away from countries seemingly dominated by female criteria under pressure from male leadership in respect of true religion and the evolution of society towards global universality. In short, the onus is on males to get their act together and, where applicable, overhaul traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in such fashion that we end up with something approximating ‘Kingdom Come’ as a context in which the salvation and counter-damnation of those who would now qualify for the description of lapsed Catholics takes new wing under Social Theocracy in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in consequence of a paradoxical election which, with traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria still extant but no longer of much avail against the new forms of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria raining down on the formerly meek and pseudo-vain ‘Catholic’ masses, only peoples like the Irish could be expected to endorse and further, in order that the paradoxical situation which now prevails under such external state-hegemonic/church-subordinate pressures, indubitably at loggerheads with the Catholic tradition, could be countered in consequence of the exploitation of that very paradox paradoxically, so that they may be led, little by little, away from their quasi-heathen predicament towards new pastures of religious liberation, and thus be saved and counter-damned, in free psyche and bound soma, church and state, more efficaciously than would otherwise be possible, thereby no longer being subject to those very paradoxes which I would interpret as transitional to a new and higher order of society and thus of civilization, one characterized, as noted, by religious sovereignty and hence by rights appertaining to their spiritual and, more importantly, intellectual and emotional wellbeing. Gone will be the cynicism of helplessness before the neo-pagan onslaught of somatic licence raining down from the apex of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis. In its place will come a profound sense of liberation and potential for religious fulfilment. But before that can be brought to pass, the people must be allowed to vote for religious sovereignty, and for that to happen there must be an active Social Theocratic movement in Irish society, as eventually elsewhere, which has made it its business to spread Social Theocratic enlightenment in relation to religious sovereignty and the rights that would characterize it, not simply in relation to being free from Creatorism and all primitive manifestations of religion going all the way back to the Cosmos in their Biblical fundamentalism and, more characteristically, materialism, but more importantly in terms of being free for transcendentalism and, with females, anti-fundamentalism that would lead to enhanced psychic self-realization through a variety of synthetic stimulants, from those likely to favour the brain stem to their more properly transcendentalist counterparts or successors in the journey towards ultimate self-realization at the profoundly metaphysical level of the spinal cord, a return to the source, which is the real and actual source of our life. But of course only males have the capacity, as psyche preceding soma, of returning to such a source in relation to their inherent subjectivity in consequence of being centred in a plenum. For females such a predilection would be profoundly at variance with their natures of soma preceding psyche, the Sartrian existence preceding essence, which rather makes for objectivity in relation to a vacuum, and therefore no such return could be envisaged as being desirable from their standpoint but, rather, completely contrary to their outgoing dispositions. Therefore I do not envisage the female completely following the male lead. For them, it will be enough that their objectivity is transmuted towards anti-objectivity in keeping with the antimetachemical complement of metaphysics, so that they remain at an anti-upperclass remove from classlessness in Anti-Vanity Fair and do not invade and subvert the Celestial City which it will be the male privilege to embrace in the name of Truth and Joy. The beautiful approach to Truth and the loving approach to Joy of the antifundamentalist female can only be much less than this Truth and Joy, for her fulcrum, so to speak, will continue to reside in Beauty and Love as the antimaterialist state-subordinate complement to the truthful approach to Beauty and joyful approach to Love of her male counterpart, whose idealism, being commensurate with the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, owes everything to the precedence of metaphysical bound soma by metaphysical free psyche in the transcendentalism of God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul. Therefore no forcing of the female up into the male role but a segregation of the genders throughout all Eternity and Anti-Infinity in the interests of the virtuous circle of God and the Antidevil, Yang and Anti-Yin, with peace only possible on an eternal basis because the female has been constrained to anti-war and cannot make war on the male as a matter of free somatic course. For her freedom will be distinctly secondary, because it will be the secondary church-hegemonic freedom of antimetachemical free psyche vis-à-vis its metaphysical counterpart, and such psyche is only possible on the basis of bound antimetachemical soma in consequence of the bound metaphysical soma which metaphysical free psyche ordains and encourages from a standpoint gracefully above the wisdom of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, a standpoint which is both true and joyful in its unequivocal freedom to take and be to a universal extent. For even the ‘personality’ of God the Father is effectively universal in its desire for heavenly redemption and vindication in the sublime universality of Heaven the Holy Soul, the resurrection of the self to the Life Eternal.
31. Therefore those who believe in the Life Eternal and its female counterpart the Death Anti-Infinite, the Anti-Vanity Fair complement of the Celestial City, are more than Catholic or Buddhist or anything else which only embraces ‘Kingdom Come’ from a misguided or lopsided gender standpoint, being in effect Social Transcendentalist and therefore beyond religion as traditionally constituted, whether in the West or the East. They are properly global and therefore universalist in their orientation, and would not seek to impose traditional Western criteria on the East or, conversely, traditional Eastern criteria on the West. All criteria which are not Social Theocratic are beneath their pale as something to be rejected and, if and when possible, cleared away as an obstacle to global progress towards its universal destiny. But Social Theocracy, to give to Social Transcendentalism its political or ideological face, is not martial or in any degree committed to the advancement of religious sovereignty in the masses through force. We Social Theocrats could not wage so-called ‘holy war’ against opponents or reactionaries of one sort or another, because even at our least elevated position at the Northeast point of the axial compass we are believers in anti-war as the female complement to male peace. Anti-war is our noumenal bottom line, and we know that you cannot advance the cause of peace, which is a uniquely metaphysical cause, without first of all being peaceful or peaceable and, via that, bringing the female to anti-war as a consequence of antimetachemical constraint emanating from a metaphysically hegemonic imposition. Social Theocracy can only advance the cause of Social Transcendentalism on the basis of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in countries where, because of both religious traditions and political freedoms, no matter how paradoxical the latter may be in relation to the religious tradition, a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to a profoundly theocratic end seems both feasible and morally desirable, if the peoples concerned are to be returned, on a radically progressive basis, to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria of a viably contemporary, or universal, cast. Therefore a majority mandate from the people of these countries, which includes the Republic of Ireland, for religious sovereignty is the precondition of the establishment of Social Theocracy and, hence, of the Centre as the fulcrum of church/state relativistic absolutism. No Social Theocratic Centre can be established on any other basis than that of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and therefore democratic freedom in a people, no matter how paradoxically at loggerheads with their religious traditions this in many respects externally-conditioned if not engineered freedom may be, is an absolute prerequisite of social theocratic freedom of psyche in relation to God and, for females, the Antidevil on what amount to ultimate, and therefore properly universal, terms, terms beyond anything mankind may have achieved in the past in relation to these separate gender positions at the Northeast point of the axial compass, and bearing no resemblance whatsoever to whatever may have passed for God and Devil in relation to the more cosmic- and nature-oriented Northwest point of the axial compass which continues to characterize much if not all traditional religion of a pre-mankind nature, where the hype of Devil the Mother as God precludes any commitment to God the Father even on the necessarily restricted terms of mankind, and results in the under-plane upended male position being denigrated as Devil when, in point of fact, it is approximate to the Antison of Antigod in free soma and to Antigod the Antifather in bound psyche (of an antimetaphysical bent characterizable as noumenally anti-sensible) and therefore, in overall terms, to Antigod as opposed, in metachemical free soma and bound psyche, to the Devil, i.e. to Devil the Mother in free soma and the Daughter of the Devil in bound psyche (with a disposition which, being objective, is germane to the actual first mover of things spatial in noumenal sensuality). This lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God still persists at the root of all traditional religion, and only a majority mandate for religious sovereignty can bring the people of those countries where a paradoxical utilization of the electoral process is both possible and, from their ethnic standpoint, morally desirable freedom from this oldest of civilized lies in order that the truth of God the Father may be revealed and bring to those who deserve it that peace which is the essence of Heaven. Therefore no war to advance Social Theocracy but, only as a last resort, to defend the gains of Social Theocracy from reaction, whether in relation to internal sabotage or external intervention. The defence of the rights of a religiously sovereign people would be a moral duty if those rights are not to be undermined or even taken from them. But offensive action in relation to the spread of Social Theocratic freedom to external countries would be a contradiction in terms. A people must be ‘up to’, or capable of, religious sovereignty before there can be any prospect of its realization following a majority mandate from an electorate who have been well appraised of their predicament and are anxious to undo one paradox with the use of another in order that they may be set free of quasi-state-hegemonic impositions in the interests of a new church-hegemonic dispensation which will free them from their ethnic corrupters and vindicate the transition from state paradox to centre fulfilment in the more efficacious salvations and counter-damnations that will ensue as their religiously sovereign right, leading them from out the darkness of their own limitations into the inner lights which are the divine and antidiabolic antitheses to everything diabolic and antidivine which currently parades its outer lights under the sanction of Vanity Fair and with the subordinate approval of the Anti-Celestial City.
32. Therefore much to be done to bring the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair properly to pass. But, fear not, it can be done and will be done if my word is honoured. For I am the gateway to ‘Kingdom Come’ and no one can enter this kingdom of the inner lights, both graceful and pseudo-punishing, transcendentalist and antifundamentalist, metaphysical and antimetachemical, except via me and, through me, a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, the sovereignty of sovereignties which will raise the democratically sovereign people beyond the worldly republic to the otherworldly centre, the focal points, in transmuted state and church, of Social Theocratic and Social Transcendentalist endeavour and, ultimately, evolutionary resolution in the peace of God and counter-devolutionary complementariness (for females) in the anti-war of the Antidevil, thus completing the virtuous circle of Eternity and Anti-Infinity, the Life Eternal and the Death Anti-Infinite. Nothing is nor could be more radically progressive than this, and that is why the acceptance of Social Theocracy as the ideological principle of Social Transcendentalism is obligatory if the people of religiously-biased countries like Eire are to utilize the democratic process in a way that will deliver them from their own worldly limitations and thus from those who so callously and ruthlessly exploit those limitations from a standpoint which is contrary to that of God and the Antidevil, being, in noumenal sensuality and noumenal anti-sensibility, of the Devil and Antigod. Only when they have been delivered, in such fashion, from the evils and pseudo-follies which prey upon them from the apex of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society will they come into their graceful and pseudo-punishing own in the noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality of a full return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria of an unprecedentedly universal and anti-polyversal scope, which it will be Social Theocracy’s god-given duty to protect and advance for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity, until Truth is universally triumphant over the anti-polyversality, the anti-beginning, of Beauty and both the truthful approach to Beauty and the beautiful approach to Truth lie intermediate between God the Father and Antidevil the Antimother as state-subordinate corollaries of the ultimate church-hegemonic positions which it will be the rights of the Saved of the Celestial City and the counter-Damned of Anti-Vanity Fair to have blessed and pseudo-cursed access to, come way may. For as males will be blessed with grace and wisdom in the free psyche and bound soma of metaphysics, so their female counterparts will be pseudo-cursed with pseudo-goodness and pseudo-punishment in the bound soma and free psyche of antimetachemistry. Blessed with culture and pseudo-cursed with pseudo-civility, the genders will have their righteous and pseudo-just destinies in ‘Kingdom Come’.
1. I had brought logic to gender in such fashion that there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that the salvation of antiphysical males to metaphysics was accompanied by the counter-damnation, the pseudo-damnation, of chemical females to antimetachemistry, and, like salvation, which is blessed, pseudo-damnation, which is pseudo-cursed, would be manifest in both church and state, in free psyche and bound soma. There could be no question that salvation was alone of the church and counter-damnation of the state. Salvation was for males from bound psyche in antiphysical antihumanism to free psyche in metaphysical transcendentalism and from free soma in antiphysical antinaturalism to bound soma in metaphysical idealism, both of which were blessed because confirming the male actuality of psyche preceding and predominating or, better, preponderating over soma and therefore allowing, in all righteousness, for gender sync with this fundamental situation which only metaphysical sensibility can unequivocally deliver and sustain. On the other hand, counter-damnation for females was from free soma in chemical realism to bound soma in antimetachemical antimaterialism and from bound psyche in chemical nonconformism to free psyche in antimetachemical antifundamentalism, both of which were pseudo-cursed because at loggerheads with the female actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche and therefore establishing, in all pseudo-justice, the opposite of gender sync which, contrary to being somatically free and psychically bound, requires bound soma in secondary state-subordinate accompaniment, within antimetachemistry, to the free psyche of secondary church-hegemonic criteria, the criteria which, in contrasting parallel to the male position, has less to do with truth and joy than with a beautiful approach to truth and a loving approach to joy, both of which effectively stem from the beauty and love of antimetachemical bound soma which the truthful approach to beauty and the joyful approach to love of metaphysical bound soma, corresponding to primary state-subordinate criteria, did no little part to establish and maintain, and all at the behest of metaphysical transcendentalism, wherein truth and joy attest to the primary church-hegemonic actuality of God and Heaven as symptomatic of what is fundamental to metaphysics as the initiator of both metaphysical bound soma and, via that, the bringing to heel of metachemical sensibility, or antimetachemistry, in such fashion that the female is forever at cross-purposes with her gender actuality and accordingly counter-damned. For this church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, stretching from the southwest to the northeast point of the axial compass, pits the salvation of males who rise from bound psyche and free soma to free psyche and bound soma against the counter-damnation of females who counter-fall from free soma and bound psyche to bound soma and free psyche in what, as noted above, transpire to be secondary state-subordinate and church-hegemonic terms. Righteousness cannot obtain for males, in absolute gender sync, without pseudo-justice simultaneously having to obtain, in absolute gender upending, for females. That is the law, if you like, of the northeast point of the axial compass, which has been identified with the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, with classless and anti-upperclass criteria as symptomatic of blessed metaphysical and pseudo-cursed antimetachemical gender alternatives.
2. Truth in that broader sense is not altogether pleasant, least of all for females, but I swear by God that what I have written and what I wrote before on this subject, the nature of salvation and counter-damnation, is true or veridical and not a cop out or fudge of the issue in typically lopsided or reductionist terms. However, veracity in relation to the overall context of the northeast point of the axial compass and Truth per se are not synonymous, since the Truth as something profoundly metaphysical and, more specifically, transcendentalist within metaphysics, is solely germane to God and, hence, to the actuality of godliness as a sort of universal knowledge that pertains to an order of ego which, being godly, is not an end-in-itself, in humanist vein, but of a character which elects to utilize the idealism of bound metaphysical soma to achieve its redemption in the heavenly joy of the soul per se which, being metaphysical, appertains more to the spinal cord than to the brain stem and is therefore the deepest aspect of the self conceived of from a divinely male standpoint. Truth has but one goal, and that is Joy, and therefore God is nothing without Heaven, for Heaven is His raison d’être, being the ultimate mode of Being such that no other mode of contentment can approximate or even approach. This is also veridical, for the truth about God is that God, or the process of being godly, is removed from everything but the attainment of Heaven, and in Heaven God is redeemed. Therefore think not of God in any lesser or contrary terms, and remember that metaphysics, in both free psyche and bound soma, is an exclusively male preserve, which has no bearing, except tangentially and subordinately, on the fate of females. For the corollary of God and Heaven for metaphysical males is the Antidevil and Antihell for antimetachemical females, and this is the Anti-Infinity that accompanies Eternity on its course through Time, remaining at an Antispace remove from its male counterpart as Anti-Vanity Fair from the Celestial City.
3. If the West, through Catholicism, is traditionally more guilty of subsuming metaphysics into antimetachemistry (through the retention of metachemistry over antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the axial compass) and thus producing a fudge favouring the female actuality of antimetachemistry (‘sacred heart’), then the East is no less guilty, through Buddhism, of subsuming antimetachemistry into metaphysics and thus producing a fudge favouring the male actuality of metaphysics (‘sacred lungs’). Neither, therefore, can suffice for global universality, which requires that equal justice be done to metaphysics and antimetachemistry in order that they may remain separate and gender compliant. In such a balanced approach to the northeast point of the axial compass reductionism of either a Western or an Eastern nature will be avoided and the point in question will consequently be able to exist independently of other axial factors and be truly viable as a going concern, no mere utopian partisanship favouring this or that gender but a gender-acknowledging duality which has the merit of being self-sustaining throughout Eternity and, for females, Anti-Infinity. Thus global civilization differs demonstrably from both Western and Eastern civilizations in respect of its balanced approach to gender differentiation. This, in some sense, emerges out of gender equalitarianism, but precisely as a refutation of any reductionism that would subsume one gender into the other. A more differentiated approach to gender would be difficult if not impossible to conceive of, and that is why Social Theocracy, the ideology of religious freedom for the people, must be committed to granting to each gender its proper metaphysical or antimetachemical place, that metaphysics may be served more completely than would otherwise be the case.
4. When I mentioned blessedness and pseudo-cursedness above, in connection with salvation and counter-damnation or, better, pseudo-damnation, I forgot to mention culture and pseudo-civility, which are alike germane to the context in question and symptomatic of the distinction between righteousness and pseudo-justice. The Saved, being male, are blessed with the righteousness of culture in metaphysical gender sync with their fundamental nature of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, whereas the pseudo-Damned, by contrast, are pseudo-cursed with the pseudo-justice of pseudo-civility in antimetachemical gender cross-purposes, or upendedness, with their fundamental nature which, being female, is of soma preceding and predominanting over psyche and therefore of the one being free and the other bound. Under male unequivocal hegemonic pressures, on the other hand, bound soma and free psyche obtain for the female as secondary state-subordinate and church-hegemonic positions corresponding to beauty/love and the beautiful approach to truth/loving approach to joy, neither of which have any bearing on truth/joy and the truthful approach to beauty/joyful approach to love with stem from the liberated male positions of free psyche and bound soma in blessed sync with male gender actuality. Therefore the salvation of the one gender presupposes or entails the pseudo-damnation of the other gender, and this is inescapable and unavoidable. If males are to rise from sin to grace and from folly to wisdom, females must counter-fall (up the axis) from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment and from pseudo-evil to pseudo-good, ceasing to be somatically free and psychically bound as the males cease to be such in the interests of free psyche and bound soma.
5. How all this contrasts with the other axis, wherein not blessedness and pseudo-cursedness, salvation and pseudo-damnation, obtain in sensibility but, by comparative contrast, cursedness and pseudo-blessedness, damnation and pseudo-salvation, with the attendant corollaries of justice and pseudo-righteousness and, of course, civility and pseudo-culture! This state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, by contrast, is not about a rise from sin to grace and folly to wisdom on the part of males, still less of a counter-fall from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment and pseudo-evil to pseudo-good on the part of females but, rather, is symptomatic of a fall from evil to good and crime to punishment on the part of females and of a counter-rise (down the axis) from pseudo-folly to pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-sin to pseudo-grace on the part of males, soma taking precedence over psyche and therefore constitutive of the state-hegemonic aspects of the axis in question. Therefore the Damned, being female, are cursed with justice in the civility of antichemical bound soma and free psyche, since at relative cross-purposes, in antichemistry, with their gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche, whereas the counter-Saved, or pseudo-Saved, are pseudo-blessed with pseudo-righteousness in the pseudo-culture of their gender actuality, as males, of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma in physical bound soma and free psyche, the snag being that the emphasis does not fall, as would otherwise be the case, on free psyche but, due to antichemical subversive pressures stemming from a link with the unequivocal female hegemony of metachemistry over antimetaphyiscs back up the said axis, on bound soma as the – for males – secondary state-hegemonic position vis-à-vis antichemical bound soma and, by extrapolation, such free psyche as obtains, being co-opted to the service of soma, only achieves a secondary church-subordinate standing vis-à-vis antichemical free psyche, the free psyche that would be rather more antinonconformist than humanist in character and consequently antithetical not to antitranscendentalism, in male vein, but to fundamentalism, its metachemical counterpart. So while females may be damned to the cursedness of justice in the civility of antichemical bound soma and free psyche, their male counterparts will be pseudo-saved to the pseudo-blessedness of pseudo-righteousness in the pseudo-culture of physical bound soma and free psyche, this latter in parallel contrast to the free psyche and bound soma of metaphysics, wherein the male is unequivocally hegemonic and therefore not subverted from the female position due to its antithetical link with the somatically free and psychically bound aspects of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in metachemistry. There is therefore a completely different emphasis between these two manifestations of male sensibility, the metaphysical and the physical, and only in the former is Salvation for real and not merely a secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate corollary of Damnation.
6. But if the Many are damned and pseudo-saved at the southeast point of the axial compass, divided as they are between justice and pseudo-righteousness, civility and pseudo-culture, they exist, as in Britain, in polar relationship to an undamned and pseudo-unsaved Few who, as in America, rule the metachemical/antimetaphysical roost from a vantage point that constitutes the apex of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, being germane to the female ideal of somatic freedom and psychic binding which requires a metachemical mandate which is unequivocally hegemonic over metaphysical sensuality or, as I usually say, antimetaphysics. The damned and pseudo-saved parliamentary/puritan majority exist in antithetical relation to their metachemical/antimetaphysical counterparts who are more likely to be monarchic and Anglican than anything else, though Judaic and Hindu elements cannot be excluded, least of all in America where, as I have argued in the past, the northwest point of the axial compass is more elevated and somehow genuine than in Britain and far from having a pseudo-metachemical/pseudo-antimetaphysical vis-à-vis antichemical/physical polarity one finds, in reverse extrapolation from the British tradition, a pseudo-antichemical/pseudo-physical vis-à-vis metachemical/antimetaphysical polarity which is constitutive of New World criteria in the sense of an overhaul of Old World, and in particular British, axial criteria in a manner favouring ‘the above’ rather than ‘the below’, the undamned/pseudo-unsaved rather than the damned/pseudo-saved. Consequently in relation to this more contemporary manifestation of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, we find a contrary situation from that traditionally obtaining in, for instance, Great Britain, and here it can most certainly be maintained that the Few are not merely constitutionally but instrumentally and culturally hegemonic over the Many as so many film stars, rock stars, porn stars, drag stars, sports stars, etc. And it is this contemporary manifestation of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which rules over the world as we know it today, transforming traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate societies into quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate images of itself and thus effectively creating the terms by which even church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria may be overhauled in such fashion that things will tend not from pseudo-metaphysics/pseudo-antimetachemistry to antiphysics/chemistry, in traditional Catholic vein, but, on the contrary, from pseudo-antiphysics/pseudo-chemistry to genuine metaphysics/antimetachemistry as the quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate paradox is exploited from an equally, though morally sound, paradoxical standpoint which is determined to restore church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria to the peoples in question – not least in Eire – by appealing to the electorate to vote for religious sovereignty and thus have the benefit, in the event of a majority mandate, of that more genuine metaphysics and antimetachemistry which, under Social Theocracy, would be commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’ as a context, centred on the northeast point of the axial compass, in which salvation and pseudo-damnation will once again become possible to the unsaved and pseudo-undamned lapsed Catholic masses, only this time more efficaciously and genuinely so than had been the case in the past, before the Americanization of Eire and other such predominantly Catholic countries resulted in the partial overhaul of traditional axial criteria in the pseudo-antiphysical/pseudo-chemical manner described, something almost akin, in Biblical terms, to a ‘new earth’ which cannot but portend a ‘new heaven’ once the axis is completely overhauled and thus comes into line, antithetically, with the contemporary manifestation of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a situation which will no longer leave the peoples in question at a quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate disadvantage vis-à-vis their traditional counterparts, but make possible their own more efficacious elevation to salvation and pseudo-damnation (counter-damnation) of an order properly commensurate with global, and therefore universal, criteria. For not until this happens and the peoples concerned are saved and pseudo-damned more efficaciously will the undamned and pseudo-unsaved Few (comparatively speaking) of the other axis be placed in a position whereby their vain and pseudo-meek exploitations of the quasi-vain and quasi-pseudo-meek Many at the southwest point of the axial compass will come under threat for want of anybody there to pray upon. Only then will there be any possibility of damnation and pseudo-salvation for the undamned and pseudo-unsaved, for they will not be damned or pseudo-saved as long as there are those at the southwest point of the axial compass who have not been saved and pseudo-damned to its northeast point, and therefore they will not be in a position to be ‘made over’ in the image of those who are already damned and pseudo-saved at the southeast point of the axial compass as a precondition of these latter being swivelled across to the foot of the other axis and, in being ‘made over’ in their turn, saved and pseudo-damned in the wake of the lapsed Catholic generality, thereby making possible even the salvation and pseudo-damnation of the damned and pseudo-saved if they, too, elect to follow their historical counterparts across to the southwest point of the axis in question and accept the necessary criteria for salvation and pseudo-damnation to its northeast point, thereby being ‘made over’ from man and antiwoman or, more correctly, pseudo-man and pseudo-antiwoman to pseudo-antiman and pseudo-woman as the necessary preconditions of God and the Antidevil. Only thus will everything pass from the Alpha and Anti-Omega of the Devil and Antigod to the Omega and Anti-Alpha of God and the Antidevil, as though from the rule of Vanity Fair and the (anti-lead of) Anti-Celestial City to the lead of the Celestial City and (anti-rule of) Anti-Vanity Fair.
7. Thus as each axis is divisible between the Few and the Many, so the triumph of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria over its axial antithesis will require that everything passes from the Many to the Few on the axis in question, just as they have passed, with the American overhaul of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, from the Many to the Few in reverse vein, and both the Many of that axis and the Many of the traditionally more church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis now live under the sway of the vain/pseudo-meek Few to such an extent that there is scarcely any place for, let alone evidence of, the righteous/pseudo-just Few of a comparably genuine, or radical, order. All this must change in the future, as the new church-hegemonic/state-subordinate Few set about the task of achieving and consolidating their position vis-à-vis the lapsed Catholic Many and set in motion those orders of salvation and pseudo-damnation which will deliver the said Many from the predatory clutches of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate Few and thus bring about the latter’s axial downfall. For nothing short of that will change life as we know it, and it is imperative that life is changed for the better for the lapsed Catholic Many in order that they may be delivered from their shortcomings and the consequences of those shortcomings, and that even their Protestant counterparts may be brought to the threshold of salvation and pseudo-damnation in due course and all share in the benefits of blessedness and pseudo-cursedness, culture and pseudo-civility, righteousness and pseudo-justice for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity in an otherworldly/anti-netherworldly society that knows no death, being at its antimetachemical worst anti-death and at its metaphysical best so pro-life as to be eternal.
8. Are sportsmen or athletes or body builders or sex workers or other ‘physical’ types as equally sane as intellectuals and philosophers and great writers and artists? Or, put differently, do those in the former categories share the same type of sanity with those in the latter? Society may, as it is and has been constituted in the past, encourage us to think so, but I cannot bring myself to believe it. For isn’t there something kind of ‘insane’ about intellectuality and profound literary work compared with or, rather, contrasted to the sorts of bodily and physical activities which sportsmen and athletes and so on indulge in and regularly demonstrate? Would there not be ‘regular folk’ of an active if not competitive nature who, in their heart of hearts (or what passes for such), incline to the view that writers and philosophers and other such intellectually creative individuals are comparatively insane, if not mad? And yet is it not also the case that many of us take intellectuality, whether literary or otherwise, for granted and are happy to read a book or e-scroll or other literary production without fuss or undue sarcasm, never for a moment assuming that the act of writing constitutes evidence of madness or of something that should be avoided in the interests of sanity. So if there is a gulf between those who are outgoing, extrovert, sport-loving and their rather more ingoing, introvert, culture-loving counterparts, is it not indicative, this gulf, of two kinds of sanity, one fundamentally somatic and bodily, the other essentially psychic and therefore of the mind? Is it not the case that there is really a distinction here between what could be called outer sanity and inner sanity, the sanity of physical exercise and the sanity of metaphysical exercise, the sanity that signifies freedom in relation to soma and the sanity that signifies freedom in relation to psyche, the one arguably more female than male and the other more male than female. For, after all, somatic freedom, hailing from either a metachemical or a chemical premise and hegemony (over antimetaphyiscs or antiphysics, as the case may be) is the ideal of a creature for whom soma precedes and predominates over psyche, whereas psychic freedom, which hails from either a physical (in the elemental sense) or a metaphysical premise and hegemony (over antichemistry or antimetachemistry, as the case may be) is the ideal of a creature, by contrast, for whom psyche precedes and preponderates over soma – in other words, a male as opposed to a female creature. This, then, is the crux of the matter. There are two kinds of freedom on both phenomenal (corporeal) and noumenal (ethereal) levels or planes, and they are opposites in terms of being somatic and female, or psychic and male. A society rooted in somatic freedom may accept a limited degree of psychic freedom, but it will never give any great encouragement to psychic freedom for fear of undermining its somatic basis and transforming the word ‘insanity’ from something designating some form of madness to something akin to ‘insight’ vis-à-vis sight. To it, ‘sanity’ is fundamentally more somatic than psychic, and therefore most if not all forms of psychic freedom are vulnerable to being cynically dismissed as ‘insane’, i.e. mad, rather than regarded as germane to a contrary order of sanity which is simply inner (and of the mind) rather than outer (and of the body). To-date, this has been the general premise and belief of Western society, especially in countries which have been more partial, in heathenistic vein, to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria than to their converse. Sanity is closer to the sports field and the supermarket than to the desk or cloister – certainly for the generality of people. And yet how indicative of a somatic concept of freedom and therefore of sanity such a perception is! It does not distinguish, more or less impartially, between outer sanity and inner sanity in terms of ‘outsane’ and ‘insane’ but, siding with the former, inclines to dismiss the latter as equivalent to mad. I absolutely reject and despise this attitude! Sanity is not one thing rather than another; it is divisible between outer and inner, somatic and psychic, manifestations, and all people, bar the very extreme, are both ‘outsane’ and ‘insane’ to varying degrees, even if most would see themselves – certainly in traditional Western terms – as more ‘outsane’ than ‘insane’ and therefore of an outgoing disposition commensurate with social utility or sociability or societal expedience, a view which has done no small part to perpetuate the notion that outer sanity is alone sane compared to its inner counterpart. Well, let us categorically dismiss such a notion here, which is something of a Western if not populist myth, and assert that while outer sanity, or ‘outsanity’, is indeed sane or a form of sanity, inner sanity is also a form of sanity, if of an opposite gender persuasion to its somatic counterpart, and therefore worthy of being taken seriously as an ideal in itself, one which, if upheld, would divest the word ‘insanity’ of any pejorative or denigratory implications, making it short for ‘inner sanity’ and not synonymous with madness of a cerebral order. Doubtless such an order of madness does exist, but not necessarily as an expression of inner sanity! On the contrary, it would be indicative of the want of inner sanity, not in the sense of outer sanity, but through some malfunctioning of psyche or persistent delusion. And yet there can also be – and very often is – much evidence in society of the malfunctioning of soma, of bodily parts, whether through accident or disease, and a break-down, in consequence, in the norms of outer sanity which, though scarcely qualifying for aspersions of madness, indicate a want of somatic freedom and, hence, physical health. But madness has always been identified with psyche rather than soma, so the physically ill or sick have rarely been considered mad, not altogether surprisingly in view of the extent to which such a term has been reserved, in somatically-oriented societies, for the mentally sick. And yet if one can be sane physically, one can be mad physically. And if one can be mad mentally, one can be sane mentally. Being mental is not necessarily synonymous with being mad. Nor is being physical necessarily synonymous with being sane. One can be sane or mad either way, in an outer or an inner fashion, and ultimately what all these assumptions or presumptions tell us is about the nature of a particular type of society and its prevailing values, for better or worse. People will always be quick to denigrate psyche from a somatic standpoint and, doubtless, those societies more given, whether in the East or elsewhere, to psychic freedom will take a less than partisan view of soma. In misunderstanding each other they will recoil from each other and simply entrench themselves in their respective partialities. Rarely does society strike, never mind aim at, a balance between the opposites, somatic freedom and psychic freedom, though attempts to do so are usually weighted against one ideal from the hegemonic standpoint of the other which, contrary to its opposite, will be unequivocally rather than simply equivocally hegemonic and therefore more influential and important in the overall axial scheme of things, as already described in my work. Thus at the end of the day a bias remains, and that bias conditions the way people in that society generally think of sanity and its opposite, madness. At present ‘insanity’, used in the sense of inner sanity, has not been divested of pejorative connotations likening it to madness, and therefore sanity is implicitly if not explicitly identified with the outer and, more often than not, with a healthy somatic disposition that fights shy of intellectuality and high culture in general. The future, I am sure, will change all that, but not before the coming of religious sovereignty and the establishment of truly free psychic societies under the leadership of the highest males.
9. Frankly, urban civilization is more likely to breed or foster ‘insanity’ than ‘outsanity’ because if one is accustomed to city life for any period of time one becomes more disposed to living indoors than outdoors, there being so much more indoor life than outdoor in view of the close proximity of so many buildings of one persuasion or another, and living or being indoors is not incompatible with the development of sensibility, being its environmental parallel and, in effective terms, precondition. Therefore the more urban the context and the more, over several generations, sedentary or indoor one’s lifestyle the more, by a corresponding factor, sensible should one become, irrespective of fluctuations in the weather. Only those who spend much of their time outdoors, whether through ancestral tradition or in consequence of a natural response to warm dry weather, will cling to sensuality in parallel with their outgoing predilections. Yet the pressure towards a more indoor lifestyle will always be there in the city and, often enough, people outdoors are on the move from one indoor location to another rather than simply hanging around out-of-doors or loitering in public spaces. So city life is suited to the development of sensibility and, hence, of a correspondingly inner mode of sanity, whether or not one wishes to call it ‘insanity’, as though on a par with ‘insight’. Many if not most of those who live in cities, especially in the more built-up residential sectors, are arguably more ‘insane’ than ‘outsane’, and that, in comparative terms, is a good thing, because it indicates that sensibility is taking precedence over sensuality with them and such a situation is always more indicative of some kind of male hegemony, whether equivocal, as in physics over antichemistry, or unequivocal, as in metaphysics over antimetachemistry. In fact, now that I have returned to my usual take on such elemental terms, it strikes me as incontrovertible that the subordinate gender in any given sensible context will be less ‘insane’ in the aforementioned sense than anti-‘outsane’, which is to say, contrary to outer sanity in antichemical or antimetachemical vein without being properly, in male vein, ‘insane’, or partial to inner sanity through the development of psychic freedom. If such upended persons are not as ‘insane’ themselves, they are at least sufficiently anti-‘outsane’ as to be distinct from those who, in metachemistry or chemistry, would be ‘outsane’ and therefore either unequivocally or equivocally, depending on the elemental context, objective in their somatic freedom as the product, in no small part, of a vacuum appertaining, in female vein, to either the noumenal or phenomenal modes of objectivity. But if such people, whether rural or otherwise, would be ‘outsane’ in their somatically outgoing dispositions, then the upended gender in relation to them would, in being antimetaphysical or antiphysical, be less ‘outsane’ themselves than anti-‘insane’ and therefore of an anti-subjective disposition commensurate with the paradoxical elemental contexts in question. Therefore society is not simply a matter of sanity vis-à-vis insanity but, depending on the circumstances, will manifest either outer sanity at inner sanity’s upended expense or, in sensibility, inner sanity at outer sanity’s upended expense, the resultant pairing amounting to axial distinctions between noumenal ‘outsanity’/anti-‘insanity’ at the northwest point of the axial compass vis-à-vis phenomenal ‘insanity’/anti-‘outsanity’ at its southeast point, with a correspondingly contrary antithesis, on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, between phenomenal ‘outsanity’/anti-‘insanity’ at the southwest point of the axial compass and noumenal ‘insanity’/anti-‘outsanity’ at its northeast point, the unequivocal gender position linking to the phenomenally subordinate gender position with the traditional manifestations of each axis in the interests of either state-hegemonic/church-subordinate consistency and continuity or, conversely, church-hegemonic/state-subordinate consistency and continuity, as in the primary link between metachemical ‘outsanity’ and antichemical anti-‘outsanity’ in respect of state-hegemonic criteria and between metaphysical ‘insanity’ and antiphysical anti-‘insanity’ in respect of church-hegemonic criteria, neither axis being capable of reconciliation with the other in view of the different gender agendas which each one primarily represents. For if metachemistry and antichemistry constitute primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria with regard to the contrast between somatic freedom/psychic binding (metachemistry) and somatic binding/psychic freedom (antichemistry), ‘outsanity’ and anti-‘outsanity’, then antimetaphysics and physics, their noumenal and phenomenal male counterparts, can only signify secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria with regard to the parallel contrast between somatic freedom/psychic binding (antimetaphysics) and somatic binding/psychic freedom (physics), anti-‘insanity’ and ‘insanity’, which are obliged to take second place to their female counterparts in the overall relationship between state and church. Conversely, if metaphysics and antiphysics constitute primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria with regard to the contrast between psychic freedom/somatic binding (metaphysics) and psychic binding/somatic freedom (antiphysics), ‘insanity’ and anti-‘insanity’, then antimetachemistry and chemistry, their noumenal and phenomenal female counterparts, can only signify secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria with regard to the parallel contrast between psychic freedom/somatic binding (antimetachemistry) and psychic binding/somatic freedom (chemistry), anti-‘outsanity’ and ‘outsanity’, which are obliged to take second place to their male counterparts in the overall relationship between church and state. Such, at any rate, is how the distinctions would shape up on traditional, or worldly, axial terms, but, of course, nowadays we live, thanks in no small part to America, more under the shadow of post-worldly axial criteria in which ‘the below’ leads to ‘the above’ rather than vice versa, and consequently ‘the above’ is ultimately more influential and characteristic of the overhauled axial situation than ‘the below’ or, at any rate, has the potential to become such if it hasn’t already done so. But that is another story and one I have already addressed in my writings in several previous texts, so I shall refrain from elaborating on it here. If, traditionally, it could be said that, in state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms, the Many took precedence over the Few and therefore ‘insanity’ and anti-‘outsanity’ or, rather, anti-‘outsanity’ and ‘insanity’ over ‘outsanity’ and anti-‘insanity’, and, in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms, the phenomenal likewise took precedence over the noumenal and therefore ‘outsanity’ and anti-‘insanity’ or, rather, anti-‘insanity’ and ‘outsanity’ over ‘insanity’ and anti-‘outsanity’, these days we find that it is the Few, not least in metachemistry and antimetaphysics, who take precedence over the Many, and therefore ‘outsanity’ and ‘anti-‘insanity’ over anti-‘outsanity’ and ‘insanity’ where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria are concerned, whether or not, in contrast to this, we see the development of a situation, in societies traditionally more typified by church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, towards the prevalence of ‘insanity’ and anti-‘outsanity’ over anti-‘insanity’ and ‘outsanity’, and in such fashion that the salvation of the antiphysical to metaphysics in primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms is accompanied by the counter-damnation, or pseudo-damnation, of the chemical to antimetachemistry, as, in the one case, ‘insanity’ eclipses anti-‘insanity’ and, in the other case, anti-‘outsanity’ eclipses ‘outsanity’, always remembering that such an elevation would be from the phenomenal manifestation of each gender predilection to its noumenal counterpart, and therefore from pseudo-antiman to God and from pseudo-woman to the Antidevil in respect of the elevation from corporeal anti-‘insanity’ to ethereal ‘insanity’ and, for females, from corporeal ‘outsanity’ to ethereal anti-‘outsanity’, the anti-‘insanity’ of the one having been vis-à-vis the corporeal ‘insanity’ of the physical across the phenomenal axial divide, the anti-‘outsanity’ of the other being vis-à-vis the ethereal ‘outsanity’ of the metachemical across the noumenal axial divide. Therefore corporeal anti-‘insanity’ is a precondition, for the antiphysical, of ethereal ‘insanity’ in the metaphysical, just as, from a contrary gender standpoint, corporeal ‘outsanity’ is a precondition, for the chemical, of ethereal anti-‘outsanity’ in the antimetachemical, anti-‘outsanity’ being the Anti-Vanity Fair corollary of the ‘insanity’, the inner sanity in metaphysical free psyche, of the Celestial City, as of Eternity and its hegemony, for ever more, over Anti-Infinity, its antimetachemical counterpart.
10. Therefore far from a simple sane vis-à-vis insane distinction we find, in practice, that the axial compass allows for four types of sanity, whether outer or inner, and their corresponding anti-sanity counterparts, again whether outer or inner. No ‘outsanity’ without anti-‘insanity’ at the northwest point of the axial compass, and no ‘insanity’ without anti-‘outsanity’ at its southeast point where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria are concerned, and, conversely no ‘outsanity’ without anti-‘insanity’ at the southwest point of the axial compass and no ‘insanity’ without anti-‘outsanity’ at its northeast point. Some societies, being state-hegemonic, are unequivocally sane one way and equivocally sane the other, outer and inner, whereas other societies, being church-hegemonic, are equivocally sane one way and unequivocally sane the other, outer and inner. But all societies, whether equivocally or unequivocally sane in outer or inner terms, also embrace their upended gender counterparts at these intercardinal points of the axial compass, whose positions in relation to the ‘sane’ is if not insane then most decidedly anti-sane. For to be anti-‘insane’ under ‘outsane’ hegemonic pressures, whether unequivocal or equivocal, is to be contrary to the ‘insanity’ which characterizes the sensible hegemonies, whether equivocal or unequivocal, of the male positions in physics and metaphysics whose corresponding upended gender counterparts will be anti-‘outsane’ on like equivocal or unequivocal terms. Ugliness and hatred, corresponding to metachemical soma, will be manifestations of noumenal ‘outsanity’, of ethereal outer sanity, as will their bound-psychic corollaries, the ugly approach to falsity (illusion) and the hateful approach to woe, whereas falsity and woe, corresponding to antimetaphysical psyche, will be manifestations of noumenal anti-‘insanity’, of ethereal anti-inner sanity, as will their free somatic corollaries, the false approach to ugliness and the woeful approach to hatred. So much for the northwest point of the axial compass! Still on the sensual side of the social and/or environmental divide, weakness and humility, if not humiliation, corresponding to chemical soma, will be manifestations of phenomenal ‘outsanity’, of corporeal outer sanity, as will their bound-psychic corollaries, the weak approach to ignorance and the humble approach to pain, whereas ignorance and pain, corresponding to antiphysical psyche, will be manifestations of phenomenal anti-‘insanity’, corporeal anti-inner sanity, as will their free-somatic corollaries, the ignorant approach to weakness and the painful approach to humility. So much for the southwest point of the axial compass! Turning to sensibility across the axial divide, knowledge and pleasure, corresponding to physical psyche, will be manifestations of phenomenal ‘insanity’, of corporeal inner sanity, as will their bound-somatic corollaries, the knowledgeable approach to strength and the pleasurable approach to pride, whereas strength and pride, corresponding to antichemical soma, will be manifestations of phenomenal anti-‘outsanity’, corporeal anti-outer sanity, as will their free-psychic corollaries, the strong approach to knowledge and the proud approach to pleasure. So much for the southeast point of the axial compass! Finally, truth and joy, corresponding to metaphysical psyche, will be manifestations of noumenal ‘insanity’, ethereal inner sanity, as will their bound-somatic corollaries, the truthful approach to beauty and the joyful approach to love, whereas beauty and love, corresponding to antimetachemical soma, will be manifestations of noumenal anti-‘outsanity’, ethereal anti-outer sanity, as will their free-psychic corollaries, the beautiful approach to truth and the loving approach to joy. So much for the northeast point of the axial compass! Now although I have started with the hegemonic elemental position, whether unequivocal or equivocal, in all of the above axial examples, I have been careful not to exclude axial interaction between the noumenal and phenomenal positions, since it is precisely that which ensures that the southwest point of the axial compass is no more characterized by free soma as primary, in overly heathenistic vein, than its southeast point by free psyche as primary, in overly christianistic, meaning puritanical, vein. In each case, the equivocal hegemony is subverted by the subordinate position acting in conjunction with the unequivocally hegemonic element, be it female (in metachemistry) or male (in metaphysics), and the result, as stated before, is the paradoxical overturning of the equivocal hegemony from standpoints determined by either noumenal ‘outsanity’ or, across the axial divide, noumenal ‘insanity’. The equivocally hegemonic genders will still remain ‘true’ to their fundamental natures, but they will suffer the indignity, from their standpoints, of having the emphasis switched from soma to psyche in the case of the chemical (females) and from psyche to soma in the case of the physical (males). Therefore neither is properly vain or righteous, as the case may be, but pseudo-vain and pseudo-righteous under the subversive pressure of antiphysical meekness in the case of the anti-‘insane’ and antichemical justness, or justice, in the case of the anti-‘outsane’. And such meekness in the one case and justice in the other pales to insignificance compared with or, rather, contrasted to, the righteousness over pseudo-justice that characterizes the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the northeast point of the axial compass and, across the axial divide, the vanity over pseudo-meekness which characterizes the unequivocal hegemony of metachemistry over antimetaphysics at its northwest point. Meekness can only be blessed by righteousness in the event of the antiphysical rising to salvation in metaphysics, while pseudo-vanity can only be pseudo-cursed by pseudo-justice in the event of the chemical counter-falling to pseudo-damnation in antimetachemistry, the former exchanging phenomenal anti-‘insanity’ for noumenal ‘insanity’, the latter counter-sacrificing phenomenal ‘outsanity’ for noumenal anti-‘outsanity’. Conversely, vanity can only be cursed by justice in the event of the metachemical falling to damnation in antichemistry, while pseudo-meekness can only be pseudo-blessed with pseudo-righteousness in the event of the antimetaphysical counter-rising to pseudo-salvation in physics, the former sacrificing noumenal ‘outsanity’ for phenomenal anti-‘outsanity’, the latter counter-exchanging noumenal anti-‘insanity’ for phenomenal ‘insanity’. Verily, nothing is cut and dried, because the genders are opposites and can never be suited to the same agenda, progress or counter-regress, regress or counter-progress only happening in relation to pressures, whether external or internal, from the opposite gender.
11. In relation to the distinctions between vanity and pseudo-meekness, undamnation and counter-unsalvation (pseudo-unsalvation), at the northwest point of the axial compass, one could describe the relationship between ‘outsanity’ and anti-‘insanity’ as mirroring this genuine/pseudo distinction in terms, corresponding to uncursedness and counter-unblessedness (pseudo-unblessedness) of ‘outsanity’ and pseudo-anti-‘insanity’, not in the sense that the latter is contrary to ‘pseudo-insanity’ but rather as constitutive of a mode, nay the mode of pseudo-anti-‘insanity’, since conditioned by and subordinate to the genuine mode of ‘outsanity’. Likewise, in relation to the distinctions between justice and pseudo-righteousness, damnation and counter-salvation (pseudo-salvation), at the southeast point of the axial compass, one could describe the relationship between anti-‘outsanity’ and ‘insanity’ as mirroring the genuine/pseudo distinction in terms, corresponding to cursedness and counter-blessedness (pseudo-blessedness) of anti-‘outsanity’ and ‘pseudo-insanity’, since the latter is constitutive of the mode of ‘pseudo-insanity’, being subversively conditioned (to bound somatic emphasis) by the genuine mode of anti-‘outsanity’ acting in axial conjunction with metachemical ‘outsanity’. Conversely, in relation, across the axial divide, to the distinctions between meekness and pseudo-vanity, unsalvation and counter-undamnation (pseudo-undamnation), at the southwest point of the axial compass, one could describe the relationship between anti-‘insanity’ and ‘outsanity’ as mirroring this genuine/pseudo distinction in terms, corresponding to unblessedness and counter-uncursedness (pseudo-uncursedness), of anti-‘insanity’ and ‘pseudo-outsanity’, since the latter is constitutive of the mode of ‘pseudo-outsanity’, being subversively conditioned (to bound psychic emphasis) by the genuine mode of anti-‘insanity’ acting in axial conjunction with metaphysical ‘insanity’. Similarly, in relation to the distinctions between righteousness and pseudo-justice, salvation and counter-damnation (pseudo-damnation) at the northeast point of the axial compass, one should describe the relationship between ‘insanity’ and anti-‘outsanity’ as mirroring the genuine/pseudo distinction in terms, corresponding to blessedness and counter-cursedness (pseudo-cursedness), of ‘insanity’ and pseudo-anti-‘outsanity’, not in the sense that the latter is contrary to ‘pseudo-outsanity’ but rather as constitutive of a mode, nay the mode of pseudo-anti-‘outsanity’, since conditioned by and subordinate to the genuine mode of ‘insanity’ which, being metaphysical, is the first mover in the metaphysical/antimetachemical dual integrity at the northeast point of the axial compass and only at that point, wherein God and the Antidevil have their respective thrones.
12. Hence where there is undamnation and pseudo-unsalvation there will be ‘outsanity’ and pseudo-anti-‘insanity’, corresponding to uncursedness and pseudo-unblessedness, not to mention to vanity and pseudo-meekness, barbarity and pseudo-philistinism, noumenal objectivity and noumenal anti-subjectivity, spatial space and sequential time (antitime), upper-classfulness and anti-classlessness, Devil and Antigod, Hell and Antiheaven, Vanity Fair and Anti-Celestial City. Conversely, where there is damnation and pseudo-salvation there will be anti-‘outsanity’ and pseudo-‘insanity’, corresponding to cursedness and pseudo-blessedness, not to mention to justice and pseudo-righteousness, civility and pseudo-culture, phenomenal anti-objectivity and phenomenal subjectivity, voluminous volume (antivolume) and massive mass, anti-lowerclassfulness and middle-classfulness, antiwoman and man, antipurgatory and earth, Anti-Slough of Despond and Mr Worldly Wise (of the Delectable Mountains), both dual gender polarities of which are constitutive of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, which of course stretch from the northwest point to the southeast point of the axial compass.
13. Where, on the other hand, there is unsalvation and counter-undamnation (pseudo-undamnation) there will be anti-‘insanity’ and pseudo-‘outsanity’, corresponding to unblessedness and pseudo-uncursedness, not to mention to meekness and pseudo-vanity, philistinism and pseudo-barbarity, phenomenal anti-subjectivity and phenomenal objectivity, massed mass (antimass) and volumetric volume, anti-middleclassfulness and lower-classfulness, antiman and woman, anti-earth and purgatory, Anti-Mr World Wise and Slough of Despond. Conversely, where there is salvation and counter-damnation (pseudo-damnation) there will be ‘insanity’ and pseudo-anti-‘outsanity’, corresponding to blessedness and pseudo-cursedness, not to mention to righteousness and pseudo-justice, culture and pseudo-civility, noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity, repetitive time and spaced space (antispace), classlessness and anti-upperclassfulness, God and Antidevil, Heaven and Antihell, Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, both dual gender polarities of which are constitutive of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, which of course stretch from the southwest point to the northeast point of the axial compass.
14. Hence there is all the axial difference in the world, and even above it, whether in netherworldly anterior vein or in otherworldly posterior vein, between rising to salvation/counter-falling to pseudo-damnation and, largely in consequence of this, falling to damnation/counter-rising to pseudo-salvation, since the latter will not fall and counter-rise irrevocably until and unless the former comes to pass on a scale and to a degree which removes the unsaved and counter-undamned Many from their anti-omegaworldly/alpha-worldly predicaments at the southwest point of the axial compass and thus makes it difficult if not impossible for the undamned/counter-unsaved Few at its northwest point to prey upon them from their netherworldly/anti-otherworldly noumenally objective and noumenally anti-subjective heights, thus precipitating their downfall or counter-uprise, as the gender case may be, and effectively collapsing the heretically schismatic state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis into its anti-alphaworldly/omega-worldly base. What transpires after that is something that the damned/counter-saved Many will have to determine for themselves, though I have made it clear in previous texts that proper justice and pseudo-righteousness on the part of the just and pseudo-righteous Many will facilitate their passage across the axial divide to take the unsaved/counter-undamned places of the saved and counter-damned Many in such fashion, that with due pseudo-antimanly/womanly transformations, they too can avail of the possibility of salvation and counter-damnation, as, ultimately, can those who had been damned and counter-saved from the heights of vanity and pseudo-meekness and who would be last in the queue, as it were, for axial transference and moral transformation. But none of this will or ever could happen without the prior salvation and counter-damnation of those who already and traditionally appertained to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria and were consequently first in line for the prospects of elevation to the northeast point of the axial compass. And for salvation and counter-damnation to transpire on a scale and to a degree which is not only commensurate with blessedness and counter-cursedness of a more elevated – and comparatively genuine – order, but on a scale and degree which is likely to prove problematic to all who now – and with such ferocity! – prey upon those at the southwest point of the axial compass, it will have to avail of the requisite self-enhancing and/or (depending on gender) notself-reducing substances that will be as ‘horse’ to the cyborg ‘cart’ characterizing the development of godliness and antidevilishness/heavenliness and antihellishenss within a framework that can be logically and morally shown to be of a per se order of metaphysics and antimetachemistry such that only a global civilization, committed to universality and anti-polyversality, could be expected to further, and on the basis, necessarily, of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in any and all countries which had the right kind of ethnic preconditions for axial overhauling and upgrading on the aforementioned terms, terms which I have always identified with Social Theocracy and thus with the coming to pass of salvation and pseudo-damnation from the anti-omegaworld and alpha-world to what, with global universality and anti-polyversality, would be well-nigh definitive manifestations of otherworldly and anti-netherworldly criteria commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’, which is to say, with the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, Eternity and Anti-Infinity, the Omega Point and the Anti-Alpha Point, God and the Antidevil, Heaven and Antihell of a uniquely synthetically artificial and therefore globally universal cast.
LONDON 2005-06 (Revised 2007-12)