Opus Postscriptum Vol.1

Introducing OPUS POSTSCRIPTUM 1

Op. 123

OPUS POSTSCRIPTUM VOL.1�

A Re-examination of the Intercardinal Axes

Metaphysical Philosophy

____________

CONTENTS

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

02. Gender Contrasts in Soma and Psyche

03. Female Advantage in Worldly Relations

04. Alpha and Omega of the Metaphysical Self

05. Nature and Philistinism

06. Understanding Culture and Civility

07. Man and God

08. Traditional and Contemporary Music

09. Understanding Homosexuality

10. Theory of Sartorial Polarity

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

12. Football�s Violent Traditions

13. Of Pediments and Domes

14. Concerning Educated Females

15. Free Will verses Free Soul

16. Re-defining the Left and the Right

17. Worldly and Post-Worldly Distinctions

18. Genuine and Pseudo Axial Antitheses

19. Comprehensively Non-Humanistic

20. Overcoming the World

21. Revaluations and Transvaluations

22. Metaphysics and Antimetachemistry

23. God and Heaven

24. Secular Freedom vis-�-vis Religious Conformity

25. A Revaluation of Meritocracy and Plutocracy

26. A Brief Examination of Religious Freedom

27. Freedom From vis-�-vis Freedom For

28. Concerning Noumenal Subatomic Wavicles and Particles

29. Concerning the Respective Phenomenal Subatomic Positions

30. On Irish and British Distinctions

31. On the Relationship between Righteousness and Justice

32. Divine and Other Laws

33. Space and Time

34. God out of Man

35. No �Fall of Man�

36. The Nature of the Age

37. An Earlier Oversight Corrected

38. Man�s Yearning for Eternity

39. Free Cross and Bound Star

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

41. A Metaphysical Rejection of Brass

42. Across the Socialist Divide

43. Beyond Nationalist Politics

44. The Moral Necessity of Gender Discrimination

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

46. No Simple Right and Wrong

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

48. Getting the Life-force into Perspective

49. Exploring the Role of Percussion in Music

50. The Struggle between Opposite types of Sanity

51. Exposing the Antichrist Hype

52. The Alternative Patterns of Salvation and Damnation

53. Understanding Class

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

55. From Phenomenal Particle Collectivity to Noumenal Wavicle Individuality

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

57. Envisioning the Supra-Christian Beyond

58. Understanding the Contrary Modes of Noumenal Saluting

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

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

61. The Duties of Social Theocracy

62. A Critical Look at the Resurrection

63. An Examination of Faithfulness and Faithlessness

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

65. Setting the Time/Antispace Record Straight

66. A Common Phrase Corrected

67. Another Look at Freedom

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

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

______________

POSITIVITY VIS-�-VIS NEGATIVITY IN SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY

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

GENDER CONTRASTS IN SOMA AND PSYCHE

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

FEMALE ADVANTAGE IN WORLDLY RELATIONS

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

ALPHA AND OMEGA OF THE METAPHYSICAL SELF

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

NATURE AND PHILISTINISM

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

UNDERSTANDING CULTURE AND CIVILITY

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

MAN AND GOD

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

TRADITIONAL AND CONTEMPORARY MUSIC

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

UNDERSTANDING HOMOSEXUALITY

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

THEORY OF SARTORIAL POLARITY

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

RE-EXAMINING PHILISTINISM AND CULTURE IN RELATION TO BARBARITY AND CIVILITY

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

FOOTBALL�S VIOLENT TRADITIONS

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

OF PEDIMENTS AND DOMES

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

CONCERNING EDUCATED FEMALES

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

FREE WILL VERSES FREE SOUL

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

RE-DEFINING THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT

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

WORLDLY AND POST-WORLDLY DISTINCTIONS

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

GENUINE AND PSEUDO AXIAL ANTITHESES

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

COMPREHENSIVELY NON-HUMANISTIC

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

OVERCOMING THE WORLD

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

REVALUATIONS AND TRANSVALUATIONS

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

METAPHYSICS AND ANTIMETACHEMISTRY

When we conceive of God and Heaven in relation to metaphysics, which is the only elemental context properly germane to God and Heaven (a male context I have all along identified with the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass and contend to be unequivocally hegemonic over antimetachemistry, its female complement), it transpires that not only does one have God and Heaven in relation to the transcendentalism of metaphysical free psyche, God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul in terms of metaphysical ego and soul, but also God and Heaven in relation to the idealism of metaphysical bound soma, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven in terms of metaphysical antiwill (bound will) and antispirit (bound spirit), psyche taking precedence over soma in the elemental context in question, since psyche precedes and preponderates over soma as a male actuality and, in this case, as a metaphysical male actuality the ratio of which preponderance should be in the region of 3:1.� But, of course, not only is there metaphysical psyche and soma; there is also the soma and psyche of antimetachemistry, with the Antidevil and Antihell in relation to the antimaterialism of antimetachemical bound soma, Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit in terms of antimetachemical antiwill (bound will) and antispirit (bound spirit), and the Antidevil and Antihell in relation to the antifundamentalism of antimetachemical free psyche, the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and the Unclear Soul of Antihell in terms of antimetachemical ego and soul, neither of which would be capable of deferring, in secondary church-hegemonic vein, to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul without the secondary state-subordinate precondition of Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit having been established in consequence of the subjective influence of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven directly stemming, in primary state-subordinate vein, from the church-hegemonic primacy of God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul.� For the deference of what may be called the beautiful approach to Truth (the Antidaughter of the Antidevil) and the loving approach to Joy (the Unclear Soul of Antihell) to what properly appertains, in God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, to Truth and Joy would not transpire were Antidevil the Antimother not constrained to Beauty and Antihell the Unclear Spirit not constrained to Love via the truthful approach to Beauty of the Son of God and the joyful approach to Love of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, both of which, being idealistically metaphysical, directly stem from the Truth of God the Father and the Joy of Heaven the Holy Soul, the prime movers in metaphysics and the basis of the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry which constitutes the order of the northeast point of the axial compass as that in which God is triumphant over the Antidevil as the Celestial City over Anti-Vanity Fair or as metaphysical classlessness over antimetachemical anti-upperclassfulness or as Eternity (repetitive time) over Anti-Infinity (spaced space, or antispace).� Therefore God and Heaven, though primarily of metaphysical transcendentalism, are also to be thought of in relation to metaphysical idealism, albeit as the state-subordinate corollary of a church-hegemonic � and therefore strictly religious � precedence which is properly of God and Heaven.� Likewise, if conversely, the Antidevil and Antihell, though primarily of antimetachemical antimaterialism, are also to be thought of in relation to antimetachemical antifundamentalism, albeit as the church-hegemonic corollary of a state-subordinate � and therefore strictly political � precedence which is properly of the Antidevil and Antihell.� For whereas psyche precedes and preponderates over soma as male actuality, whether absolutely (3:1) as above or relatively (2�:1�) in relation to physics (and hence to man per se), the converse situation of soma preceding and predominating over psyche happens to coincide with female actuality, whether on the 2�:1� ratio of chemistry or, indeed, on the 3:1 basis of metachemistry, something that doesn�t cease to obtain under male pressures in sensibility, even though, paradoxically, such pressures, germane to the opposite gender actuality, will result, contrary to chemical or metachemical norms based in sensuality, in bound soma and free psyche, whether with an emphasis upon the former (antichemistry) or upon the latter (antimetachemistry), as determined by the overall axial situation (as described by me in several of my mature philosophical texts, not least those included in Opera D�Oeuvre).� However that may be, that which is metaphysical will ever differ from the antimetachemical (as, indeed, the physical from the antichemical) in terms of this fundamental gender differentiation which no amount of male pressure can substantially modify or undo, though confound and undermine it most certainly can, especially in the metaphysical context which, being unequivocally hegemonic, does not have to compete, like physics, with an unequivocal metachemical hegemony over antimetaphysics back up its state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which has the effect, in linking the two female elemental positions (metachemistry to antichemistry), of subverting the equivocal hegemony of physics to a bound somatic emphasis, despite the overall male conditioning of the female position in antichemistry to free psyche and bound soma, and all because the free soma of metachemistry is able to determine the terms of primary state-hegemonic criteria on the basis of an antithesis between metachemical free soma and antichemical bound soma.� But if physics must accept such a paradoxical twist of emphasis under female hegemonic (metachemical) and subversive (antichemical) pressures such that preclude genuine righteousness (or complete male gender sync with its underlying actuality) for the males so twisted from what might otherwise be a psychic emphasis, no such fate characterizes the unequivocally hegemonic metaphysical, and therefore far from a pseudo-righteous (counter-righteous)/just dichotomy between the genders one will find a righteous/pseudo-just (counter-just) dichotomy germane to the northeast point of the axial compass in what must be regarded, in overall axial terms, as a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate orientation traditionally more characteristic, in the West, of Catholic nations than of their Protestant (and state-hegemonic/church-subordinate) counterparts, irrespective of how imperfect the Catholic approximation to anything metaphysical and antimetachemical is compared not only to the Buddhist East but, even more so, to any definitive working out of such a dichotomy in something approaching properly universal terms with the coming of global civilization in �Kingdom Come�.� But either way, whether Catholic West or Buddhist East, holiness is only possible, for metaphysical males, in relation to the correlative existence, institutionally upheld, of unclearness for the antimetachemical, as the female of the species is confounded and somatically undermined in the interests of psychic freedom.� You do not have holiness without unclearness, whether on genuine (metaphysical) or pseudo (physical) terms, and you can take it as axiomatic that the existence of genuine holiness in metaphysics will require the correlative co-existence of pseudo-unclearness (counter-unclearness) in antimetachemistry, whereas the existence of pseudo-holiness (counter-holiness) in physics will be in consequence of the correlative co-existence of genuine unclearness in antichemistry, the latter of which is no counter-damnation (up the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis) but the product of damnation (down the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis), damnation, one might say, from free to bound soma in primary state-hegemonic terms and from bound to free psyche in primary church-subordinate terms.

GOD AND HEAVEN

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

SECULAR FREEDOM VIS-�-VIS RELIGIOUS CONFORMITY

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

A REVALUATION OF MERITOCRACY AND PLUTOCRACY

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

A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

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

FREEDOM FROM VIS-�-VIS FREEDOM FOR

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

CONCERNING NOUMENAL SUBATOMIC WAVICLES AND PARTICLES

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

CONCERNING THE RESPECTIVE PHENOMENAL SUBATOMIC POSITIONS

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

ON IRISH AND BRITISH DISTINCTIONS

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

ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTICE

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

DIVINE AND OTHER LAWS

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

SPACE AND TIME

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

GOD OUT OF MAN

The other night I heard something about man being made in the image of God on the TV (some dreadful film I happened to be watching) and for a while I went along with the notion, automatically translating it into my philosophy whereby psyche preceding soma equals Father preceding Son in both metaphysics and physics, so that the same procedure applies to each of the sensibly male elemental contexts.� But then my philosophy started to kick-in and I queried to myself the concept of God preceding man, or metaphysics preceding physics, since in elemental terms it tends to be vegetation that precedes air, or oxygen, and therefore physics that precedes metaphysics.� But this whole business of man being made in God�s image is so false and contradictory that it warrants some critical attention!� After all, the result is some kind of humanistic stasis either way, whether you accept the idea of man being made in God�s image or, on the contrary, whether, as an atheistic humanist, you turn away from Devil the Mother hyped as God under the false impression that you have rejected God and are now left with nothing but man, who would be his successor.� But of course Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) is precisely what precedes everything else, pretty much as fire preceding water (not to mention vegetation and air), or metachemistry preceding chemistry, so that far from man being made in God�s image it is actually woman who is made in the Devil�s image, treating the Devil as synonymous with Devil the Mother hyped as God as cosmic �first mover�.� So there we have it!� Man, as male, is not made in God�s image.� It is woman, as female, who is made in the Devil�s image, and precisely as soma preceding and predominating over psyche, albeit to a lesser, that is, phenomenal degree of something like 2�:1� as opposed to 3:1, which is nothing less than chemical relativity vis-�-vis metachemical absolutism, the actual noumenal elemental position commensurate with Devil the Mother.� Thus things on the tails side of the elemental coin are rather more germane to somatic freedom and psychic binding than ever they are to psychic freedom and somatic binding, and therefore we can reasonably argue that woman made in the Devil�s image (not Satan or anything of the equivalent �fall guy for slag� kind) is anything but synonymous with the notion of man being made in God�s image, even though �man� can and has been used loosely in the sense of �mankind�, and God falsely equated with what I have called Devil the Mother as metachemical �first mover� in the cosmic or natural scheme of things.� But man, considered strictly in male terms, is a sort of by-product of woman, an adjunct to woman, just as vegetation (or earth) is an adjunct to water, which required a fiery precondition (metachemical), and out of vegetation, as we have seen, comes air or, at any rate, components of the atmosphere that are essential to life on earth.� Therefore it would be nearer the mark, once having dealt with woman being made in Devil the Mother�s image, to maintain that God is made in man�s image, and to be sure the resurrected Saviour was � and remains � a paradigm of such a concept to the extent that he was first man who �rose from the dead� and �ascended into heaven�.� Thus one could regard the concept of a resurrected Saviour �On High� as a crude manifestation of the emergence of God out of man, even though, because of Old Testament factors going all the way back to an unequivocal Devil the Mother hyped as God, such an emergence was bound, in mankind, to be imperfect and short of the required mark for true godliness, the so-called Father of noumenal sensuality in metachemistry holding anything germane to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass back from the possibility of full maturity by dint of its very existence or recognition as appertaining to the northwest point of such a compass.� Has it not been said that Christ, in rising from the dead, sat on the right-hand side of this so-called Father?� But that is hardly commensurate with being under Him as soma succeeding psyche as male actuality whether in metaphysics or, down below, in physics!� Such a resurrected Saviour, corresponding in crucifixion to bound soma, is hardly commensurate with free psyche of a metaphysical order, which, in Christianity, simply does not exist.� Even metaphysical bound soma, which should be identified with the concept of �sacred lungs�, gets dovetailed into the antimetachemical context, necessarily female, of �sacred heart� and therefore is further done down from metaphysics to antimetachemistry in the interests of the subsuming of such antimetachemistry into a mankind, of Catholic, perpendicular triangularity in which some personification or emblematic representation of eyes over ears, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, takes sensual precedence over such truncated sensibility, and can be exchanged, with an ecclesiastical sleight-of-hand, for those unequivocal manifestations of perpendicular triangularity which, in Old Testament vein, accord with either nature or the Cosmos, being less a matter of heart-eyes-ears than of berries-blossom-fruit on trees or of Venusian-Stellar-Solar bodies in cosmic precedence of anything natural, never mind human or, to bring us up to date, cyborgistic.� Be that as it may, perpendicular triangularity is the enemy of anything metaphysical and capable of dominating antimetachemistry to the exclusion of metachemistry and antimetaphysics. And yet metaphysics is the sole context in which godliness exists, and not simply as bound soma, in Christ-like vein, but as free psyche, as psyche preceding and preponderating over soma as, metaphorically speaking, Father over Son, so that before you can have the cart of bound soma you must have the horse, so to speak, of free psyche, and precisely as a metaphysical principle that would utilize the �sacred lungs� to a transcendent end.� Christianity, of course, by which I mean Roman Catholicism, falls woefully short of doing justice to what properly appertains to the Divine, and even Buddhism, capable of utilizing the lungs in terms of transcendental meditation, is still a mankind shortfall from genuine godliness and thus the globally universal transcendence of both West and East alike, a transcendence which, in sensual and hence heathenistically secular terms, is already well under way and therefore beyond religious traditions of a Catholic or Buddhist order.� But it has not, of course, reached its sensible goal, and until it does there can be no widespread emergence of God out of man, since the contemporary mode of Devil the Mother hyped as God will persist and constrain life to perpendicular triangularity as before, albeit on synthetically artificial as opposed to non-synthetically artificial or even pre-artificial terms.� But even the eventual emergence of God out of man, using man in male and, specifically, anti-masculine terms as germane to the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, will only be the provisional and inceptive manifestation of the process that results from the transcendence of earth, or vegetation, by air, since more applicable to the leaders of and strugglers for contemporary metaphysics than to the masses in general.� God made in the image of man can only be provisional.� Ultimately, God will become more His own product and creation on an increasingly communal basis that will transcend the notion of images altogether, thereby being properly germane to what God, in any ultimate context, should be.� And what applies to godliness in metaphysics will also apply, albeit on a necessarily separate basis, to antidevilishness in antimetachemistry, where the counter-damned females are concerned.� Their counter-damnation from chemistry to antimetachemistry or, more correctly, from pseudo-chemistry to antimetachemistry up what I have in the past called the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis will be in consequence of the salvation of males from pseudo-antiphysics to metaphysics, as the Americanized southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, now effectively quasi-state-hegemonic, is made subject to the control of its overhauled northeast point in the interests of the deliverance of both the pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical alike from their pseudo-worldly plight to both the otherworldly and anti-netherworldly realms of the metaphysical and the antimetachemical, the Blessed Saved and the Counter-Cursed Counter-Damned for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity.� Verily, God (and His female companion the Antidevil) is what comes to pass last in the overall compass of competing and rival factors.� The lie of man being made in God�s image has been adequately exposed and dismissed for what it�s worth.� The descent of woman from the Devil is one thing; the ascent of God from man � quite another, and we have yet to make a serious attempt on the heavenly citadel which is the end of everything else � everything, that is, apart from its antihellish corollary in Antidevil the Antimother and, more importantly, the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, the bound soma and free psyche of antimetachemistry which will accompany the free psyche and bound soma of metaphysics in terms of God the Father and the Son of God, not to mention their free soulful and bound spiritual concomitants which we have previously identified with Heaven the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, the former above the Unclear Soul of Antihell and the latter above Antihell the Unclear Spirit, as metaphysics is above antimetachemistry in both church and state.

NO �FALL OF MAN�

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

THE NATURE OF THE AGE

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

AN EARLIER OVERSIGHT CORRECTED

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

MAN�S YEARNING FOR ETERNITY

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

FREE CROSS AND BOUND STAR

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

OVERCOMING THE GENDER WAR IN THE INTERESTS OF UNIVERSAL PEACE

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

A METAPHYSICAL REJECTION OF BRASS

What especially fails much so-called classical music and even jazz for me � is the prevalence of brass, whether in relation to silver or bronze, to metachemistry or antimetaphysics, as a kind of instrumental paradigm of conventional theism, not to say autocracy and antitheocracy, at what might be described as the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass.� No one who rejects Devil the Mother hyped as God in what, compared to convention, must seem an atheistic stance � can possibly be complacent about brass instruments in music, since there is assuredly a correlation between brass, as a fiery order of wind, and metachemistry and/or antimetaphysics, the f