OF POETS AND DRAMATISTS
A ‘sonofabitch’ (pseudo-prick) is not a ‘cunt’; he is either a poet rather than a pseudo-dramatist (pseudo-physics/chemistry) or a pseudo-poet rather than a dramatist (pseudo-metaphysics/metachemistry). He has a clenched fist rather than an open hand, but it is an aggressive, pseudo-convergent fist that is the product, in no small measure, of the divergent hand that either ‘sucks’ (chemistry) or ‘jerks’ (metachemistry) him off.
I don’t much like ‘male’ poets, genuine or pseudo, but I categorically despise so-called ‘male’ dramatists for being quasi-bitchful ‘cunts’ who have abandoned their nominal gender position for hegemonic advantage over it (and hence over poets of one sort or another). To me, they are literary criminals; for when one ‘jumps upstairs’ from pseudo-physics to chemistry or from pseudo-metaphysics to metachemistry one takes one’s pseudo-male gender ratio with one, a ratio that, whether relative (2½:1½) or absolute (3:1), phenomenal or noumenal, will normally if not invariably be the converse of the gender ratio proper to the ‘upstairs’ position, be it chemical (and feminine, volumetric) and metachemical (and superfeminine, spatial), to speak in general terms, and therefore one is almost bound to demonstrate more negativity than positivity, more bound psyche (pseudo-physical sinfulness pseudo-criminally transmuted in quasi-chemistry or pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-sinfulness criminally transmuted in quasi-metachemistry) than free soma (pseudo-physical folly pseudo-evilly transmuted in quasi-chemistry or pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-folly evilly transmuted in quasi-metachemistry), in contrast to the hegemonic positions proper which, being female, will be illustrative of more positivity than negativity, more free soma (pseudo-evilly in chemistry or evilly in metachemistry) than bound psyche (pseudo-criminally in chemistry or criminally in metachemistry), depending on the elemental case.
Frankly, it makes more sense, from the resident unmoral standpoint, to remain meekly unholy (pseudo-physical) or pseudo-meekly pseudo-unholy (pseudo-metaphysical) than to immorally aspire, after the fashion of that which is responsible for one’s meekness in the first place, to either pseudo-vane pseudo-clearness (chemistry) or vane clearness (metachemistry); though, logically, I have to concede that there would be much less immoral ‘coming up from below’ (pseudo-physics or pseudo-metaphysics) if there was, or had been, no amoral ‘going down from above’ (chemistry or metachemistry) which, to my way of thinking, is the chief reason why the unmoral, whether genuine (pseudo-physical) or spurious (pseudo-metaphysical), become goaded into such an immoral departure from their respective types of ‘meekness’ in the first place.
Now ‘coming up from below’, a plane down in each class case, is not really in the hegemonic gender’s moral interests either, since it will tend to detract from their own moral position, undermining it through the pseudo-convergent proximity of pseudo-subjectivity intruding upon a context, whether chemical or metachemical, that should be – and in the normal hegemonic course of events patently is – objective, given in divergent vein, to centrifugal tendencies characterized, unlike what ‘comes up from below’, by more somatic positivity than psychic negativity.
Therefore the ‘quasi-bitchful cunt’, as one may call those who depart their ‘sonofabitch (pseudo-bastard) pseudo-prick’ subordinate gender status, is worse than the ‘bitch’ who, unlike her gender-bender immoral counterpart, will normally remain less criminal than evil, less bound psychic than freely somatic, as befitting her gender. Poets are normally fools or sinners, (genuinely or spuriously, depending on the elemental or, rather, pseudo-elemental context, as outlined above), but so-called ‘male’ dramatists, whether ‘coming up from below’ or, strange to say and harder to believe, plunging straight into drama as though nothing else, including poetry, mattered, are the worst of the worst in literary terms, and deserve no respect, least of all from the sensibly-minded, for their criminally-biased undertakings or productions.
If there is one thing worse, speaking generally in terms that defer to the predominant or preponderant somatic/psychic ratio factor, than heathen pseudo-morality (chemisty) or superheathen morality (metachemistry), it can only be quasi-unchristian immorality (a quasi-chemical departure from pseudo-physics) and quasi-subchristian pseudo-immorality (a quasi-metachemical departure from pseudo-metaphysics), the former issuing from genuine unmorality and the latter from pseudo-unmorality, as from demons and pseudo-demons anxious to become – or remain – pseudo-whores or whores in pseudo-dramatic (quasi-chemical) or dramatic (quasi-metachemical) fashion, and to become them on the worst possible, i.e. negative, terms!
Let us leave this sorry subject with the conclusion that none of this would happen did not chemistry exist hegemonically over pseudo-physics, as volume (volumetric) over pseudo-mass (massed) and metachemistry hegemonically over pseudo-metaphysics, as space (spatial) over pseudo-time (sequential). Until such time as the pseudo-physical are delivered (saved) to metaphysics and the chemical delivered (counter-damned) to pseudo-metachemistry on appropriately global terms commensurate with a universal resolve, there is no way that things could be otherwise than how they now are; for what subsequently transpires on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis (stretching from the southwest to the northeast points of the intercardinal axial compass) will determine the ensuing fate, long-term, of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate one (stretching, by contrast, from the northwest to the southeast points of the said compass), and thus of the respective fates (in damnation to pseudo-chemistry and counter-salvation to physics) of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, the noumenal objectivity and noumenal pseudo-subjectivity of which are currently responsible for seducing the phenomenally objective and phenomenally pseudo-subjective from their pseudo-diabolic and divine, noumenally pseudo-objective and noumenally subjective, destinies in ‘Kingdom Come’, where only pseudo-metachemistry and, more importantly, metaphysics will obtain and therefore not pseudo-dramatists and poets but pseudo-prosodists (or short-story writers) and philosophers, the latter of whom will be aphoristically metaphysical and thus given to the elucidation or consolidation of Truth.