21. I spoke, a while ago, of the overhaul of traditional
bureaucratic/theocratic criteria in relation to the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis, which was of course contrasted with the autocratic/democratic criteria of
the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis. In reality, however, things
are more complicated that that, since neither axis, whether traditional or
overhauled, is commensurate with one criterion at either pole, so to speak, but
is divisible between the ideological equivalents of both gender positions in
each case, making for a distinction between, say, autocracy and antitheocracy
in relation to the Northwest point of the state-hegemonic axis and between
antibureaucracy and democracy in relation to the Southeast point of the said
axis, with a similar, if contrary, distinction between antidemocracy and
bureaucracy in relation to the Southwest point of the church-hegemonic axis and
between theocracy and anti-autocracy in relation to the Northeast point of the
same axis. Therefore contrary to a simple polarity between autocracy and
democracy, we find that autocracy is unequivocally hegemonic over antitheocracy
like Vanity Fair over Anti-Celestial City, while antibureaucracy is equivocally
subversive of democracy like Anti-Slough of Despond of Mr worldly Wise,
autocracy and antibureaucracy being metachemically and antichemically
antithetical in relation to female criteria, antitheocracy and democracy being
antimetaphysically and physically antithetical in relation to male
criteria. Likewise, contrary to a simple polarity between bureaucracy and
theocracy, we find that antidemocracy is equivocally subversive of bureaucracy
like Anti-Mr Worldly Wise of the Slough of Despond, while theocracy is
unequivocally hegemonic over anti-autocracy like the Celestial City over
Anti-Vanity Fair, antidemocracy and theocracy being antiphysically and
metaphysically antithetical in relation to male criteria, bureaucracy and
anti-autocracy being chemically and antimetachemically antithetical in
relation to female criteria. Hence, in gender terms, a link, in the
primary state-hegemonic case, between diabolic female and antifeminine female
positions in respect of noumenal sensuality and phenomenal anti-sensuality is
juxtaposed with a link, in the secondary state-hegemonic case, between
antidivine male and masculine male positions in respect of noumenal
anti-sensibility and phenomenal sensibility, and the overall axial context
would be geometrically akin to a circle within a square above and an oval
within a rectangle below, at the base of the axis in question. Similarly,
a link, in the primary church-hegemonic case, between antimasculine male and
divine male positions in respect of phenomenal anti-sensibility and noumenal
sensibility would be juxtaposed with a link, in the secondary church-hegemonic
case, between feminine female and antidiabolic female positions in respect of phenomenal
sensuality and noumenal anti-sensuality, with the overall axial context being
geometrically akin to a rectangle within an oval below and a square within a
circle above, at the apex of the axis in question. Therefore far from a
simple polarity between autocratic and democratic factors in the one axial case
and bureaucratic and theocratic factors in the other, we find that the actual
polarities, based in gender distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity
and/or their respective negations, are rather more between autocracy and
antibureaucracy coupled to antitheocracy and democracy in the case of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, but between antidemocracy and
theocracy coupled to bureaucracy and anti-autocracy in the case of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis. Nothing, therefore, could be more misleadingly false than to
contend that the axes are the result of simple polarities between two singular
factors in each case. Both democracy in relation to the one axis and
bureaucracy in relation to the other, the former male and the latter female,
are merely equivocally hegemonic and therefore subject to subversion by their
respective under-plane corollaries, viz. antibureaucracy and antidemocracy,
acting at the behest of the corresponding unequivocally hegemonic gender
position ‘on high’ which, whether autocratic or theocratic, is able to link, at
the subordinate expense of antitheocracy or anti-autocracy, depending on the
axis, with its gender counterpart ‘down below’ and permit of the latter’s
subversive influence on the equivocally hegemonic factor, be it democratic or
bureaucratic, to a gender-conditioned state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial outcome which will remain both
consistent with itself and capable of lasting continuity and stability.
The circle in a square leading to the oval in a rectangle of the one axis is no
less the product of female domination in overall axial terms than is the
rectangle in an oval leading to the square in a circle the product, in overall
axial terms, of male domination. You no more achieve a
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial integrity on the basis of a male lead
of society than a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial integrity on the
basis of a female rule of society. Rather, the contrary is true in each
case, and that is why autocracy and antibureaucracy are the primary poles and
antitheocracy and democracy the secondary poles of the one axis, but
antidemocracy and theocracy the primary poles and bureaucracy and
anti-autocracy the secondary poles of the other axis. Thus in overall
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial terms the upper-class objectivity of
autocracy and the anti-classless anti-subjectivity of antitheocracy form a
noumenal pairing which contrasts with the phenomenally anti-lowerclass
anti-objectivity of antibureaucracy and the middle-class subjectivity of
democracy as metachemistry links with antichemistry and antimetaphysics with
physics, whereas in overall church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms the
classless subjectivity of theocracy and the anti-upperclass anti-objectivity of
anti-autocracy form a noumenal pairing which contrasts with the phenomenally
anti-middleclass anti-subjectivity of antidemocracy and the lower-class
objectivity of bureaucracy as metaphysics links with antiphysics and
antimetachemistry with chemistry. Traditionally, all this does of course
work from the top down, as outlined above, though increasingly we find that in
a post-worldly age it is rather more from the bottom up, so that the
relationships are somewhat reversed and we find that antibureaucracy leads to
autocracy and democracy to antitheocracy in the one axial case and, at the risk
of seeming precocious, antidemocracy leads to theocracy and bureaucracy to
anti-autocracy in the other axial case, a case which has yet to achieve a
comparable overall of its own axial integrity to that which characterizes the
overhaul of British state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria by
American axial criteria of a similar, if converse,
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate bent, an overhaul that would shift the focus
from the ‘below’ to the ‘above’ as the pseudo nature of the former increasingly
came under the more genuine nature of the latter as things progressed towards a
‘Kingdom Come’-like scenario in which the ‘above’ sought to effect, in the
manner previously described in this and other texts, a more efficacious and
permanent salvation and counter-damnation of the ‘below’, thereby delivering
both the pseudo-feminine and pseudo-antimasculine from their own
pseudo-alpha/pseudo-antiomega worldly limitations and the
netherworldly/anti-otherworldly predations to which they remain perforce
subjected as quasi-vain (female) and quasi-pseudo-meek (male) departures from
traditional catholic meek and pseudo-vain positions, their
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate norms twisted towards
quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria by the noumenally
sensual/noumenally anti-sensible impositions which daily rain down upon them
from the apex of the other axis and remove them from the sphere of conventional
catholic salvation and counter-damnation. Only the overhaul, as I say, of
this axis will permit salvation and counter-damnation to once more come back
onto the agenda, and with a vengeance! For the salvation and
counter-damnation of the pseudo-phenomenally anti-sensible and their female
counterparts the pseudo-phenomenally sensual to genuine noumenal sensibility
and noumenal anti-sensuality in metaphysics and antimetachemistry will
ultimately bring about the undoing of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria and effect the damnation and counter-salvation of those who now prey
upon them down to their own ‘lower orders’, from where they will be judged and
‘made over’ in the pseudo-antialpha/pseudo-omega worldly images of those
already there as a precondition of subsequent transmutation as and when it
becomes politic for the latter to be swivelled across to the foot of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis and duly saved and counter-damned up in
the wake of the lapsed Catholic majority of that axis. But that
would be a very long-term process, and in the meantime there is much to be done
to effect the overhaul of our own church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in
such fashion that the majority are no longer removed from the possibility of
salvation and counter-damnation but are able to embrace a totally new concept
of deliverance from their worldly plight to pastures both new and higher, in
their more genuine nature, than have ever existed before, with potentials for
‘world overcoming’ that would put the Catholic tradition to shame. For
the world or, in this case, the pseudo-worldly positions of both the
pseudo-feminine and their pseudo-antimasculine counterparts, is not to be taken
lightly but regarded as something from which to be delivered if those who now
avail of it in state-hegemonic/church-subordinate fashion are to be brought low
and their pseudo-worldly victims raised up to new and altogether unprecedented
heights of salvation and counter-damnation.
22. The overhaul of traditional, or worldly,
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria by America has led to a society the
reverse of Britain, or at least of what Britain used to be before it came under
American influence and effective political domination, a domination which has
played no small part in keeping Britain at loggerheads with much of continental
Europe and its struggle for European unity. For while Britain could
traditionally be described as a country whose sense of fulcrum or ‘ideal’, no
matter how misguided, is, being democratic and puritan, of the Many, its
American counterpart is decidedly a country whose active ideal, if not always
sense of fulcrum, being autocratic and ‘anglican’, if not quasi-Judaic or
Indian fundamentalist, is of the Few, meaning, principally, those who best
represent its metachemical and even antimetaphysical freedoms in respect of
soma, whether culturally, as in film, or socially, as in wealth in consequence
of free enterprise of a highly successful order. America is much more a
country where life appears to revolve around the Few, not least in respect of
Hollywood, and what the Few are doing or about to do is of paramount interest,
it would appear, to the lives of the Many. Now although Britain has a
degree of this, not least in relation to the Monarchy, it is much less typical
of the country overall, which would seem to be more interested in football and
pop music and other manifestations of popular culture that, at times, veer
towards social democracy without ever quite parting company with the liberal
traditions of parliamentary democracy and Puritanism. Now in the
traditional Irish case, for example, there is also a fair amount of interest in
the below as opposed to the above, if from a contrary axial point of view, and
I would argue that hurling and folk music are exemplifications of this
alpha/anti-omega worldly situation. But if the overhaul of this axis, one
which is traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate, is not to happen
elsewhere, like Australia, then there may come a time when the focus of
attention will switch from the Many to the Few, the below to the above, since
the new ‘above’ will not be priestly in character but, hopefully, social theocratic,
and therefore dedicated to providing the means whereby a more efficacious order
of salvation and counter-damnation may be provided to the Many with intent,
little by little, to transforming them into the Few, lifting them out of their
corporeal limitations via a system of procedures oriented towards the utmost
ethereal freedom in respect of psyche. Thus, if the Many are bound to be
the focus of attention in a system which cannot provide such a transformation
in their predicament, then, with the development of an alternative and higher
system geared to religious freedom of an ultimate order, the focus is bound to
switch to the Few, both initially, during their consolidation of the means of
enhanced elevation, and subsequently, as, following a process of
centro-complexification, more and more of the Many are transformed into the Few
as their corporeal limitations are overcome with the advancement of
otherworldly and anti-netherworldly criteria. But this will be so
antithetically contrary to the American approach to the Few as to bear little
or no resemblance to it, being, if anything, inner rather than outer and
centripetal rather than centrifugal, with an emphasis upon the light within as
opposed, in cinematic vein, to the light without, the light that emanates from
countless movie cameras and cinema screens and TV screens as the medium in
which soma acts out her wilful freedom to the grim tune, more usually, of
infinite death, not least in respect of the depiction of war and violence
generally.
23. As I am writing this book on a blog-like basis, with more
drastic shifts between one topic and another than is usually found in my work,
I will continue now with a discussion of the relative axial merits of
association football and gaelic football, which, as the reader may have
discovered from earlier texts, I consider to lie at the opposite poles to rugby
(or its American extrapolation ‘Gridiron’) in the one case and to hurling in
the other case, so that state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria offer a polar
distinction between the noumenal freedom of rugby (or ‘Gridiron’) and the
phenomenal binding of association football (or ‘soccer’) within an axis
primarily characterized by soma and only subordinately by psyche, whereas
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria offer, by contrast, a polar
distinction between the phenomenal binding (to hurleys) of hurling and the
noumenal freedom of gaelic football within an axis primarily characterized by
psyche and only subordinately by soma. This much has, I think, been well
established in the past, and it is not something I wish to enlarge on
here. What I can say is that football, in the more prevalent sense
usually associated with soccer, easily lends itself,
despite its physical/antichemical association with liberal criteria, to social
democratic proclivities wherein the antichemical aspect of such a duality
tends, in its association with justice of a more absolutist order, to become
prominent at the expense of physical pseudo-righteousness. Whether or not
this is reflected in the way football is played, there should be no doubt that
a game as phenomenally bound as football, which penalizes handling, would not
and could not suffice to exemplify or accompany a social theocratic
predilection, and that wherever it is played, which includes most countries
these days, it can only have the effect of turning peoples, not least when
Catholic, away from the possibility of Social Theocracy as it panders to a
craving, expressed or unexpressed, for Social Democracy, since that is the only
thing further down the said state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis that could
be viewed as an alternative to liberal democracy. I am not saying that
football is social democratic, but there can be no question that adherence to
such a sport, which manifestly is not Catholic in character but of English
Protestant antecedents, will not do much to encourage people to yearn for a
social theocratic alternative to existing or traditional Catholic norms but,
rather, will in some sense corrupt Catholic peoples from the path of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. Which is not an allegation
one could level at gaelic football, that noumenally free game which is the
national sport of the Republic of Ireland and one that is not only Catholic in
character but, with Celtic factors, more than Catholic and potentially social
theocratic or, at any rate, of a disposition which, given certain modifications
suitable to an indoor arena, could level with a social theocratic ideological
bent in a way that football never could, not even if and when subject to indoor
or electronic roofing modifications itself. No, there can be no question
that football is dangerously irrelevant from a social theocratic standpoint,
and therefore more congenial to those who would advance social democratic
criteria at the expense of traditional norms, whether Catholic or
otherwise. Even the drug thing would seem, in its orientation towards
psychic freedom, to have less relevance to a context like association football
than to one which, like gaelic football, or so-called football, does manifest a
transcendentalist dimension in the scoring of points over the bar between the
vertical uprights that tower above the goal and its containing net, and
therefore stands closer to a godly resolve such that would embrace Social
Theocracy if it were to stand antithetical, across the axial divide, to
‘Gridiron’ and not merely, as at present within the overall context of the
British Isles, to rugby. However that may be, there can be no doubt in my
mind that the exporting of gaelic football to a variety of countries would do a
lot to deliver them from out the shadow of Social Democracy with which, in
certain instances, association football can be identified, and render them more
susceptible to extreme left-wing tendencies that were manifestly social
theocratic in character and therefore commensurate, in the event of a majority
mandate for religious sovereignty, with what I have all along contended to be
‘Kingdom Come’ and its promise of psychic freedom in synthetically artificial
self-realization for the righteous of God and even, on the female side of the
gender divide, pseudo-just of the Antidevil.
24. How horribly tragic is this orientation towards Social
Democracy which, with its more extreme left-wing manifestation, is always going
to invite an autocratic backlash in the form of some Nazi-like ideology of the
Extreme Right! And how much does association football contribute towards
this state-oriented fatality of the social democratic Extreme Left? Can
you play a foot-low game and live or think high? I, for one, having lived
so long in England, would be extremely sceptical and somewhat pessimistic that
anyone who was deeply into football could ever be simultaneously committed to
the path of theocratic liberation and freedom from the last bastion of tyranny
which was also the first – namely, that of Old Testament Creatorism and
everything associated, rather paradoxically, with the hyping of Devil the
Mother as God. Now, as already stated in this and other texts, there is
bound to be some reaction to the struggle for Social Theocracy from persons
more given to Catholic tradition, whether out of vested interests or stupidity
and cowardice or plain backwardness I must leave for them to judge. But
such reaction, call it fascist if you like, can only be less justified –
indeed, much less justified - than the reaction which greets social democratic
radicalism which, despite the delusive rhetoric of its adherents, is distinctly
regressive from a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial standpoint and
therefore contrary to the female ‘ideal’ of free soma which dominates that axis
from a metachemical basis in noumenal sensuality. Being contrary to such
an evil ideal, the wilful licence of the diabolic, may seem justified to its
social democratic opponents, as to a lesser extent to its liberal democratic
opponents, but it is not enough to make for a righteous situation of itself, as
the terrible consequences of justice absolutism continue to attest. Enhanced
righteousness can only come with the extension of the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis to new peaks of metaphysical and, for
females, antimetachemical psychic freedom, though not to the total exclusion of
pseudo-justice or justness the way pseudo-righteousness was often excluded from
the more blatantly totalitarian examples, including Stalinism, of
state-hegemonic justice. On the contrary, there must continue to be a
partnership between righteousness and pseudo-justice if an overly church-hegemonic
absolutism is not to ensue, with reactionary consequences from the phenomenal
below. Indeed, this partnership must be articulated in such fashion that
it is better understood and acted upon than was the case in the Catholic past
or with traditional Catholic approaches to salvation and what I have called
counter-damnation, when, more often than not, such a distinction was not
properly made and the issue was fudged in something approaching a totalitarian
manner that, paradoxically, would have equated righteousness with
pseudo-justice when not excluding righteousness altogether! For only a
partnership between righteousness and pseudo-justice, church and state, will
allay the fears of the phenomenal below and permit those who were more sinful
than pseudo-vain or, conversely, more pseudo-vain than sinful to find their
proper niches in the noumenal above, thereby undermining the justification for
reaction and allowing society to progressively develop along more elevated
terms in adherence to the male ‘ideal’ of psychic freedom, which is only
possible under the guiding light of a metaphysical hegemony in noumenal
sensibility such that, with Social Theocracy, would be determined to keep
antimetachemistry in its subordinate noumenally anti-sensual place. For
unless what passes, in antidiabolic female vein, for antimetachemistry is kept
in subordination, there will be precious little righteousness and little
evidence, if any, of a virtuous circle of God and Antidevil, Heaven and
Antihell, Time and Antispace, Eternity and Anti-Infinity in what, with the
Northeast point of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, I have
subsumed, in quasi-Bunyanesque terms, under the descriptions of Celestial City
and Anti-Vanity Fair.
25. Truth pertains no less to the egoistic aspect, in form, of
noumenal sensibility than joy to its psychoistic aspect through
contentment. There can be no Heaven without God, and no God without
Heaven. Outside and beneath these psychic manifestations of metaphysics,
which we call transcendentalist, are the somatic manifestations of metaphysics,
which we have called idealist. Thus the truthful approach to Beauty
appertains no less to the bound will, in antipower, of noumenal sensibility
than the joyful approach to Love to bound spirit through antiglory, neither of
which would have any meaning, as Son of God and Holy Spirit of Heaven, apart
from God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul. But neither would there be
much evidence of Antidevil the Antimother, in the antimaterialism of
antimetachemical bound will, or of Antihell the Unclear Spirit through the
antimaterialism of antimetachemical bound spirit, were it not for the influence
of metaphysical bound soma acting upon them via the Son of God and the Holy
Spirit of Heaven, and without Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear
Spirit there could be no possibility of the antifundamentalism of the
Antidaughter of the Antidevil in antimetachemical free ego or of the
antifundamentalism of the Unclear Soul of Antihell in antimetachemical free
soul, which are germane to the beautiful approach to Truth and the loving
approach to Joy which stem from the Beauty and Love of Antidevil the Antimother
and Antihell the Unclear Spirit. Therefore no possibility of a virtuous
circle of metaphysical and antimetachemical factors in both psyche and soma,
church and state, unless both the transcendentalism and idealism of
metaphysics are in situ to condition the antimetachemical towards
antimaterialism and antifundamentalism in secondary state-subordinate and
church-hegemonic terms, terms which then parallel the primary manifestations of
state-subordinate and church-hegemonic criteria as their female complements.
26. Are church bells alpha or omega or, when once the clapper is
also taken into account, are they omega-in-the-Alpha or alpha-in the
Omega? In other words, does one have a circle in a square or a square in
a circle? Are church bells indicative of the female entrapment and
domination of the male, as in the hollow case surrounding the clapper, which
forms the greater part of what we regard as bells, or are they rather more
indicative of the male entrapment and domination of the female, as would be the
case were we to interpret the hollow casing of the bell as a circle with a sort
of square in it in the form of the clapper? One could ask other such
questions, and answer them in contrary ways, not least with regard to a sort of
distinction, irrespective of the shape of bell towers though also allowing for
that, between bells appertaining to Anglican churches and those appertaining,
by contrast, to their Roman Catholic counterparts, neither of which would find
much echo in a majority of Puritan churches. However that may be, I would
like to think that, considered singly, the bell is less illustrative of the female
entrapment and domination of males than of a square (the clapper) within a
circle (the hollow case), bearing in mind that bells are used to signify time,
and time, at least when repetitive, is of eternity and hence more germane to
noumenal sensibility than to noumenal sensuality, noumenal anti-sensibility
being somewhat more sequential in character and thereby implying the
simultaneous positioning and utilization of a number of bells in any given
tower, a factor which could well be closer to signifying the female entrapment
and domination of the male than a singular repetitive manifestation of time
would allow. And if that were the case, then one could not categorically
accord bells a specific status in relation to noumenal sensibility but would have
to allow for noumenal anti-sensibility as a manifestation of the domination,
from spatially above, of noumenal sensuality. In which case, church bells
would be less a manifestation of transcendent independence of the alpha of
things in Creatorism than a metaphorical and indeed symbolic illustration of
the dominion, Old Testament-like, of antimetaphysics by metachemistry, of
antitranscendentalism by fundamentalism whether or not church-hegemonic
criteria were otherwise more prevalent in relation to a variety of Catholic
proclivities. For to see the bell as signifying the dominion of
metaphysics over antimetachemistry, of transcendentalism over
antifundamentalism (presuming here, as above, upon the irrelevance of
state-subordinate criteria) would be to exaggerate the significance of the
notion of square within a circle at the expense of those more prominent
material characteristics which suggest the subordination of antimetaphysics to
metachemistry, whether in relation to the surrounding and encompassing of the
clapper by the bell cone or, indeed, to the vacuous metallic shape and
substance of the hollow case as such. Yet this does not exclude the
possibility of repetitive time, even though, in typically Christian fashion,
such singular ringings can be replaced, according to occasion, by sequential
ringings of several bells played in quick succession, thereby confirming a
status, arguably more High Anglican than Roman Catholic, of omega-in-the-Alpha
and, hence, of the female entrapment of the male such that would accord not
only with high church weddings but, more fundamentally, with the whole ethos of
Old Testament-based Creatorism.
27. I have never maintained that Anglicanism is Old Testament and
Puritanism alone New Testament, for that would be to deny to Anglicanism any
Christian relevance even by church-subordinate standards. What I believe
is that Anglicanism is more Old Testament than New Testament and Puritanism
more New Testament than Old Testament, though that is not to deny to Puritanism
its capacity to dissociate the New Testament from the Old and act in relation
to the New Testament alone, as my own receipt as a boy of a grey softback
Gideon New Testament would seem to confirm. But if Anglicanism were to do
the same with regards to the Old Testament, then it would be less than
Christian and in some sense closer to Judaism, with its Old Testament-like
Torah. High Anglicans may prefer the Old Testament to the New, but no
church that calls itself Christian, no matter how pseudo its Christianity may
happen to be when judged from a church-hegemonic standpoint, can afford to
entirely dispense with the New Testament, the testament, par
excellence, of Christianity. Ironically, it has been my way to regard
the Bible as more Protestant than Catholic, with the split between Old
Testament and New Testament mirrored, axially speaking, in the distinction
between Anglicanism and Puritanism, the church-subordinate complements to
Monarchy and Parliamentarianism in Britain. For while not denying to
Roman Catholicism its commitment to Scripture, I have preferred to conceive of
the church-hegemonic axis, with its dotted-line departure from heathenistic
fundamentalism, as owing much if not everything to faith in the concept of a
post-resurrectional or risen Christ whose transcendent remove from both the
world and ‘the Creator’ justifies both eschatological and ecclesiastical
intervention vis-à-vis the ‘faithful’, whose faith continues to be confirmed by
penitential contrition for sin and whose reward of verbal absolution from the
priestly intercessor is what restores them to grace in relation to ‘God’, which
is to say, the Risen Christ. Yet this Christ ‘on high’, having
eschatological attributes, is potentially capable of returning to the world,
with Judgement, to manifest the divine presence to the faithful as the Second
Coming. Therefore he is potentially freer than church-subordinate
criteria in relation to the state-hegemonic axis, governed by a more pedantic
approach to Scripture, would allow, and this is what makes and keeps him almost
uniquely Catholic and, in some sense, Scripture-transcending. Yet, even
then, Catholicism is a product of Western civilization and only approaches what
could be called eschatological futurity, or Messianic intervention in relation
to ‘Kingdom Come’, from a Christian standpoint, which is to say with a Western
shortfall from global universality and a Christic shortfall, in the Son, from
godly sublimity, which requires, at a truly universal and therefore global
level of its unfolding, that terms like the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ are
understood to metaphorically signify the precedence of soma by psyche as the
male reality, whether physical, in relation to Man, or metaphysical, in
relation to God, where the ratio of such precedence is rather more absolute,
i.e. 3:1 than relative, i.e. 2½:1½, and thereby symptomatic of
transcendentalism and idealism as opposed to humanism and naturalism.
Therefore, quite apart from the irrelevance of Western criteria to the
establishment and furtherance of global civilization (an irrelevance shared,
incidentally, by the East), the emphasis upon a concept like the Second Coming
(of Christ, i.e., the Son) does little to address the necessity of putting the
horse, as it were, before the cart, and allowing for the precedence of soma by
psyche, of bound soma (hitherto so dramatically exemplified in the Crucifixion)
by free psyche, and thus of Son by Father, the actual godly being or
manifestation of godliness whose Word should, if followed, pave the way for a
Son-like implementation of it in accordance with the binding of soma to psyche
and, in political terms, of state to church. Thus an ultimate coming of
the Father precedes a Second Coming of the Son, for until the Word has been
recognized and acted upon there can be no ‘Kingdom Come’, and recognizing and
acting upon it, i.e. implementing it, may take quite some time – at least if
the Father and the Son do not transpire to being two sides of the same
metaphysical coin which leads from psyche to soma in the same universal
‘person’ the way that theory sometimes leads to practice by the same individual
acting under different circumstances. For ultimately, if and when we
arrive at a society which is religiously sovereign rather than simply
politically sovereign, the religiously sovereign people will have rights in
relation to both theory and praxis, and the Father and the Son,
not to mention for females the Antimother and the Antidaughter, will be germane
to the same individual in each case, two sides – psyche and soma, free and
bound – of a universal destiny which it would be undesirable and unethical to
separate out or divide up, as though between different persons, the one vastly
different to the other and the subject, in consequence of his remoteness in
time from the ‘Father’, of idolatrous worship. In the future, as of now,
Father and Son will appertain to the same person, Antimother and Antidaughter
likewise, since they are two sides of the same coin, as of the individual who,
in one way or another, is both psyche and soma, self and not-self, church and
state. For it is precisely to avoid repeating the error of a
chronological approach to the concepts of Father and Son, so characteristic of
Christianity as a paradoxical half-way stage between the Alpha and the Omega,
the cosmic Beginning and the universal End, that one should so regard the
distinction between these two aspects of male reality and ensure, in so doing,
that the female distinctions follow suit on their own reversed basis of soma
preceding psyche.
28. If I am not antidemocratic it is because I am theocratic, and
if I am anti-bureaucratic it is because I am pro-antiautocratic and thus in
favour of an ultimate partnership between theocracy and anti-autocracy in what,
colloquially, has been described as ‘Kingdom Come’, a context divided by me
between Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair which would exist at the Northeast
point of our axial compass whether or not we ascribe a North-northeast status
to the Celestial City and an East-northeast status to Anti-Vanity Fair in an
attempt to delineate more sharply the one from the other. For they are as separate as God and the Antidevil, metaphysical
classlessness and antimetachemical anti-upperclassness, and cannot or should
not ever be confounded. The ultimate totalitarianism, if and when
it comes to pass, will be relativistically divisible between the genders and
neither a totalitarian fudge, such as we encounter in relation to Catholic
tradition (with its tendency to subsume metaphysical into antimetachemical factors
by dint of the extent to which metachemistry still obtains across the axial
divide), nor a totalitarian absolutism of the type that would raise everything,
irrespective of gender, to metaphysics. It is not simply that you can’t
raise the Antidevil to God; rather is it a case that you should not, for the
sake of what is godly, even attempt any such thing. For if the ultimate
point, from a cultural standpoint, of the axial compass is to work, it requires
a virtuous circle of gender differential and complementariness. Such a
circle cannot be established on the basis of God alone, and even within
metaphysics you cannot have God the Father without the Son of God being
somatically in attendance, the same applying to their soulful and spiritual
corollaries, Heaven the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit of Heaven. It is
this, more than anything, which caused me to reject and eventually repudiate
Christian thinking in respect of a Trinity which, with Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, fell short, on a Western vis-à-vis global basis, of the required
quadruplicity of metaphysical factors, with divine ego passing through bound
will and spirit leading to sublime soul as the vindication of the self.
Christianity, like in another context the British philosopher Arthur Koestler,
is simply wrong to reduce things, whether in life or thought, to trinitarian or
tripartite parameters as though there were only three elements or three aspects
to every element. That, as I hope to have shown throughout my work, is
simply not the case and smacks, rather illogically, of some kind of
extrapolation from the classical Greek notion of the True, the Good, and the
Beautiful. In actuality, goodness does not qualify for consideration
along with the True and the Beautiful, being axially antithetical to evil as an
attribute of Strength which ranks with Knowledge as the phenomenal
counterparts, in antichemical and physical sensibility, to the noumenal
virtues, in metaphysics and antimetachemistry, of Truth and Beauty.
Therefore Truth as noumenally antithetical to Illusion, or Falsity, and Beauty
as noumenally antithetical to Ugliness, with Strength phenomenally antithetical
to Weakness and Knowledge phenomenally antithetical to Ignorance, the latter of
which, together with its chemical counterpart Weakness, makes for the axial
antithesis of Truth and its antimetachemical counterpart Beauty, as grace from
sin and pseudo-punishment from pseudo-crime. But even metaphysics and
antimetachemistry have to be divided into a fourfold distinction between Truth
and the truthful approach to Beauty, which is God the Father and the Son of
God, and Beauty and the beautiful approach to Truth, which is Antidevil the
Antimother and the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, not to mention, where soul
and spirit are concerned, between Joy and the joyful approach to Love, which is
Heaven the Holy Soul and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, and Love and the loving
approach to Joy, which is Antihell the Unclear Spirit and the Unclear Soul of
Antihell. Even at the Northeast point of our axial compass a simple
dichotomy between Truth and Beauty is not enough to do justice, so to speak, to
the context in question. For if there is anything worse than tripartite
or triadic thinking, in this respect, it can only be dualistic thinking and the
settling for a simple dichotomy between two seemingly related or contiguous
virtues. Beauty, or the Beautiful, as I think I have already stated, is
merely antimetachemically bound somatic and therefore not equivalent, on a
church-hegemonic basis, to Truth. And even Beauty, in the
antimetachemical sense we are addressing, would be less than recognizably or
dependably beautiful as an antimetachemically bound somatic factor if the
truthful approach to Beauty, stemming in metaphysical bound soma from Truth, were
not instrumental in conditioning and constraining it to a secondary
state-subordinate role in the interests of the beautiful approach to Truth (not
to mention loving approach to Joy) which has been identified with secondary
church-hegemonic criteria. Thus neither Beauty nor the beautiful approach
to Truth would significantly exist, within antimetachemistry, without the prior
and primary input of first of all Truth and then its somatic offshoot the
truthful approach to Beauty, each of which stems from an unequivocally male
hegemony in metaphysics. Let us not, for the sake of Truth and its
metaphysical and antimetachemical concomitants, give any encouragement to those
who would dismiss gender discrimination in these matters as either
anachronistic or misguided or in some sense immoral. Anachronistic a
certain level and manifestation of it may be from a post-worldly and strictly
contemporary point of view, which tends to be more American than anything else,
but from the standpoint of that which regards itself as lying beyond the
contemporary, American-led form of globalism in an approach to globalization
which is genuinely universal and thus led by transcendentalist and even
idealist factors germane to metaphysics, nothing could be more detrimental to
the development and consolidation of Truth in relation to godliness than an
inability or unwillingness, born of ignorance and sloth, to adequately
discriminate between the genders and allot to each their separate status or
place within the overall context of ‘Kingdom Come’, of a point on the axial
compass that would truly be commensurate, in its metaphysics and
antimetachemistry, with the Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, as with
otherworldly and anti-netherworldly alternatives in the gender distinction between
Eternity and Anti-Infinity, an Omega Point and an Anti-Alpha Point of the Yang
and Anti-Yin of the End and the Anti-Beginning, as far removed from anything
corresponding to the Beginning and the Anti-End as it were possible to get.
29. In the Beginning were the somatic death of Devil the Mother
and her anti-ending ‘fall guy’ the Antison of Antigod, both of whom would have taken free somatic precedence over the bound
psyche of the Daughter of the Devil and Antigod the Antifather. In the
End will come the psychic life of God the Father and his anti-beginning ‘fall
doll’ the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, both of whom will take free psychic
precedence over the bound soma of the Son of God and Antidevil the
Antimother. In the Beginning were evil (somatic metachemistry) and
pseudo-folly (somatic antimetaphysics), crime (psychic metachemistry) and
pseudo-sin (psychic antimetaphysics). In the End will come grace (psychic
metaphysics) and pseudo-punishment (psychic antimetachemistry), wisdom (somatic
metaphysics) and pseudo-goodness (somatic antimetachemistry).
These are the overall alpha/anti-omega and omega/anti-alpha antipodes of
noumenal existence, which have nothing in common with each other except their
ethereal opposition to the contrary orders of corporeal existence in the
phenomenal below, where, on state-hegemonic and church-subordinate terms, good
(antichemistry) and pseudo-wisdom (physics) stand in somatic polarity – bound
vis-à-vis free - to evil (metachemistry) and pseudo-folly (antimetaphysics) as
punishment (antichemistry) and pseudo-grace (physics) stand in psychic polarity
– free vis-à-vis bound - to crime (metachemistry) and pseudo-sin
(antimetaphysics), while, on church-hegemonic and state-subordinate terms, sin
(antiphysics) and pseudo-crime (chemistry) stand in psychic polarity – bound
vis-à-vis free – to grace (metaphysics) and pseudo-punishment
(antimetachemistry) as folly (antiphysics) and pseudo-evil (chemistry) stand in
somatic polarity – free vis-à-vis bound – to wisdom (metaphysics) and
pseudo-goodness (antimetachemistry). In the worldly Beginning was the
somatic death of Woman the Mother and her worldly anti-ending ‘fall guy’ the
Antison of Antiman, both of whom would only have taken somatic precedence over
the bound psyche of the Daughter of Woman and Antiman the Antifather when there
was insufficient axial interplay with the polar above, in the sense of a male
link, psychically, between God the Father and Antiman the Antifather coupled,
in soma, to the Son of God and Antiman the Antison and, stemming from this, a
female link, likewise in psyche, between the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and
the Daughter of Woman coupled, in soma, to Antidevil the Antimother and Woman
the Mother to tip the emphasis from soma to psyche in the interests of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria. In the worldly End, however,
was the psychic life of Man the Father and his worldly anti-beginning ‘fall
doll’ the Antidaughter of Antiwoman, both of whom would only have taken psychic
precedence over the bound soma of the Son of Man and Antiwoman the Antimother
when there was insufficient axial interplay with the polar above, in the sense
of a female link, somatically, between Devil the Mother and Antiwoman the
Antimother coupled, in psyche, to the Daughter of the Devil and the
Antidaughter of Antiwoman and, stemming from this, a male link, likewise in
soma, between the Antison of Antigod and the Son of Man coupled, in psyche, to
Antigod the Antifather and Man the Father to tip the emphasis from psyche to soma
in the interests of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria. But, of
course, axial continuity and consistency demands that sufficient axial
interplay does take place on either basis, and that is why, paradoxically, the
worldly beginning and anti-ending remained open to the prospect of the
anti-netherworldly anti-beginning and otherworldly ending, whereas the worldly
ending and anti-beginning remained subject to the dominion of the netherworldly
beginning and anti-otherworldly anti-ending. Some distinction! And
some paradox!
30. Being of Catholic Irish birth and ancestry I am not, and could
never, be partial to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, such as
exists in Britain, and therefore I do not endorse either the
netherworldly/anti-otherworldly positions or the omega/anti-alpha worldly
positions, whether in respect of autocracy and antitheocracy above or of
democracy and antibureaucracy below, the latter of which is phenomenally
subversive of the former in the interests of overall state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
continuity and consistency when once the link with autocracy, in metachemical
to antichemical fashion, is understood as the ruling principle of the axis in
question. For males could not, independently of female pressure and overall
dominion, be expected to endorse state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria
when, in gender terms, they are the converse of soma preceding and effectively
predominating over psyche, being of a disposition that, when true to itself and
in an axial position to dominate females, will prefer
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in keeping with their gender
actuality of psyche preceding and effectively predominating over soma.
Therefore if the British male is resigned to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria it must be because he is powerless to do anything about it because
systemically conditioned to take such criteria more or less for granted, in
complete contrast to his representative Irish counterpart who, when not
Protestant, will tend, from systemic conditioning that owes more to male than
to female pressures, to take church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria more
or less for granted. Now this is, from a male standpoint, much to be
preferred, since it is in sync with male gender actuality. Whether
females will be quite as committed to it is, of course, a moot point; but if
they are more resigned than categorically opposed to it, then that would be due
to systemic conditioning of the type which is manifestly lacking in Britain
where, if the evidence is anything to judge by, females are not conditioned to
take such criteria for granted, and are consequently likely to be more than
resigned to the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate status quo, even where the
generality of females are concerned, who, of course, would be rather more
somatically bound than free. But if that, and therefore goodness as the
bound somatic manifestation of justice, is a damned misfortune from a female
standpoint, excepting those who might prefer counter-salvation, it is still a
far cry from being psychically bound or free in relation to criteria which,
traditionally at any rate, make it church-hegemonic/state-subordinate policy to
relegate somatic freedom and binding, in antiphysics and metaphysics coupled,
for females, to chemistry and antimetachemistry, to a subordinate status
vis-à-vis their male-conditioned psychic counterparts. However you
analyze it, Britain and Ireland could not be more antithetical, and that is why
over the centuries there has been such friction and mistrust between the two
islands, and why, at the time of writing, the island of Ireland is still
divided between the Irish Republic, with a Catholic majority, and Northern
Ireland with its falsely contrived Protestant majority in consequence of the
way it was partitioned by the British to placate the Protestant reaction to the
prospect of integration in an all-Ireland state characterized by a Catholic
majority. The curse of partition in Ireland is ample reflection of the
gender struggle and distinction between the two peoples which continues to keep
Ireland divided even with Protestants in the so-called South and Catholics in
the North, neither of which would be representative of their respective
‘nations’ to anything like the extent of the respective majorities, however
contrived or uncontrived, as the case may be. But life is a mixed-up and
gender-ridden thing, and the
31. Therefore those who believe in the Life Eternal and its female
counterpart the Death Anti-Infinite, the Anti-Vanity Fair complement of the
Celestial City, are more than Catholic or Buddhist or anything else which only
embraces ‘Kingdom Come’ from a misguided or lopsided gender standpoint, being
in effect Social Transcendentalist and therefore beyond religion as
traditionally constituted, whether in the West or the East. They are
properly global and therefore universalist in their
orientation, and would not seek to impose traditional Western criteria on the
East or, conversely, traditional Eastern criteria on the West. All
criteria which are not Social Theocratic are beneath their pale as something to
be rejected and, if and when possible, cleared away as an obstacle to global
progress towards its universal destiny. But Social Theocracy, to give to Social
Transcendentalism its political or ideological face, is not martial or in any
degree committed to the advancement of religious sovereignty in the masses
through force. We Social Theocrats could not wage so-called ‘holy war’
against opponents or reactionaries of one sort or another, because even at our
least elevated position at the Northeast point of the axial compass we are
believers in anti-war as the female complement to male peace. Anti-war is
our noumenal bottom line, and we know that you cannot advance the cause of
peace, which is a uniquely metaphysical cause, without first of all being
peaceful or peaceable and, via that, bringing the female to anti-war as a
consequence of antimetachemical constraint emanating from a metaphysically
hegemonic imposition. Social Theocracy can only advance the cause of
Social Transcendentalism on the basis of a majority mandate for religious
sovereignty in countries where, because of both religious traditions and
political freedoms, no matter how paradoxical the latter may be in relation to
the religious tradition, a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to
a profoundly theocratic end seems both feasible and morally desirable, if the
peoples concerned are to be returned, on a radically progressive basis, to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria of a viably contemporary, or
universal, cast. Therefore a majority mandate from the people of these countries,
which includes the Republic of Ireland, for religious sovereignty is the
precondition of the establishment of Social Theocracy and, hence, of the Centre
as the fulcrum of church/state relativistic absolutism. No Social
Theocratic Centre can be established on any other basis than that of a majority
mandate for religious sovereignty and therefore democratic freedom in a people,
no matter how paradoxically at loggerheads with their religious traditions this
in many respects externally-conditioned if not engineered freedom may be, is an
absolute prerequisite of social theocratic freedom of psyche in relation to God
and, for females, the Antidevil on what amount to ultimate, and therefore
properly universal, terms, terms beyond anything mankind may have achieved in
the past in relation to these separate gender positions at the Northeast point
of the axial compass, and bearing no resemblance whatsoever to whatever may
have passed for God and Devil in relation to the more cosmic- and
nature-oriented Northwest point of the axial compass which continues to
characterize much if not all traditional religion of a pre-mankind nature,
where the hype of Devil the Mother as God precludes any commitment to God the
Father even on the necessarily restricted terms of mankind, and results in the
under-plane upended male position being denigrated as Devil when, in point of
fact, it is approximate to the Antison of Antigod in free soma and to Antigod
the Antifather in bound psyche (of an antimetaphysical bent characterizable as
noumenally anti-sensible) and therefore, in overall terms, to Antigod as
opposed, in metachemical free soma and bound psyche, to the Devil, i.e. to
Devil the Mother in free soma and the Daughter of the Devil in bound psyche
(with a disposition which, being objective, is germane to the actual first
mover of things spatial in noumenal sensuality). This lie of Devil the
Mother hyped as God still persists at the root of all traditional religion, and
only a majority mandate for religious sovereignty can bring the people of those
countries where a paradoxical utilization of the electoral process is both
possible and, from their ethnic standpoint, morally desirable freedom from this
oldest of civilized lies in order that the truth of God the Father may be revealed
and bring to those who deserve it that peace which is the essence of
Heaven. Therefore no war to advance Social
Theocracy but, only as a last resort, to defend the gains of Social Theocracy
from reaction, whether in relation to internal sabotage or external
intervention. The defence of the rights of a religiously sovereign
people would be a moral duty if those rights are not to be undermined or even
taken from them. But offensive action in relation to the spread of Social
Theocratic freedom to external countries would be a contradiction in
terms. A people must be ‘up to’, or capable of, religious sovereignty
before there can be any prospect of its realization following a majority
mandate from an electorate who have been well appraised of their predicament
and are anxious to undo one paradox with the use of another in order that they
may be set free of quasi-state-hegemonic impositions in the interests of a new
church-hegemonic dispensation which will free them from their ethnic corrupters
and vindicate the transition from state paradox to centre fulfilment in the
more efficacious salvations and counter-damnations that will ensue as their
religiously sovereign right, leading them from out the darkness of their own
limitations into the inner lights which are the divine and antidiabolic
antitheses to everything diabolic and antidivine which currently parades its
outer lights under the sanction of Vanity Fair and with the subordinate
approval of the Anti-Celestial City.
32. Therefore much to be done to bring the
