Preview the Centretruths eBook version of
JESUS - A SUMMING UP!
Op.
122
JESUS
–
A
SUMMING
UP!
(Of
Supreme
Theosophical
Genius)
Aphoristic
Philosophy
Copyright
©
2011
John
O'Loughlin
_____________
CONTENTS
1.
Aphs.
1–32
2.
Appendix
____________
1. Anyone
who has read my recent texts, not least those dealing with the Social
Theocratic
Centre, will realize that I am hardly a republican in the conventional
or,
indeed, radical Irish Republican sense.
For the ideology to which I subscribe would deliver the Irish
people, in
the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a
paradoxical
election commensurate, so far as I am concerned, with ‘judgement’, from
the
sorts of axial dichotomy and exploitation which the tricolour would
appear to
signify. For the Irish tricolour is
green, white, and gold and/or orange (depending on one’s ethnic and/or
geopolitical orientation) and therefore symptomatic, it seems to me, of
the
distinction between the three main bodies of ethnic tradition in
Ireland as a
whole – namely, Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans (which latter term
embraces
Presbyterians as well as Methodists, Baptists, Unitarians, etc.). But that is reflective of the axial
distinction between British state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria
in
which Anglicanism and Puritanism are subordinate to Monarchism and
Parliamentarianism
respectively, and Irish church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in
which
the Roman Catholic Church is primary and the republican state secondary. Therefore the tricolour would appear to
endorse, despite its associations with
2. Authoritarianism
is a pretty dirty word these days, and one
can
understand why persons of both republican and post-republican sentiment
should
take a poor view of a political stance which is rooted in monarchy of
an overly
autocratic and even absolutist nature.
But looked at from a more etymological point of view, such a
word is
surely synonymous with authority, which is no bad thing, and even with
the
concept of the ‘author’, who is no better or worse than the book or
document he
writes. If I am the ‘author’ of a
particular text, say a philosophical thesis, then I can be regarded as
being
something of an ‘authority’ on the subject to which I have dedicated my
pen or,
increasingly these days, word processor and/or personal computer. But is not an ‘authority’ in the above sense
also, by definition, ‘authoritarian’, since one cannot be an
‘authority’ on any
given subject, still less an ‘author’, without being ‘authoritarian’,
that is
to say, without having authority derived from much study and/or
practice in
one’s art. In this sense ‘authoritarian’
is merely adjectival, for what ‘author’, being something of an
‘authority’, is
not ‘authoritarian’? One could of course
say ‘authorial’, but that is rather lame and something of a cop-out. Let us not mince words, but simply
acknowledge that the word ‘authoritarian’ can be divested from overly
autocratic association and used in a more politically acceptable way
which,
after all, is no bad thing, since few if any people would trust someone
who
lacked authority to author a work that claimed to be true or in some
sense
philosophically or intellectually valid.
Authors are or should be ‘authoritarian’, and therefore reliable
authorities on the subjects to which they dedicate their creative zeal.
3. One
could describe both Nazism and Sovietism as having been totalitarian
with an
authoritarian bias, since the rule of one man over a party is less
totalitarian
than authoritarian in character, and Hitler and Stalin were nothing if
not
authoritarian dictators who stamped their image on the totalitarianism
of one
party rule, Hitler doubtless more than Stalin, since Nazism was the
beginning
of global civilization rather than the culmination, social
democratically, of
Western civilization, and would have had more of an alpha than an omega
tendency in consequence. Stalin, after
all, was an infringement of the Bolshevik concept of collective
leadership and
therefore something of a quasi-fascist departure from communist
‘idealism’,
but, in the circumstances, hardly fatal to the survival, into the
immediate
post-war era, of the
4. Collectivism
is always more phenomenal and worldly than netherworldly or
otherworldly in
character, a symptom of the masses and of mass-participatory democracy
and/or
bureaucracy in the face of autocratic or theocratic alternatives. Individualism, on the other hand, requires
either of the latter dispositions for its full realization, since one
must be
absolutist on either an objective (autocratic) or a subjective
(theocratic)
basis to pass muster as a ruler or a leader, a devil, as it were, or a
god. The collectivism that fights shy of
individualism is one thing, the individualism that strives to
incorporate and
transmute the collective is quite another.
All the difference, in short, between
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria.
5. Communalism
of a transcendentalist and/or anti-fundamentalist order should be
regarded as
the endeavour to transmute the collectivistic masses into an
individualistic
godhead and/or antidevil, not simply as the glorification or
confirmation of a
collectivistic ethic. Herds and flocks
are collectivistic, but so what? They
are preyed upon by lone wolves and led to higher pastures by lone
shepherds.
6. Whereas
the diabolic individual, effectively barbarous, exploits the crowd, the
divine
individual, his cultural adversary, seeks to deliver it from itself to
an
individualistic destiny of perfect self-realization.
Crowds are simply there to be overcome, not
endorsed. For that which is ethereal and
absolute is always at an individualistic distance from the relativity
of the
corporeal, whose collectivism is the product not of noumenal
transcendence but
of all too phenomenal gravity and somatic want of psychic courage.
7. I
spoke in the past of four points of an axial compass stretching from
North West
to South East on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, and from
South West
to North East on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, and
conceived of
such intercardinal points as being divisible into two positions in
accordance
with the gender differential that must exist at any given point. Let us now do compass-like justice to each of
these positions, starting with the Northwest point which we contend to
be
divisible between metachemistry and antimetaphysics, the former
diabolically
female and the latter antidivinely male, the former accordingly
North-northwest
and the latter West-northwest, whereas down that axis of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria we have a point, duly
Southeast,
which is divisible between physics and antichemistry, the former
masculinely
male and the latter antifemininely female, and therefore the one
effectively
East-southeast and the other South-southeast.
Across the axial divide, the Southwest point is divisible
between
chemistry and antiphysics, the former femininely female and the latter
antimasculinely male, the one accordingly West-southwest and the other
South-southwest, while up this axis of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria we shall find a point, duly Northeast, which is divisible
between
metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the former divinely male and the
latter
antidiabolically female, the one North-northeast and the other
East-northeast. Confusing?
Some may think so, but I am sure that the
axial compass looks more comprehensively readable, and hence
intelligible, on
such a secondary intercardinal basis than would otherwise be the case. At no point, however, does this axial compass
embrace cardinal points, since we are not concerned with a cross but
with a
diagonal axis between antithetical intercardinal points and, as noted
above,
their secondary extrapolations. Hence
what was characterized as the Northwest point is now divisible, on a
metachemical/antimetaphysical basis, between North-northwest and
West-northwest, and what was characterized as the Southeast point is
now
divisible, on a physical/antichemical basis, between East-southeast and
South-southeast, with a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial link,
female
gender to female gender, between metachemistry and antichemistry on the
one
hand and, male gender to male gender, antimetaphysics to physics on the
other
hand. Contrariwise, what was
characterized as the Southwest point is now divisible, on a
chemical/antiphysical basis, between West-southwest and
South-southwest, and
what was characterized as the Northeast point is now divisible, on a
metaphysical/antimetachemical basis, between North-northeast and
East-northeast, with a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial link,
male
gender to male gender, between antiphysics and metaphysics on the one
hand and,
female gender to female gender, chemistry to antimetachemistry on the
other
hand – the former in each case primary and the latter secondary.
8. The
word ‘valuation’ is effectively a root word that can be divided into
four
different categories, viz. the metachemical category of devaluation,
which is
noumenally objective, and the chemical category of evaluation, which is
phenomenally objective, both of which fundamentally appertain to the
free
female side of life and contrast with the physical category of
revaluation,
which is phenomenally subjective, and the metaphysical category of
transvaluation, which is noumenally subjective, each of which
essentially
appertain to the free male side of life in what is, by comparison with
its
female counterpart, a secondary order of valuation.
For valuations are primarily objective and
only secondarily subjective, and therefore devaluation and evaluation,
being
objective, will be primary and revaluation and transvaluation, their
subjective
counterparts, secondary. But this is in
effect to distinguish sensuality from sensibility and vice versa, and
therefore
to contrast barbarity and philistinism with civility and culture, the
latter of
which require a male lead of society at the expense of female freedom,
which
tends towards devaluation and evaluation in patently barbarous and
philistine
terms. But just as the male must be
upended if the female side of things is to be hegemonically free, so
the
development of male freedom requires the correlative upending, or
subordination, of female freedom, without which no lasting sensibility
can be
maintained in the face of sensuality.
Therefore if we speak of devaluation in connection with
metachemistry,
which is noumenally objective, we must speak of its male corollary in
terms of
anti-transvaluation in connection with antimetaphysics, which is
anti-noumenally subjective or, better, noumenally anti-subjective. Likewise if we speak of evaluation in
connection
with chemistry, which is phenomenally objective, we must speak of its
male
corollary in terms of anti-evaluation in connection with antiphysics,
which is
phenomenally anti-subjective.
Contrariwise, if we speak, in relation to sensibility, of
revaluation in
connection with physics, which is phenomenally subjective, we must
speak of its
female corollary in terms of anti-evaluation, which is phenomenally
anti-objective. And finally, if we speak
of transvaluation in connection with metaphysics, which is noumenally
subjective, we must speak of its female corollary in terms of
anti-devaluation,
which is noumenally anti-objective.
Therefore we have to distinguish between the devaluating of
metachemistry and the anti-transvaluating of antimetaphysics in
relation to
upper-class and anti-classless criteria germane, in general terms, to
the Devil
and Antigod, and contrast this, down the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis, with a distinction between the revaluating of physics and the
anti-evaluating of antichemistry in relation to middle-class and
anti-lowerclass criteria germane, again in general terms, to man and
antiwoman. Crossing to the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, we shall have to distinguish
between
the evaluating of chemistry and the anti-revaluating of antiphysics in
relation
to lower-class and anti-middleclass criteria germane, in general terms,
to
woman and antiman, and contrast this, up the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis, with a distinction between the transvaluating of metaphysics and
the
anti-devaluating of antimetachemistry in relation to classless and
anti-upperclass criteria germane, again in general terms, to God and
the
Antidevil. Thus, from a sensible
standpoint, the standpoint of civility and culture, revaluations take
precedence over anti-evaluations and transvaluations precedence over
anti-devaluations, and that which appertains to evaluation in the one
case and
to devaluation in the other is adjudged ‘bad’ or morally undesirable,
to be
rejected and, where possible, avoided in the interests of sensibility. Contrary to which, a society not merely
rooted in but effectively centred in or openly committed to sensuality,
in
short a heathenistic society whose standpoint is rather more barbaric
and/or
philistine, will allow if not encourage devaluations to take precedence
over
anti-transvaluations and evaluations precedence over anti-revaluations,
whether
because it is primitivistically ignorant of the possibility of
transvaluations
in the one case and revaluations in the other or because, having got
beyond an
older order of transvaluations and revaluations, it deems them ‘old
hat’ and
the product of superstition or oppression or elitism or what have you
that
should be avoided by the ‘progressive’ in the interests of sensual
betterment
or self-gratification (though I would normally use the term ‘not-self’
to
describe somatic freedoms). Now while
the former type of society is simply backward and in want of
civilization, the
latter type may well be technologically and environmentally pretty
advanced but
unaware, for all its liberation from the past, that it is simply the
tails side
of a coin that has yet to achieve redemption in the development of a
heads
side, a side beyond where it is at and capable, through an enhanced
sense of
revaluation or transvaluation, of exposing its limitations and
overhauling what
it will perceive to be the fruit of female domination and consequence
of too
much somatic freedom. Such a more
advanced civilization may well be – and in the nature of national
solidarity or
social cohesion is almost certain to be – quite independent of the
prevailing
heathenistic type of society and not simply a development within it on
a
minority basis. It will emerge in
consequence of a different historical pattern of culture and society
than that
typifying the somatically free nations, and will stand up for what is
beyond
the contemporary manifestations of barbarism and philistinism in terms
of a new
and altogether higher order, compared with anything traditional, of
culture and
civility. And, in doing so, it will
affirm not merely revaluations at the expense of evaluations, in
typically
British revaluating and anti-evaluating vein, but transvaluations at
the
expense of devaluations and therefore be representative of the hegemony
of
metaphysics over antimetachemistry, of classless transvaluating over
anti-upperclass anti-devaluating.
9. The
snag with revaluation at the anti-evaluating expense of evaluation is
that it
is only equivocally hegemonic and therefore subject to the subversion
of
physics by antichemistry acting in antithetical gender parallel with
the rule
of devaluation over anti-transvaluation in metachemistry over
antimetaphysics
back up the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a subversion that,
in
overall axial terms, ensures that devaluating and anti-evaluating take
precedence over anti-transvaluating and revaluating in the primacy of
the
female input into the maintenance of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria, a primacy which results in an antithesis between vanity and
justice at
the expense of pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness, whether in
state or
church. Therefore revaluation is not
as
morally significant as its advocates and devotees like to think, but
rather
tends to be co-opted to the service of anti-evaluation in consequence
of the
extent to which an unequivocal devaluation holds anti-transvaluation in
antimetaphysical submission to its metachemical will, making not simply
for
state-hegemonic criteria but for the primacy of the female aspects of
such
criteria, as in relation to the polarity between metachemistry and
antichemistry, a polarity which cannot but reduce antimetaphysics and
physics
to a secondary role, even if the one is unequivocally subordinate and
the other
equivocally hegemonic. Such a hegemony is a long way short of being
metaphysically
unequivocal in relation to a genuine order of transvaluation.
10. One
cannot emphasize too often the female-dominated nature of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, and the fatality
towards
state absolutism which results less from the existence of liberal
democracy
vis-à-vis a constitutional monarchy, as in Britain, than from the
degeneration
of democracy from liberal to social democratic levels and the ensuing
nazi-type
backlash that will involve some degree or modification of autocratic
criteria. One type of state extremism
tends, in the modern age, to engender another, and the situation goes
from bad
to worse as the state fatality becomes more deeply entrenched and
polarized in
the name of opposite ‘ideals’. Yet, in
reality, the only ‘ideal’, in the sense of freedom of action, is the
somatic
freedom of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, since democracy is, by
nature, a
creature of bound soma, of popular solidarity, and cannot reasonably
endorse
exploitative and predatory forms of free enterprise.
The great democratic delusion is to suppose
that you progress from liberal to social criteria, as from bourgeois
humanism
to proletarian humanism, when in point of fact you are simply
regressing
further down an axis and inviting an autocratic backlash from those
who, for
whatever reasons, would oppose the digging and levelling down of
society into a
kind of black hole of proletarian humanism, from which hole, as recent
history
has amply demonstrated, it is very difficult to climb back out. But this entire axis is the fruit of
schismatic heresy and therefore of somatic freedom and psychic binding
coupled,
down below, to somatic binding and psychic freedom in what I have more
than
once described as the product of female dominion. It
is,
to
be
sure,
the
older and more basic
if not always prevalent of the two axial inclinations, and one would
hesitate
to regard its Catholic counterpart as anything more, traditionally,
than a dotted-line
affair in relation to its heathenistic counterpart.
But it invites state absolutism at the
extremes, the pre-democratic or anti-social democratic extreme of the
apex on
the one hand, and the post-democratic or social democratic extreme at
the base
on the other hand, and in neither case is there much evidence of male
values or
of a male lead of society. On the
contrary, the whole ethos of state absolutism arises out of a want of
male
resolve and through a rejection, in effect, of Catholic criteria such
that
results in the aforementioned state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis
of
Protestant antecedents which tends, in the course of time, towards an
increasingly secular decadence or degeneration the more ineffectual
pseudo-Christianity proves itself to be in the face of state-hegemonic
values,
of which vanity and justice are not the least!
For it is the proletariat’s plea for justice that, if granted
social
democratic leverage, tends to encourage a backlash which would not be
short on
vanity if the extent to which its resort to public exhibitions and
spectacles
is anything to judge by! Justice is
precisely the antichemical fatality of democratic societies, except
that in the
liberal case it is held in check, one might say, by the
pseudo-righteousness of
its physical counterpart and not encouraged, at least not consciously,
to take
on an absolutist form such that would result in the social democratic
vengeance
of the proletariat upon the bourgeoisie.
Justice without pseudo-righteousness is the state absolutism of
social
democratic totalitarianism, and one can see without probing too deeply
how much
more female-oriented such a totalitarian outcome will be, since it is
the
logical extrapolation from antichemical justice and the enemy, in
consequence,
of physical pseudo-righteousness, which, in rejecting
pseudo-Christianity (or
what it takes to be Christianity and ‘the Church’), specifically with
regard to
its puritan aspect, it rightly adjudges bourgeois.
Thus no longer a
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate partnership but, on the contrary,
the
overly-justice affirming state absolutism which signifies the nadir of
political and ideological degeneration, its digging down into a black
hole of
female-based totalitarianism. Frankly,
could anything be worse? Is not an
equally female-based reaction to this Bolshevistic nadir nazistically
inevitable? History would confirm as
much, and if the one is Marxistic then the other is surely Hegelian to
a degree
which leaves one in little doubt that any claim for ultimate or
absolute
justice by that segment of the people dubbed proletariat will be met by
an
equally absolutist approach to vanity, an approach no-less scornful of
church-subordinate pseudo-meekness, and anxious to stamp out the
tightening of
somatic binding from a much looser and freer somatic vantage-point, one
geared,
in effect, to war and, ultimately, to total war as the vengeance of the
metachemically reactionary upon the antichemically precocious.
11. Such
antithetical state-hegemonic absolutist scenarios are virtually
inconceivable
within a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial context, as in the
Republic
of Ireland, where neither Hegelian nor Marxist state worship could hope
to
prevail against the male-led current which lifts life from a somatic
emphasis,
whether in binding or in freedom, to a psychic emphasis, an emphasis
upon
psyche which will be either bound and sinful and/or pseudo-criminal or
free and
graceful and/or pseudo-punishing, according to gender.
Such a society, when not subject to a kind of
blue-shirt reaction to secular encroachments of a communistic and
therefore
effectively alien or unrepresentative order in defence of the Church,
will
rather tend towards the possibility of a sort of church absolutism,
which would
not be incompatible with my own concept of ‘Kingdom Come’ in relation
to Social
Theocracy and hence the service, from a sort of administrative aside,
of a
religiously sovereign people should a majority mandate be forthcoming
in the
event of a paradoxical election in which the possibility of religious
sovereignty
was on the table as the only means by which the people could secure
deliverance
not only from their own – in relation to the axis in question –
anti-omega/alpha worldly limitations, as already described, but also
from those
predatory exploitations to which they remain subject in the event of
continuing
exposure to the vanities and justices, coupled, in the male contexts,
to
pseudo-meeknesses and pseudo-righteousnesses of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society and thus, in effect, to the
freedoms
and bindings of the other axis, the secular product, with or without
Hegelian
or Marxist extremism, of schismatic heresy.
Now such a new ‘absolutism’ as that
to which I
allude in the event of the aforementioned majority mandate in a
paradoxical
election, might well find itself confronted by a right-wing backlash
analogous
to fascism, whether internally or externally, and that problem would
have to be
dealt with in due course. For if Social
Democracy invites a right-wing backlash in the form of Nazism, or some
such
defence of secular freedom, then it is not inconceivable that Social
Theocracy
would incur a similar backlash, relative to its own axis, in the form
of a
fascistic defence of traditional Catholic values, principally by those
who
hadn’t voted for religious sovereignty out of loyalty to the Church and
fear or
mistrust of the consequences. However
that may or may not be, there can be no question that whether Social
Theocracy
would incur as much reaction, in its own
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate context,
as Social Democracy did in relation to state-hegemonic criteria, some
reaction
there would certainly be, though with less justification, as far as I
am
concerned, than attended the reaction to Social Democracy.
For state absolutism of a bound, or democratic,
order is not to be compared with church absolutism of a free, or
theocratic,
order, any more than one could compare bound soma with free psyche. The reaction to bound soma from the
standpoint of free soma is one of state-hegemonic ‘idealism’ vis-à-vis
a more
radical departure down the state-hegemonic axis that takes somatic
binding, or
democratic solidarity, to a new and altogether more absolutist order of
humanism commensurate with the proletariat.
The reaction, hypothetically, to free psyche from the standpoint
of
bound psyche, on the other hand, would be one of church-hegemonic
‘realism’
vis-à-vis a more radical elevation up the church-hegemonic axis that
aimed to
take psychic freedom, or theocratic individuality, to a new and
altogether more
absolutist order of suprahumanism commensurate with God.
No small difference! The ‘ideal’ on
the church-hegemonic axis does
not lie ‘down below’, with the broad masses, any more than does the
‘ideal’,
somewhat materialistic and antifundamentalistic, of state-hegemonic
axial
criteria, but ‘up above’, and therefore any resistance to theocratic
progress
‘from below’ would be ideologically and morally less justified than
resistance,
across the axial divide, to democratic ‘progress’ – in reality regress
– ‘from
above’, even if a certain degree of resistance or reaction to the said
theocratic progress would have to be expected in light of the fact that
not all
those ‘down below’ are genuinely committed to ‘world overcoming’ and an
end, in
consequence, to their own worldly shortcomings and failings, never mind
to
deliverance from the sorts of commercial exploitations which, from a
contrary
axial standpoint, take full advantage of those shortcomings and
failings. But, that said, it would be
unrealistic to
suppose that most of those ‘down below’ were predisposed to reaction
from an
unduly conventional or traditional Catholic standpoint when the great
majority
happen to fall into the category of lapsed or quasi-secularized
Catholics, who
are precisely the ones who would have most to gain from being delivered
from
the secular predations of the state-hegemonic, following the overhaul
of their
own church-hegemonic axis in the manner described.
12. For
those who accuse me of ‘extremism’, let me say that the absolutism to
which I,
as a self-professed Social Theocrat, subscribe is not only contrary to
any
autocratic extremism, but the only means whereby the lapsed Catholic
urban
majorities of countries like Eire could be delivered from their worldly
relativities, whether or not such relativities are commensurate with
moderation, and thus from the kinds of predations that take advantage
of them
from a largely autocratic point of view, even if such autocracy tends
to have
its extremism militated by pluralism and by notions of democratic
accountability. Sure, Social Theocracy
is extreme, but you do not combat one order of extremism with
moderation, with
relativity, since such extremism has its own less than Social
Democratic mode
of relativity in economic partnership with it down the state-hegemonic
axis,
and the only other mode of relativity happens to pertain to those who
are in
the front line, so to speak, of being preyed upon by the vain and
pseudo-meek
fruits of commercial exploitation. God
and his female corollary the Antidevil are
extreme, or noumenally
absolutist, as befits the respective ‘natures’ of metaphysics and
antimetachemistry, and it would be a rare privilege for those who were
less
than godly or antidevilish to gradually find themselves becoming more
so in
proportion as they were delivered both from themselves and their
netherworldly/anti-otherworldly exploiters, something that is not
likely to
happen as long as they remain the subject of relative restrictions
taking place
under the cover of moderation and other such simplistic if not
duplistic
terms. But human life cannot level with
absolutism or extremism or noumenal sensibility – call it what you like
– for
long or in any great numbers, least of all where godly and antidevilish
criteria are concerned, which is precisely why it can only be conceived
of and
developed in conjunction with cyborgization and the gradual
transmutation of
the relevant human material towards levels and stages of life which would
be more at home in a comparatively absolutist context, and not simply
for the
sake of cyborgization, important as that is, but in order to remain at
a
discreet remove from the contexts in which commercial exploitation take
place
and to be able to handle the modified synthetic stimulants that would
encourage
inner development more painlessly and lastingly than would otherwise be
possible, thereby turning life around, for those concerned, from a
context in
which they were subject to the impositions of, among other things,
filmic outer
light to one in which they were in control of their own inner light and
able to
develop an enhanced sense of inner freedom in consequence.
For only psychic freedom of a metaphysical
and, for females, antimetachemical order is commensurate with godliness
and
antidevilishness and, hence, with the righteous and pseudo-just retort
to the
tyrannical impositions of vanity and pseudo-meekness to which the
quasi-vain
(lapsed female catholic pseudo-vain) and quasi-pseudo-meek (lapsed male
catholic meek) will otherwise continue to remain subject, to the
detriment of
their souls and of all that is graceful and wise in metaphysical
transcendentalism and idealism, coupled, for females, to all that is
pseudo-punishing and pseudo-good in antimetachemical antifundamentalism
and
antimaterialism, as described in previous texts in relation to this
elevated
distinction between noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality,
eternity
and anti-infinity, ‘celestial city’ and ‘anti-vanity fair’, the focal
points
not simply of truth and beauty but of the truthful approach to beauty
and the
beautiful approach to truth such as are the prerequisites not simply of
joy and
love but of the joyful approach to love and the loving approach to joy,
joy no
less soulfully heavenly than the joyful approach to love is spiritually
heavenly; love no less spiritually anti-hellish than the loving
approach to joy
is soulfully anti-hellish and therefore the female compliment, for all
anti-infinity, to the joy of Heaven. All
this is incontrovertible. Whether the
people will accept it remains to be seen, but then so, too, does the
capacity
to deliver salvation and counter-damnation to them more efficaciously,
and thus
to provide the necessary inducements which, stemming ‘from above’,
should
encourage them to leave their low estate for pastures new.
13. Some
will think me anti-democratic, but I do not see myself in terms of
being
against democracy per
se, like an
authoritarian autocrat, but rather as someone who upholds what he
believes to
lie beyond democracy and to require a majority mandate from the
electorate if,
as Social Theocracy, it is to emerge as the logical successor to
political
sovereignty and in some sense as its fulfilment and vindication. For democracy will not have delivered the
people from autocratic tyranny, whether such tyranny masks as theocracy
or not,
if they do not utilize it, in due course, to vote for religious
sovereignty and
thus for freedom not only from Creatoresque primitivity but, more
importantly,
for psychic self-development in relation to metaphysical and, for
females,
antimetachemical sensibility. Yet there
are different approaches, it has to be said, to democracy, and clearly
the
British approach is not one that logically lends itself to notions of
‘world overcoming’
and psychic emancipation. Rather it is a
sort of end-in-itself which, while fighting shy of Social Democracy, is
held in
check by Constitutional Autocracy in the form of the Monarchy and is
thus the
counter pole in the maintenance of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
continuity and consistency. If this is
democracy per se, then it is axially incompatible with the
prospect of
‘Kingdom Come’ in relation to the utilization of democracy to a Social
Theocratic end. So, in that sense,
democracy is incapable of its own self-overcoming except
in the
overly just context of Social Democracy, which would only signify a
further
regression of popular sovereignty.
Clearly, democracy as an end-in-itself, whether on a liberal or
a social
democratic basis, is something I do not and cannot approve of; but that
is only
because, as someone of Irish Catholic descent, I do not relate to
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria.
Thus the kind of democracy I can condone,
without being overly partial to it, bears little resemblance to the
British variety,
being, if anything, the traditional handmaiden of church-hegemonic
criteria,
if, in this age of Americanization, much less so than before on account
of the
extent to which the people of countries like Eire come under American
cultural
influence and think and behave in a quasi-state-hegemonic fashion,
whether as
quasi-vain chemical females vis-à-vis metachemical vanity or as
quasi-pseudo-meek antiphysical males vis-à-vis antimetaphysical
pseudo-meekness. Yet that is only a
transitional phase, the way I see it, to the possibility of a renewal,
through
an overhaul of the traditional system, of church-hegemonic criteria in
relation
to Social Theocracy and thus of an end to the paradoxical state of
affairs
which, while theoretically rooted in traditional
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, strains, almost
heliotropically,
towards the American brand of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
influence
raining down from the overhauled manifestation of the schismatic axis,
the
manifestation that, contrary to Britain or to British tradition, is
more
genuine at the free somatic apex than at the bound somatic base and
thus
upholds its own version of autocratic freedom at the expense of
democratic
binding. The British, for all their talk
of freedom, are traditionally and overwhelmingly a bound people for
whom
loyalty to the reigning monarch – ‘long to reign over’ them – is
virtually
sacrosanct, whereas the Americans, despite their adherence to what I
would call
pseudo-democracy ‘down below’, are much more open, in cultural terms,
to that
which appertains, in modified autocratic fashion, to the apex of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, as the exemplification, par
excellence, of somatic freedom. But
that is precisely the kind of freedom which the lapsed Catholic
majority of
countries like
14. All of
this I have gone into before, so it is hardly new!
I am not the mouth for the majority of
British or even American ears, to paraphrase Nietzsche, but the
majority of
Irish ears and like-minded traditionally
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
peoples, and I speak less as an Irish Catholic than as a Social
Theocrat, and
therefore one who is beyond the Church even as he is beyond the
democracy that
appertains, if only in theory, to the Church, and axially distinct from
anything Social Democratic. If Social
Democracy is extreme Left statism, then Social Theocracy can only be
extreme
Left churchism, the theocracy of radical progress as opposed, on the
state-hegemonic axis, to the democracy of radical regress.
For there the people tend, when they are not
liberal democratic, down,
as
into
a
black
hole
or vacuum of absolute
justice, whereas over on the church-hegemonic axis of male-led criteria
the
people will have the possibility, when not overly Roman theocratic, of
tending up,
as into a white light or plenum of absolute righteousness coupled, for
females,
to pseudo-justice, the antimetachemical counterpart, in antidiabolism,
to the
divine righteousness of metaphysics.
15. Let those
who shout the loudest for justice remember that justice and
righteousness are
incompatible, and that when justice has her way on the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis righteousness can only be
pseudo,
whereas when righteousness has his way on the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis then justice can only be pseudo
and,
hence, of subordinate significance. For
justice is a female, more specifically an antifeminine female when
genuine and
an antidiabolic female when pseudo, but righteousness is a male, more
specifically a masculine male when pseudo and a divine male when
genuine. These are the sensible pairings
of two
separate and independent axes, two approaches to civilization, the
justice/pseudo-righteousness pairing sensibly antithetical to the
vanity/pseudo-meekness pairing of the female-ruled axis and the
righteousness/pseudo-justice pairing sensibly antithetical to the
meekness/pseudo-vanity pairing of the male-led axis, whether or not
each axis
is compromised by epochal overhaulings or modifications, as described
in
previous texts.
16. Speaking
of two separate, independent axes, is it not the case that the
square-topped
bus-stops used in London and, presumably, in much of Britain connote
the
descending axis from noumenal sensuality/noumenal anti-sensibility to
phenomenal anti-sensuality/phenomenal sensibility which, in geometric
terms, is
surely headed or, rather, ruled by squares, whether or not circles in
squares
(as in the case of London bus-stops) are correlatively in
accompaniment, the
same of course applying to rectangles in ovals or, more correctly once
antichemical subversion of the physical is taken into account, ovals in
rectangles for the relative base of the axis in question, both of which
would
contrast with the ovals in rectangles or, again more correctly when
once the
antiphysical subversion of the chemical is taken into account,
rectangles in
ovals at the foot of the ascending axis from phenomenal
anti-sensibility/phenomenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility/noumenal
anti-sensuality
which, in geometric terms, would surely be headed, or led, by circles,
whether
or not squares in circles were correlatively in accompaniment, and thus
by the
type of bus-stops found in Dublin and, presumably, throughout Eire,
which are
demonstrably circular, or curvilinear, at the top and amply reflective,
in
consequence, of the distinction between theocratic and autocratic
values which
characterizes the two nations – Britain ruled by autocratic squares and
Ireland, or Eire, led by theocratic circles.
All the difference, in short, between a matriarchy, like
Britain, and a
patriarchy, like Eire, irrespective of intermediate democratic factors
in each
case.
17. I am
often amazed, as an Irish citizen in
18. It is
this sense of the dual gender nature of ‘Kingdom Come’ that precludes
me from
falling into utopian error. For the
utopian thinker invariably reduces everything to one gender, whether
male or
female, and simply subsumes the opposite gender into his reductionist
ideal. But that is the last thing I
could be accused of doing! With me two
gender standpoints always have to be accounted for, and no sooner have
you
accounted for the hegemonic gender’s position in relation to God and
Heaven
than you must also account for the subordinate gender’s position in
relation to
the Antidevil and Antihell, as in the above-mentioned context of
Eternity and
Anti-Infinity, the former male and the latter female.
An inability or failure to divide your
thinking in this way will simply lead to utopian error, whereby it will
be
assumed that everyone can be subsumed into God and Heaven irrespective
of
gender. Nothing, however, could be
further from the truth, and the sooner people come to realize this, in
rejection of the contemporary tendency to undermine gender
discrimination in
all walks of life, the better it will be for all concerned, females
included! Actually, what one has these
days, in the wake of the undermining of gender differentiation and
discrimination as a symptom of bourgeois and/or Western decadence, is
the
American-led tendency to go beyond Western decadence on an
alpha-stemming
global basis which is more openly sensual than degenerately sensible
and
consequently nearer to affirming gender inequality in terms of a female
hegemony, the sort of hegemony which one would have characterized as
being
somehow compatible with the more blatant aspects of sensuality issuing
via
cathode-ray-tube technology and the like, not least in respect of
females being
coitally dominant over males. Frankly,
there is about much contemporary Anglo-American culture a parallel with
Greco-Roman culture whereby matriarchal criteria take precedence over
anything
patriarchal in typically heathenistic vein.
Certainly the coming of Christianity changed all that, and it
was not
until the Reformation and the ascendancy of Protestantism that the
balance
began to tip back the other way, towards the secular openness we find
ourselves
living under today and the almost taking for granted of female
hegemonic
criteria in certain countries which, though not openly admitted to,
spring from
a want of gender discrimination and differentiation – indeed, crawl out
of the
gender equalitarianism which Western decadence, in the sense of
bourgeois
Protestant culture, encouraged. For if
you give a creature who is a XX-chromosomal negativity a proverbial
inch of
liberal licence she will sooner or later take a mile of wilful
illiberality in
the sort of pluralistic autocracy which characterizes contemporary
American-lead
secular culture. Such is the
heathenistic outcome of post-Reformation schism and heresy, and,
frankly, it
stinks to high hell! So let those of us
who still cling, no matter how fitfully or pessimistically, to
church-hegemonic
criteria remain faithful – as, indeed, did the Nazis despite their
state-hegemonic aberrations – to gender discrimination and the
possibility of
its overhaul and renewal via Social Theocracy at some future date. Let us continue to remain outside the
Anglo-American liberal conspiracy against church-hegemonic values which
both
autocracy and democracy represent in their opposite ways, but let us
work, more
importantly, for the overhaul of traditional bureaucratic/theocratic
norms in
order that the majority of our people may be saved and counter-damned
from the
secular impositions which state-hegemonic societies continue to inflict
upon
their less secular and more traditionally faithful neighbours. For it is not our destiny to follow the
Anglo-Saxon model of liberal secularity, but to lead others in the
development
of a radical theocratic alternative to this heathenistic blight which
is the
immoral fruit of schismatic heresy.
19. The
church-subordinate pseudo-Christians may encourage the spread of female
ministers, since their Anglican to Puritan axis is characterized by the
domination of female criteria over anything male, whether unequivocally
in the
subordination of antimetaphysics to metachemistry or equivocally in the
subversion of physics by antichemistry, but it would be quite out of
order for
the Roman Catholic Church to follow suit, given its tradition of male
domination, whether equivocally in the subversion of chemistry by
antiphysics
or unequivocally in the subordination of antimetachemistry to
metaphysics. Whether society is ruled by
females or led by
males is so crucial to the distinction between
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
criteria … that it would be inconceivable for either approach to
civilization
to do a deal with the other and fudge the issue as of small moment. The Protestant situation is a consequence, in
no small measure, of the liberal heresy of gender equalitarianism, and
it is
against this error that Social Theocracy must carry on from where Roman
Catholicism
left off, renewing the sense of gender discrimination which first
Protestantism
and then Liberalism did their best to eclipse, so that, with us, things
become
even more logically and methodically discriminatory than was the case
in the
Catholic past, when, in consequence of a genuine ‘below’ and a pseudo
‘above’,
a true sense of metaphysics vis-à-vis antimetachemistry did not come to
pass and
the ‘above’ resorted to a verbal absolution ‘fudge’ that pandered, in
some
sense, to the ‘below’ while still being hamstrung, over and above this,
by
traditional alpha-based concepts of divinity which are themselves the
product
of an arrogation of divine attributes to the diabolic in the guise of
Devil the
Mother hyped as God. No wonder, then,
that the omega-oriented position was less than properly differentiated
along
metaphysical/antimetachemical grounds.
For a metaphysical postulate at the level – necessarily
Christian – of
mankind would not entail allegiance to the concept of ‘sacred heart’ so
much as
allegiance to the concept of ‘sacred lungs’, and thus to a TM-like
break,
Buddhist-like, with the tradition, open to either gender, of verbal
absolution
for penitential contrition. Such was
never the case, and therefore the Church, for all its metaphysical
aspirations,
remained the victim of metachemical/antimetaphysical conventions
stretching
back, Old Testament-wise, to Judaism.
This want of true differentiation above is what condemns the
Church from
a Social Theocratic standpoint and exposes its Western limitations even
vis-à-vis Eastern transcendentalism, of which transcendental meditation
is the
epitome and acme of mankind’s departure from either natural or cosmic
subservience. But even radical Buddhism,
being Eastern, is of mankind and thus no long-term alternative to Roman
Catholicism as the most religiously representative manifestation of
Western
civilization. Global civilization
transcends both the West and the East, and is therefore beyond even TM
in its
commitment to synthetically artificial values, whether, as at present,
with a
sensual bias or, hopefully in the future, following a Social Theocratic
revolution, with a markedly sensible one.
And it is for us to develop the gender differential between
metaphysics
and antimetachemistry to its logical conclusions in the interests of a
virtuous
circle of Eternity and Anti-Infinity, Time and Antispace, Celestial
City and
Anti-Vanity Fair, classlessness and anti-upperclassness, God and
Antidevil,
Heaven and Antihell, Yang and Anti-Yin, Lamb and Anti-Lion and/or Wolf,
Truth
and the beautiful approach to Truth, Joy and the loving approach to
Joy, not to
mention, where state-subordinate (bound somatic) criteria are
concerned, the
truthful approach to Beauty and Beauty, the joyful approach to Love and
Love.
20. Thus
we will not suffer from the Western-inspired fudge which tends to make
a ne
plus ultra out of Love, the concomitant of
Beauty. As I said before, love is a very
secondary deal from a heavenly standpoint, which, being primary
church-hegemonic, will always be centred in Joy, as, where God is
concerned, in
Truth. But Truth, and thus joy, is not
possible so long as the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God continues
to hold
anything noumenally contrary to itself, in sensibility, back from full
revelation and realization, thereby causing Love (and Beauty) to be
exaggerated
out of all proportion to their actual (antimetachemical) worth. Only when this is rejected, following a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty, will it be possible for
what is
really true to ‘come out’ and ‘stand tall’, independently of all
alpha-based
arrogations and able to master beauty and love and subordinate them to
itself. Then it will not be logically
possible to speak religiously in the name of Love but rather in the
name of Joy
as primary church-hegemonic and, from a female standpoint, the loving
approach
to Joy as secondary church-hegemonic … within the overall context of
the
Centre, relegating the joyful approach to Love and, for females, Love
to
primary and secondary, metaphysical and antimetachemical,
manifestations of
state subordination within that self-same or, more correctly,
notself-same
otherworldly/anti-netherworldly relativistic absolutism ... of
post-church/state worldly relativity which I have identified with the
Centre,
whether or not one prefers to consider the ‘state’ aspect of it Social
Theocratic and the ‘church’ aspect of it Social Transcendentalist as I,
for
one, would, if only because the service and protection of a religiously
sovereign people would be a different proposition from their religious
rights
in the Centre-proper, not least in respect of their defence from
internal
subversion or even outside interference.
21. I
spoke, a while ago, of the overhaul of traditional
bureaucratic/theocratic
criteria in relation to the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis,
which was
of course contrasted with the autocratic/democratic criteria of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.
In reality, however, things are more complicated that that,
since
neither axis, whether traditional or overhauled, is commensurate with
one
criterion at either pole, so to speak, but is divisible between the
ideological
equivalents of both gender positions in each case, making for a
distinction
between, say, autocracy and antitheocracy in relation to the Northwest
point of
the state-hegemonic axis and between antibureaucracy and democracy in
relation
to the Southeast point of the said axis, with a similar, if contrary,
distinction between antidemocracy and bureaucracy in relation to the
Southwest
point of the church-hegemonic axis and between theocracy and
anti-autocracy in
relation to the Northeast point of the same axis. Therefore
contrary
to
a
simple
polarity
between
autocracy and democracy, we find that autocracy is
unequivocally
hegemonic over antitheocracy like Vanity Fair over Anti-Celestial City,
while
antibureaucracy is equivocally subversive of democracy like Anti-Slough
of
Despond of Mr 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
Appendix
1. I had
brought logic to gender in such fashion that there was absolutely no
doubt in
my mind that the salvation of antiphysical males to metaphysics was
accompanied
by the counter-damnation, the pseudo-damnation, of chemical females to
antimetachemistry, and, like salvation, which is blessed,
pseudo-damnation,
which is pseudo-cursed, would be manifest in both church and state, in
free
psyche and bound soma. There could be no
question that salvation was alone of the church and counter-damnation
of the
state. Salvation was for males from
bound psyche in antiphysical antihumanism to free psyche in
metaphysical
transcendentalism and from free soma in antiphysical antinaturalism to
bound
soma in metaphysical idealism, both of which were blessed because
confirming
the male actuality of psyche preceding and predominating or, better,
preponderating over soma and therefore allowing, in all righteousness,
for
gender sync with this fundamental situation which only metaphysical
sensibility
can unequivocally deliver and sustain.
On the other hand, counter-damnation for females was from free
soma in
chemical realism to bound soma in antimetachemical antimaterialism and
from
bound psyche in chemical nonconformism to free psyche in
antimetachemical
antifundamentalism, both of which were pseudo-cursed because at
loggerheads
with the female actuality of soma preceding and predominating over
psyche and
therefore establishing, in all pseudo-justice, the opposite of gender
sync
which, contrary to being somatically free and psychically bound,
requires bound
soma in secondary state-subordinate accompaniment, within
antimetachemistry, to
the free psyche of secondary church-hegemonic criteria, the criteria
which, in
contrasting parallel to the male position, has less to do with truth
and joy
than with a beautiful approach to truth and a loving approach to joy,
both of
which effectively stem from the beauty and love of antimetachemical
bound soma
which the truthful approach to beauty and the joyful approach to love
of
metaphysical bound soma, corresponding to primary state-subordinate
criteria,
did no little part to establish and maintain, and all at the behest of
metaphysical transcendentalism, wherein truth and joy attest to the
primary
church-hegemonic actuality of God and Heaven as symptomatic of what is
fundamental to metaphysics as the initiator of both metaphysical bound
soma and,
via that, the bringing to heel of metachemical sensibility, or
antimetachemistry, in such fashion that the female is forever at
cross-purposes
with her gender actuality and accordingly counter-damned.
For this church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axis, stretching from the southwest to the northeast point of the axial
compass, pits the salvation of males who rise from bound psyche and
free soma
to free psyche and bound soma against the counter-damnation of females
who
counter-fall from free soma and bound psyche to bound soma and free
psyche in
what, as noted above, transpire to be secondary state-subordinate and
church-hegemonic terms. Righteousness
cannot obtain for males, in absolute gender sync, without
pseudo-justice
simultaneously having to obtain, in absolute gender upending, for
females. That is the law, if you like, of
the
northeast point of the axial compass, which has been identified with
the
2. Truth
in that broader sense is not altogether pleasant, least of all for
females, but
I swear by God that what I have written and what I wrote before on this
subject, the nature of salvation and counter-damnation, is true or
veridical
and not a cop out or fudge of the issue in typically lopsided or
reductionist
terms. However, veracity in relation to
the overall context of the northeast point of the axial compass and
Truth per
se are not synonymous, since the Truth
as something profoundly metaphysical and, more specifically,
transcendentalist
within metaphysics, is solely germane to God and, hence, to the
actuality of
godliness as a sort of universal knowledge that pertains to an order of
ego
which, being godly, is not an end-in-itself, in humanist vein, but of a
character which elects to utilize the idealism of bound metaphysical
soma to
achieve its redemption in the heavenly joy of the soul per se
which,
being metaphysical, appertains more to the spinal cord than to the
brain stem
and is therefore the deepest aspect of the self conceived of from a
divinely
male standpoint. Truth has but one goal,
and that is Joy, and therefore God is nothing without Heaven, for
Heaven is His
raison d’être, being the ultimate mode of Being such that no
other mode
of contentment can approximate or even approach. This
is
also
veridical,
for
the
truth about
God is that God, or the process of being godly,
is
removed from everything but the attainment of Heaven, and in Heaven God
is
redeemed. Therefore think not of God in
any lesser or contrary terms, and remember that metaphysics, in both
free
psyche and bound soma, is an exclusively male preserve, which has no
bearing,
except tangentially and subordinately, on the fate of females. For the corollary of God and Heaven for
metaphysical males is the Antidevil and Antihell for antimetachemical
females,
and this is the Anti-Infinity that accompanies Eternity on its course
through
Time, remaining at an Antispace remove from its male counterpart as
Anti-Vanity
Fair from the Celestial City.
3. If
the West, through Catholicism, is traditionally more guilty of
subsuming
metaphysics into antimetachemistry (through the retention of
metachemistry over
antimetaphysics at the northwest point of the axial compass) and thus
producing
a fudge favouring the female actuality of antimetachemistry (‘sacred
heart’),
then the East is no less guilty, through Buddhism, of subsuming
antimetachemistry into metaphysics and thus producing a fudge favouring
the
male actuality of metaphysics (‘sacred lungs’).
Neither, therefore, can suffice for global universality, which
requires
that equal justice be done to metaphysics and
antimetachemistry in
order that they may remain separate and gender compliant.
In such a balanced approach to the northeast
point of the axial compass reductionism of either a Western or an
Eastern
nature will be avoided and the point in question will consequently be
able to
exist independently of other axial factors and be truly viable as a
going
concern, no mere utopian partisanship favouring this or that gender but
a
gender-acknowledging duality which has the merit of being
self-sustaining
throughout Eternity and, for females, Anti-Infinity.
Thus global civilization differs demonstrably
from both Western and Eastern civilizations in respect of its balanced
approach
to gender differentiation. This, in some
sense, emerges out of gender equalitarianism, but precisely as a
refutation of
any reductionism that would subsume one gender into the other. A more differentiated approach to gender
would be difficult if not impossible to conceive of, and that is why
Social
Theocracy, the ideology of religious freedom for the people, must be
committed
to granting to each gender its proper metaphysical or antimetachemical
place,
that metaphysics may be served more completely than would otherwise be
the
case.
4. When
I mentioned blessedness and pseudo-cursedness above, in connection with
salvation and counter-damnation or, better, pseudo-damnation, I forgot
to
mention culture and pseudo-civility, which are alike germane to the
context in
question and symptomatic of the distinction between righteousness and
pseudo-justice. The Saved, being male,
are blessed with the righteousness of culture in metaphysical gender
sync with
their fundamental nature of psyche preceding and preponderating over
soma,
whereas the pseudo-Damned, by contrast, are pseudo-cursed with the
pseudo-justice of pseudo-civility in antimetachemical gender
cross-purposes, or
upendedness, with their fundamental nature which, being female, is of
soma
preceding and predominating over psyche and therefore of the one being
free
and the other bound. Under male
unequivocal hegemonic pressures, on the other hand, bound soma and free
psyche
obtain for the female as secondary state-subordinate and
church-hegemonic
positions corresponding to beauty/love and the beautiful approach to
truth/loving approach to joy, neither of which have any bearing on
truth/joy
and the truthful approach to beauty/joyful approach to love with stem
from the
liberated male positions of free psyche and bound soma in blessed sync
with
male gender actuality. Therefore the
salvation of the one gender presupposes or entails the pseudo-damnation
of the other
gender, and this is inescapable and unavoidable. If
males
are
to
rise
from
sin to grace and
from folly to wisdom, females must counter-fall (up the axis) from
pseudo-crime
to pseudo-punishment and from pseudo-evil to pseudo-good, ceasing to be
somatically
free and psychically bound as the males cease to be such in the
interests of
free psyche and bound soma.
5. How
all this contrasts with the other axis, wherein not blessedness and
pseudo-cursedness, salvation and pseudo-damnation, obtain in
sensibility but,
by comparative contrast, cursedness and pseudo-blessedness, damnation
and
pseudo-salvation, with the attendant corollaries of justice and
pseudo-righteousness and, of course, civility and pseudo-culture! This state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis,
by contrast, is not about a rise from sin to grace and folly to wisdom
on the
part of males, still less of a counter-fall from pseudo-crime to
pseudo-punishment and pseudo-evil to pseudo-good on the part of females
but,
rather, is symptomatic of a fall from evil to good and crime to
punishment on
the part of females and of a counter-rise (down the axis) from
pseudo-folly to
pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-sin to pseudo-grace on the part of males, soma
taking
precedence over psyche and therefore constitutive of the
state-hegemonic
aspects of the axis in question.
Therefore the Damned, being female, are cursed with justice in
the
civility of antichemical bound soma and free psyche, since at relative
cross-purposes, in antichemistry, with their gender actuality of soma
preceding
and predominating over psyche, whereas the counter-Saved, or
pseudo-Saved, are
pseudo-blessed with pseudo-righteousness in the pseudo-culture of their
gender
actuality, as males, of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma
in physical
bound soma and free psyche, the snag being that the emphasis does not
fall, as
would otherwise be the case, on free psyche but, due to antichemical
subversive
pressures stemming from a link with the unequivocal female hegemony of
metachemistry over antimetaphysics back up the said axis, on bound soma
as the
– for males – secondary state-hegemonic position vis-à-vis antichemical
bound
soma and, by extrapolation, such free psyche as obtains, being co-opted
to the
service of soma, only achieves a secondary church-subordinate standing
vis-à-vis antichemical free psyche, the free psyche that would be
rather more
antinonconformist than humanist in character and consequently
antithetical not
to antitranscendentalism, in male vein, but to fundamentalism, its
metachemical
counterpart. So while females may be
damned to the cursedness of justice in the civility of antichemical
bound soma
and free psyche, their male counterparts will be pseudo-saved to the
pseudo-blessedness of pseudo-righteousness in the pseudo-culture of
physical
bound soma and free psyche, this latter in parallel contrast to the
free psyche
and bound soma of metaphysics, wherein the male is unequivocally
hegemonic and
therefore not subverted from the female position due to its
antithetical link
with the somatically free and psychically bound aspects of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in metachemistry. There is therefore a completely different
emphasis between these two manifestations of male sensibility, the
metaphysical
and the physical, and only in the former is
Salvation
for real and not merely a secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
corollary of Damnation.
6. But
if the Many are damned and pseudo-saved at the southeast point of the
axial
compass, divided as they are between justice and pseudo-righteousness,
civility
and pseudo-culture, they exist, as in Britain, in polar relationship to
an
undamned and pseudo-unsaved Few who, as in America, rule the
metachemical/antimetaphysical roost from a vantage point that
constitutes the apex
of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, being germane to the
female
ideal of somatic freedom and psychic binding which requires a
metachemical
mandate which is unequivocally hegemonic over metaphysical sensuality
or, as I
usually say, antimetaphysics. The damned
and pseudo-saved parliamentary/puritan majority exist in antithetical
relation
to their metachemical/antimetaphysical counterparts who are more likely
to be
monarchic and Anglican than anything else, though Judaic and Hindu
elements cannot
be excluded, least of all in America where, as I have argued in the
past, the
northwest point of the axial compass is more elevated and somehow
genuine than
in Britain and far from having a
pseudo-metachemical/pseudo-antimetaphysical
vis-à-vis antichemical/physical polarity one finds, in reverse
extrapolation
from the British tradition, a pseudo-antichemical/pseudo-physical
vis-à-vis
metachemical/antimetaphysical polarity which is constitutive of New
World
criteria in the sense of an overhaul of Old World, and in particular
British,
axial criteria in a manner favouring ‘the above’ rather than ‘the
below’, the
undamned/pseudo-unsaved rather than the damned/pseudo-saved. Consequently in relation to this more
contemporary
manifestation of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, we
find a
contrary situation from that traditionally obtaining in, for instance,
Great
Britain, and here it can most certainly be maintained that the Few are
not
merely constitutionally but instrumentally and culturally hegemonic
over the
Many as so many film stars, rock stars, porn stars, drag stars, sports
stars,
etc. And it is this contemporary
manifestation of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which
rules over
the world as we know it today, transforming traditionally
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate societies into
quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate images of itself and thus
effectively
creating the terms by which even church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria
may be overhauled in such fashion that things will tend not from
pseudo-metaphysics/pseudo-antimetachemistry to antiphysics/chemistry,
in
traditional Catholic vein, but, on the contrary, from
pseudo-antiphysics/pseudo-chemistry to genuine
metaphysics/antimetachemistry as
the quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate paradox is exploited from
an
equally, though morally sound, paradoxical standpoint which is
determined to
restore church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria to the peoples in
question
– not least in Eire – by appealing to the electorate to vote for
religious
sovereignty and thus have the benefit, in the event of a majority
mandate, of
that more genuine metaphysics and antimetachemistry which, under Social
Theocracy, would be commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’ as a context,
centred on
the northeast point of the axial compass, in which salvation and
pseudo-damnation will once again become possible to the unsaved and
pseudo-undamned lapsed Catholic masses, only this time more
efficaciously and
genuinely so than had been the case in the past, before the
Americanization of
Eire and other such predominantly Catholic countries resulted in the
partial
overhaul of traditional axial criteria in the
pseudo-antiphysical/pseudo-chemical manner described, something almost
akin, in
Biblical terms, to a ‘new earth’ which cannot but portend a ‘new
heaven’ once
the axis is completely overhauled and thus comes into line,
antithetically,
with the contemporary manifestation of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axis, a situation which will no longer leave the peoples in question at
a
quasi-state-hegemonic/church-subordinate disadvantage vis-à-vis their
traditional counterparts, but make possible their own more efficacious
elevation to salvation and pseudo-damnation (counter-damnation) of an
order
properly commensurate with global, and therefore universal, criteria. For not until this happens and the peoples
concerned are saved and pseudo-damned more efficaciously will the
undamned and
pseudo-unsaved Few (comparatively speaking) of the other axis be placed
in a
position whereby their vain and pseudo-meek exploitations of the
quasi-vain and
quasi-pseudo-meek Many at the southwest point of the axial compass will
come
under threat for want of anybody there to pray upon.
Only then will there be any possibility of damnation
and pseudo-salvation for the undamned and pseudo-unsaved, for they will
not be
damned or pseudo-saved as long as there are those at the southwest
point of the
axial compass who have not been saved and pseudo-damned to its
northeast point,
and therefore they will not be in a position to be ‘made over’ in the
image of
those who are already damned and pseudo-saved at the southeast point of
the
axial compass as a precondition of these latter being swivelled across
to the
foot of the other axis and, in being ‘made over’ in their turn, saved
and
pseudo-damned in the wake of the lapsed Catholic generality, thereby
making
possible even the salvation and pseudo-damnation of the damned and
pseudo-saved
if they, too, elect to follow their historical counterparts across to
the
southwest point of the axis in question and accept the necessary
criteria for
salvation and pseudo-damnation to its northeast point, thereby being
‘made
over’ from man and antiwoman or, more correctly, pseudo-man and
pseudo-antiwoman to pseudo-antiman and pseudo-woman as the necessary
preconditions of God and the Antidevil.
Only thus will everything pass from the Alpha and Anti-Omega of
the
Devil and Antigod to the Omega and Anti-Alpha of God and the Antidevil,
as
though from the rule of Vanity Fair and the (anti-lead of)
Anti-Celestial City
to the lead of the Celestial City and (anti-rule of) Anti-Vanity Fair.
7. Thus
as each axis is divisible between the Few and the Many, so the triumph
of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria over its axial antithesis
will
require that everything passes from the Many to the Few on the axis in
question, just as they have passed, with the American overhaul of
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, from the Many to the
Few in
reverse vein, and both the Many of that axis and the Many of the
traditionally
more church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis now live under the sway of
the
vain/pseudo-meek Few to such an extent that there is scarcely any place
for,
let alone evidence of, the righteous/pseudo-just Few of a comparably
genuine,
or radical, order. All this must change
in the future, as the new church-hegemonic/state-subordinate Few set
about the
task of achieving and consolidating their position vis-à-vis the lapsed
Catholic Many and set in motion those orders of salvation and
pseudo-damnation
which will deliver the said Many from the predatory clutches of the
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate Few and thus bring about the
latter’s axial
downfall. For nothing short of that will
change life as we know it, and it is imperative that life is
changed for
the better for the lapsed Catholic Many in order that they may be
delivered
from their shortcomings and the consequences of those shortcomings, and
that
even their Protestant counterparts may be brought to the threshold of
salvation
and pseudo-damnation in due course and all share in the benefits of
blessedness
and pseudo-cursedness, culture and pseudo-civility, righteousness and
pseudo-justice for all Eternity and Anti-Infinity in an
otherworldly/anti-netherworldly
society that knows no death, being at its antimetachemical worst
anti-death and
at its metaphysical best so pro-life as to be eternal.
8. Are
sportsmen or athletes or body builders or sex workers or other
‘physical’ types
as equally sane as intellectuals and philosophers and great writers and
artists? Or, put differently, do those
in the former categories share the same type of sanity with those in
the
latter? Society may, as it is and has
been constituted in the past, encourage us to think so, but I cannot
bring
myself to believe it. For isn’t there
something kind of ‘insane’ about intellectuality and profound literary
work
compared with or, rather, contrasted to the sorts of bodily and
physical
activities which sportsmen and athletes and so on indulge in and
regularly
demonstrate? Would there not be ‘regular
folk’ of an active if not competitive nature who, in their heart of
hearts (or
what passes for such), incline to the view that writers and
philosophers and
other such intellectually creative individuals are comparatively
insane, if not
mad? And yet is it not also the case
that many of us take intellectuality, whether literary or otherwise,
for
granted and are happy to read a book or e-scroll or other literary
production
without fuss or undue sarcasm, never for a moment assuming that the act
of
writing constitutes evidence of madness or of something that should be
avoided
in the interests of sanity. So if there
is a gulf between those who are outgoing, extrovert, sport-loving and
their
rather more ingoing, introvert, culture-loving counterparts, is it not
indicative, this gulf, of two kinds of sanity, one fundamentally
somatic and
bodily, the other essentially psychic and therefore of the mind? Is it not the case that there is really a
distinction here between what could be called outer sanity and inner
sanity,
the sanity of physical exercise and the sanity of metaphysical
exercise, the
sanity that signifies freedom in relation to soma and the sanity that
signifies
freedom in relation to psyche, the one arguably more female than male
and the
other more male than female. For, after
all, somatic freedom, hailing from either a metachemical or a chemical
premise
and hegemony (over antimetaphysics or antiphysics, as the case may be)
is the
ideal of a creature for whom soma precedes and predominates over
psyche,
whereas psychic freedom, which hails from either a physical (in the
elemental
sense) or a metaphysical premise and hegemony (over antichemistry or
antimetachemistry, as the case may be) is the ideal of a creature, by
contrast,
for whom psyche precedes and preponderates over soma – in other words,
a male
as opposed to a female creature. This,
then, is the crux of the matter. There
are two kinds of freedom on both phenomenal (corporeal) and noumenal
(ethereal)
levels or planes, and they are opposites in terms of being somatic and
female,
or psychic and male. A society rooted in
somatic freedom may accept a limited degree of psychic freedom, but it
will
never give any great encouragement to psychic freedom for fear of
undermining
its somatic basis and transforming the word ‘insanity’ from something
designating some form of madness to something akin to ‘insight’
vis-à-vis
sight. To it, ‘sanity’ is fundamentally
more somatic than psychic, and therefore most if not all forms of
psychic
freedom are vulnerable to being cynically dismissed as ‘insane’, i.e.
mad,
rather than regarded as germane to a contrary order of sanity which is
simply
inner (and of the mind) rather than outer (and of the body). To-date, this has been the general premise
and belief of Western society, especially in countries which have been
more
partial, in heathenistic vein, to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria
than to their converse. Sanity is closer
to the sports field and the supermarket than to the desk or cloister –
certainly for the generality of people.
And yet how indicative of a somatic concept of freedom and
therefore of
sanity such a perception is! It does not
distinguish, more or less impartially, between outer sanity and inner
sanity in
terms of ‘outsane’ and ‘insane’ but, siding with the former, inclines
to
dismiss the latter as equivalent to mad.
I absolutely reject and despise this attitude!
Sanity is not one thing rather than another;
it is divisible between outer and inner, somatic and psychic,
manifestations,
and all people, bar the very extreme, are both ‘outsane’ and ‘insane’
to
varying degrees, even if most would see themselves – certainly in
traditional
Western terms – as more ‘outsane’ than ‘insane’ and therefore of an
outgoing
disposition commensurate with social utility or sociability or societal
expedience, a view which has done no small part to perpetuate the
notion that
outer sanity is alone sane compared to its inner counterpart. Well, let us categorically dismiss such a
notion here, which is something of a Western if not populist myth, and
assert
that while outer sanity, or ‘outsanity’, is indeed sane or a form of
sanity,
inner sanity is also a form of sanity, if of an opposite gender
persuasion to
its somatic counterpart, and therefore worthy of being taken seriously
as an
ideal in itself, one which, if upheld, would divest the word ‘insanity’
of any
pejorative or denigratory implications, making it short for ‘inner
sanity’ and
not synonymous with madness of a cerebral order. Doubtless
such
an
order
of
madness
does
exist, but not necessarily as an expression of inner sanity! On the contrary, it would be indicative of
the want of inner sanity, not in the sense of outer sanity, but through
some
malfunctioning of psyche or persistent delusion. And
yet
there
can
also
be
– and very often is
– much evidence in society of the malfunctioning of soma, of bodily
parts,
whether through accident or disease, and a break-down, in consequence,
in the
norms of outer sanity which, though scarcely qualifying for aspersions
of
madness, indicate a want of somatic freedom and, hence, physical health. But madness has always been identified with
psyche rather than soma, so the physically ill or sick have rarely been
considered mad, not altogether surprisingly in view of the extent to
which such
a term has been reserved, in somatically-oriented societies, for the
mentally
sick. And yet if one can be sane
physically,
one can be mad physically. And if one
can be mad mentally, one can be sane mentally.
Being mental is not necessarily synonymous with being mad. Nor is being physical necessarily synonymous
with being sane. One can be sane or mad
either way, in an outer or an inner fashion, and ultimately what all
these
assumptions or presumptions tell us is about the nature of a particular
type of
society and its prevailing values, for better or worse.
People will always be quick to denigrate
psyche from a somatic standpoint and, doubtless, those societies more
given,
whether in the East or elsewhere, to psychic freedom will take a less
than
partisan view of soma. In
misunderstanding each other they will recoil from each other and simply
entrench themselves in their respective partialities.
Rarely does society strike, never mind aim
at, a balance between the opposites, somatic freedom and psychic
freedom,
though attempts to do so are usually weighted against one ideal from
the
hegemonic standpoint of the other which, contrary to its opposite, will
be
unequivocally rather than simply equivocally hegemonic and therefore
more
influential and important in the overall axial scheme of things, as
already
described in my work. Thus at the end of
the day a bias remains, and that bias conditions the way people in that
society
generally think of sanity and its opposite, madness.
At present ‘insanity’, used in the sense of
inner sanity, has not been divested of pejorative connotations likening
it to
madness, and therefore sanity is implicitly if not explicitly
identified with
the outer and, more often than not, with a healthy somatic disposition
that
fights shy of intellectuality and high culture in general.
The future, I am sure, will change all that,
but not before the coming of religious sovereignty and the
establishment of
truly free psychic societies under the leadership of the highest males.
9. Frankly,
urban civilization is more likely to breed or foster ‘insanity’ than
‘outsanity’ because if one is accustomed to city life for any period of
time one
becomes more disposed to living indoors than outdoors, there being so
much more
indoor life than outdoor in view of the close proximity of so many
buildings of
one persuasion or another, and living or being indoors is not
incompatible with
the development of sensibility, being its environmental parallel and,
in
effective terms, precondition. Therefore
the more urban the context and the more, over several generations,
sedentary or
indoor one’s lifestyle the more, by a corresponding factor, sensible
should one
become, irrespective of fluctuations in the weather.
Only those who spend much of their time
outdoors, whether through ancestral tradition or in consequence of a
natural
response to warm dry weather, will cling to sensuality in parallel with
their outgoing
predilections. Yet the pressure towards
a more indoor lifestyle will always be there in the city and, often
enough,
people outdoors are on the move from one indoor location to another
rather than
simply hanging around out-of-doors or loitering in public spaces. So city life is suited to the
development of
sensibility and, hence, of a correspondingly inner mode of sanity,
whether or
not one wishes to call it ‘insanity’, as though on a par with ‘insight’. Many if not most of those who live in cities,
especially in the more built-up residential sectors, are arguably more
‘insane’
than ‘outsane’, and that, in comparative terms, is a good thing,
because it
indicates that sensibility is taking precedence over sensuality with
them and
such a situation is always more indicative of some kind of male
hegemony,
whether equivocal, as in physics over antichemistry, or unequivocal, as
in
metaphysics over antimetachemistry. In
fact, now that I have returned to my usual take on such elemental
terms, it
strikes me as incontrovertible that the subordinate gender in any given
sensible context will be less ‘insane’ in the aforementioned sense than
anti-‘outsane’, which is to say, contrary to outer sanity in
antichemical or
antimetachemical vein without being properly, in male vein, ‘insane’,
or
partial to inner sanity through the development of psychic freedom. If such upended persons are not as ‘insane’
themselves, they are at least sufficiently anti-‘outsane’ as to be
distinct
from those who, in metachemistry or chemistry, would be ‘outsane’ and
therefore
either unequivocally or equivocally, depending on the elemental
context,
objective in their somatic freedom as the product, in no small part, of
a
vacuum appertaining, in female vein, to either the noumenal or
phenomenal modes
of objectivity. But if such people,
whether rural or otherwise, would be ‘outsane’ in their somatically
outgoing
dispositions, then the upended gender in relation to them would, in
being
antimetaphysical or antiphysical, be less ‘outsane’ themselves than
anti-‘insane’ and therefore of an anti-subjective disposition
commensurate with
the paradoxical elemental contexts in question.
Therefore society is not simply a matter of sanity vis-à-vis
insanity
but, depending on the circumstances, will manifest either outer sanity
at inner
sanity’s upended expense or, in sensibility, inner sanity at outer
sanity’s
upended expense, the resultant pairing amounting to axial distinctions
between
noumenal ‘outsanity’/anti-‘insanity’ at the northwest point of the
axial
compass vis-à-vis phenomenal ‘insanity’/anti-‘outsanity’ at its
southeast
point, with a correspondingly contrary antithesis, on the
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, between phenomenal
‘outsanity’/anti-‘insanity’ at the southwest point of the axial compass
and
noumenal ‘insanity’/anti-‘outsanity’ at its northeast point, the
unequivocal
gender position linking to the phenomenally subordinate gender position
with
the traditional manifestations of each axis in the interests of either
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
consistency and continuity or, conversely,
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
consistency and continuity, as in the primary link between metachemical
‘outsanity’ and antichemical anti-‘outsanity’ in respect of
state-hegemonic criteria
and between metaphysical ‘insanity’ and antiphysical anti-‘insanity’ in
respect
of church-hegemonic criteria, neither axis being capable of
reconciliation with
the other in view of the different gender agendas which each one
primarily
represents. For if metachemistry and
antichemistry constitute primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
criteria
with regard to the contrast between somatic freedom/psychic binding
(metachemistry) and somatic binding/psychic freedom (antichemistry),
‘outsanity’ and anti-‘outsanity’, then antimetaphysics and physics,
their
noumenal and phenomenal male counterparts, can only signify secondary
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria with regard to the parallel
contrast between somatic freedom/psychic binding (antimetaphysics) and
somatic
binding/psychic freedom (physics), anti-‘insanity’ and ‘insanity’,
which are
obliged to take second place to their female counterparts in the
overall
relationship between state and church.
Conversely, if metaphysics and antiphysics constitute primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria with regard to the contrast
between
psychic freedom/somatic binding (metaphysics) and psychic
binding/somatic
freedom (antiphysics), ‘insanity’ and anti-‘insanity’, then
antimetachemistry
and chemistry, their noumenal and phenomenal female counterparts, can
only
signify secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria with
regard to
the parallel contrast between psychic freedom/somatic binding
(antimetachemistry) and psychic binding/somatic freedom (chemistry),
anti-‘outsanity’ and ‘outsanity’, which are obliged to take second
place to
their male counterparts in the overall relationship between church and
state. Such, at any rate, is how the
distinctions would shape up on traditional, or worldly, axial terms,
but, of
course, nowadays we live, thanks in no small part to America, more
under the
shadow of post-worldly axial criteria in which ‘the below’ leads to
‘the above’
rather than vice versa, and consequently ‘the above’ is ultimately more
influential
and characteristic of the overhauled axial situation than ‘the below’
or, at
any rate, has the potential to become such if it hasn’t already done so. But that is another story and one I have
already addressed in my writings in several previous texts, so I shall
refrain
from elaborating on it here. If,
traditionally, it could be said that, in
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate
axial terms, the Many took precedence over the Few and therefore
‘insanity’ and
anti-‘outsanity’ or, rather, anti-‘outsanity’ and ‘insanity’ over
‘outsanity’
and anti-‘insanity’, and, in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial
terms,
the phenomenal likewise took precedence over the noumenal and therefore
‘outsanity’ and anti-‘insanity’ or, rather, anti-‘insanity’ and
‘outsanity’
over ‘insanity’ and anti-‘outsanity’, these days we find that it is the
Few,
not least in metachemistry and antimetaphysics, who take precedence
over the
Many, and therefore ‘outsanity’ and ‘anti-‘insanity’ over
anti-‘outsanity’ and
‘insanity’ where state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria are
concerned,
whether or not, in contrast to this, we see the development of a
situation, in
societies traditionally more typified by
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
criteria, towards the prevalence of ‘insanity’ and anti-‘outsanity’
over
anti-‘insanity’ and ‘outsanity’, and in such fashion that the salvation
of the
antiphysical to metaphysics in primary
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms
is accompanied by the counter-damnation, or pseudo-damnation, of the
chemical
to antimetachemistry, as, in the one case, ‘insanity’ eclipses
anti-‘insanity’
and, in the other case, anti-‘outsanity’ eclipses ‘outsanity’, always
remembering that such an elevation would be from the phenomenal
manifestation
of each gender predilection to its noumenal counterpart, and therefore
from
pseudo-antiman to God and from pseudo-woman to the Antidevil in respect
of the
elevation from corporeal anti-‘insanity’ to ethereal ‘insanity’ and,
for
females, from corporeal ‘outsanity’ to ethereal anti-‘outsanity’, the
anti-‘insanity’ of the one having been vis-à-vis the corporeal
‘insanity’ of
the physical across the phenomenal axial divide, the anti-‘outsanity’
of the
other being vis-à-vis the ethereal ‘outsanity’ of the metachemical
across the noumenal
axial divide. Therefore corporeal
anti-‘insanity’ is a precondition, for the antiphysical, of ethereal
‘insanity’
in the metaphysical, just as, from a contrary gender standpoint,
corporeal
‘outsanity’ is a precondition, for the chemical, of ethereal
anti-‘outsanity’
in the antimetachemical, anti-‘outsanity’ being the Anti-Vanity Fair
corollary
of the ‘insanity’, the inner sanity in metaphysical free psyche, of the
Celestial City, as of Eternity and its hegemony, for ever more, over
Anti-Infinity, its antimetachemical counterpart.
10. Therefore
far from a simple sane vis-à-vis insane distinction we find, in
practice, that
the axial compass allows for four types of sanity, whether outer or
inner, and
their corresponding anti-sanity counterparts, again whether outer or
inner. No ‘outsanity’ without
anti-‘insanity’ at the northwest point of the axial compass, and no
‘insanity’
without anti-‘outsanity’ at its southeast point where
state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria are concerned, and,
conversely no
‘outsanity’ without anti-‘insanity’ at the southwest point of the axial
compass
and no ‘insanity’ without anti-‘outsanity’ at its northeast point. Some societies, being state-hegemonic, are
unequivocally sane one way and equivocally sane the other, outer and
inner,
whereas other societies, being church-hegemonic, are equivocally sane
one way
and unequivocally sane the other, outer and inner.
But all societies, whether equivocally or
unequivocally sane in outer or inner terms, also embrace their upended
gender
counterparts at these intercardinal points of the axial compass, whose
positions in relation to the ‘sane’ is if not insane then most
decidedly
anti-sane. For to be anti-‘insane’ under
‘outsane’ hegemonic pressures, whether unequivocal or equivocal, is to
be
contrary to the ‘insanity’ which characterizes the sensible hegemonies,
whether
equivocal or unequivocal, of the male positions in physics and
metaphysics
whose corresponding upended gender counterparts will be anti-‘outsane’
on like
equivocal or unequivocal terms. Ugliness
and hatred, corresponding to metachemical soma, will be manifestations
of
noumenal ‘outsanity’, of ethereal outer sanity, as will their
bound-psychic
corollaries, the ugly approach to falsity (illusion) and the hateful
approach
to woe, whereas falsity and woe, corresponding to antimetaphysical
psyche, will
be manifestations of noumenal anti-‘insanity’, of ethereal anti-inner
sanity,
as will their free somatic corollaries, the false approach to ugliness
and the
woeful approach to hatred. So much for
the northwest point of the axial compass!
Still on the sensual side of the social and/or environmental
divide,
weakness and humility, if not humiliation, corresponding to chemical
soma, will
be manifestations of phenomenal ‘outsanity’, of corporeal outer sanity,
as will
their bound-psychic corollaries, the weak approach to ignorance and the
humble
approach to pain, whereas ignorance and pain, corresponding to
antiphysical psyche, will be
manifestations
of phenomenal anti-‘insanity’, corporeal anti-inner sanity, as will
their
free-somatic corollaries, the ignorant
approach to weakness and the painful approach to humility.
So much for the southwest point of the axial
compass! Turning to sensibility across
the axial divide, knowledge and pleasure, corresponding to physical
psyche,
will be manifestations of phenomenal ‘insanity’, of corporeal inner
sanity, as
will their bound-somatic corollaries, the knowledgeable approach to
strength
and the pleasurable approach to pride, whereas strength and pride,
corresponding to antichemical soma, will be manifestations of
phenomenal
anti-‘outsanity’, corporeal anti-outer sanity, as will their
free-psychic
corollaries, the strong approach to knowledge and the proud approach to
pleasure. So much for the southeast
point of the axial compass! Finally,
truth and joy, corresponding to metaphysical psyche, will be
manifestations of
noumenal ‘insanity’, ethereal inner sanity, as will their bound-somatic
corollaries,
the truthful approach to beauty and the joyful approach to love,
whereas beauty
and love, corresponding to antimetachemical soma, will be
manifestations of
noumenal anti-‘outsanity’, ethereal anti-outer sanity, as will their
free-psychic corollaries, the beautiful approach to truth and the
loving
approach to joy. So much for the
northeast point of the axial compass!
Now although I have started with the hegemonic elemental
position,
whether unequivocal or equivocal, in all of the above axial examples, I
have
been careful not to exclude axial interaction between the noumenal and
phenomenal positions, since it is precisely that which ensures that the
southwest point of the axial compass is no more characterized by free
soma as
primary, in overly heathenistic vein, than its southeast point by free
psyche
as primary, in overly christianistic, meaning puritanical, vein. In each case, the equivocal hegemony is
subverted by the subordinate position acting in conjunction with the
unequivocally hegemonic element, be it female (in metachemistry) or
male (in
metaphysics), and the result, as stated before, is the paradoxical
overturning
of the equivocal hegemony from standpoints determined by either
noumenal
‘outsanity’ or, across the axial divide, noumenal ‘insanity’. The equivocally hegemonic genders will still
remain ‘true’ to their fundamental natures, but they will suffer the
indignity,
from their standpoints, of having the emphasis switched from soma to
psyche in
the case of the chemical (females) and from psyche to soma in the case
of the
physical (males). Therefore neither is
properly vain or righteous, as the case may be, but pseudo-vain and
pseudo-righteous under the subversive pressure of antiphysical meekness
in the
case of the anti-‘insane’ and antichemical justness, or justice, in the
case of
the anti-‘outsane’. And such meekness in
the one case and justice in the other pales to insignificance compared
with or,
rather, contrasted to, the righteousness over pseudo-justice that
characterizes
the unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry at the
northeast
point of the axial compass and, across the axial divide, the vanity
over
pseudo-meekness which characterizes the unequivocal hegemony of
metachemistry
over antimetaphysics at its northwest point.
Meekness can only be blessed by righteousness in the event of
the
antiphysical rising to salvation in metaphysics, while pseudo-vanity
can only
be pseudo-cursed by pseudo-justice in the event of the chemical
counter-falling
to pseudo-damnation in antimetachemistry, the former exchanging
phenomenal
anti-‘insanity’ for noumenal ‘insanity’, the latter counter-sacrificing
phenomenal ‘outsanity’ for noumenal anti-‘outsanity’.
Conversely, vanity can only be cursed by
justice in the event of the metachemical falling to damnation in
antichemistry,
while pseudo-meekness can only be pseudo-blessed with
pseudo-righteousness in
the event of the antimetaphysical counter-rising to pseudo-salvation in
physics, the former sacrificing noumenal ‘outsanity’ for phenomenal
anti-‘outsanity’, the latter counter-exchanging noumenal
anti-‘insanity’ for
phenomenal ‘insanity’. Verily, nothing
is cut and dried, because the genders are opposites and can never be
suited to
the same agenda, progress or counter-regress, regress or
counter-progress only
happening in relation to pressures, whether external or internal, from
the
opposite gender.
11. In
relation to the distinctions between vanity and pseudo-meekness,
undamnation
and counter-unsalvation (pseudo-unsalvation), at the northwest point of
the
axial compass, one could describe the relationship between ‘outsanity’
and
anti-‘insanity’ as mirroring this genuine/pseudo distinction in terms,
corresponding to uncursedness and counter-unblessedness
(pseudo-unblessedness)
of ‘outsanity’ and pseudo-anti-‘insanity’, not in the sense that the
latter is
contrary to ‘pseudo-insanity’ but rather as constitutive of a mode, nay
the
mode of pseudo-anti-‘insanity’, since conditioned by and
subordinate to the
genuine mode of ‘outsanity’. Likewise, in
relation to the distinctions between
justice and pseudo-righteousness, damnation and counter-salvation
(pseudo-salvation), at the southeast point of the axial compass, one
could
describe the relationship between anti-‘outsanity’ and ‘insanity’ as
mirroring
the genuine/pseudo distinction in terms, corresponding to cursedness
and
counter-blessedness (pseudo-blessedness) of anti-‘outsanity’ and
‘pseudo-insanity’, since the latter is constitutive of the
mode
of
‘pseudo-insanity’,
being
subversively
conditioned
(to
bound somatic emphasis) by the
genuine mode of anti-‘outsanity’ acting in axial conjunction with
metachemical ‘outsanity’. Conversely, in
relation, across the axial divide, to the distinctions between meekness
and
pseudo-vanity, unsalvation and counter-undamnation
(pseudo-undamnation), at the
southwest point of the axial compass, one could describe the
relationship
between anti-‘insanity’ and ‘outsanity’ as mirroring this
genuine/pseudo
distinction in terms, corresponding to unblessedness and
counter-uncursedness
(pseudo-uncursedness), of anti-‘insanity’ and ‘pseudo-outsanity’, since
the
latter is constitutive of the
mode of
‘pseudo-outsanity’, being subversively conditioned (to bound psychic
emphasis)
by the
genuine mode of anti-‘insanity’ acting in
axial conjunction with metaphysical ‘insanity’.
Similarly, in relation to the distinctions between righteousness
and
pseudo-justice, salvation and counter-damnation (pseudo-damnation) at
the
northeast point of the axial compass, one should describe the
relationship
between ‘insanity’ and anti-‘outsanity’ as mirroring the genuine/pseudo
distinction in terms, corresponding to blessedness and
counter-cursedness
(pseudo-cursedness), of ‘insanity’ and pseudo-anti-‘outsanity’, not in
the
sense that the latter is contrary to ‘pseudo-outsanity’ but rather as
constitutive of a mode, nay the
mode of
pseudo-anti-‘outsanity’, since conditioned by and subordinate to the
genuine mode of ‘insanity’ which, being metaphysical, is the
first mover in the metaphysical/antimetachemical dual integrity at the
northeast
point of the axial compass and only
at that point, wherein
God and the Antidevil have their respective thrones.
12. Hence
where there is undamnation and pseudo-unsalvation there will be
‘outsanity’ and
pseudo-anti-‘insanity’, corresponding to uncursedness and
pseudo-unblessedness,
not to mention to vanity and pseudo-meekness, barbarity and
pseudo-philistinism, noumenal objectivity and noumenal
anti-subjectivity,
spatial space and sequential time (antitime), upper-classfulness and
anti-classlessness, Devil and Antigod, Hell and Antiheaven, Vanity Fair
and
Anti-Celestial City. Conversely, where
there is damnation and pseudo-salvation there will be anti-‘outsanity’
and
pseudo-‘insanity’, corresponding to cursedness and pseudo-blessedness,
not to
mention to justice and pseudo-righteousness, civility and
pseudo-culture,
phenomenal anti-objectivity and phenomenal subjectivity, voluminous
volume
(antivolume) and massive mass, anti-lowerclassfulness and
middle-classfulness,
antiwoman and man, antipurgatory and earth, Anti-Slough of Despond and
Mr
Worldly Wise (of the Delectable Mountains), both dual gender polarities
of
which are constitutive of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial
criteria,
which of course stretch from the northwest point to the southeast point
of the
axial compass.
13. Where,
on the other hand, there is unsalvation and counter-undamnation
(pseudo-undamnation) there will be anti-‘insanity’ and
pseudo-‘outsanity’,
corresponding to unblessedness and pseudo-uncursedness, not to mention
to
meekness and pseudo-vanity, philistinism and pseudo-barbarity,
phenomenal
anti-subjectivity and phenomenal objectivity, massed mass (antimass)
and
volumetric volume, anti-middleclassfulness and lower-classfulness,
antiman and
woman, anti-earth and purgatory, Anti-Mr World Wise and Slough of
Despond. Conversely, where there is
salvation and
counter-damnation (pseudo-damnation) there will be ‘insanity’ and
pseudo-anti-‘outsanity’, corresponding to blessedness and
pseudo-cursedness,
not to mention to righteousness and pseudo-justice, culture and
pseudo-civility, noumenal subjectivity and noumenal anti-objectivity,
repetitive time and spaced space (antispace), classlessness and
anti-upperclassfulness, God and Antidevil, Heaven and Antihell,
Celestial City
and Anti-Vanity Fair, both dual gender polarities of which are
constitutive of
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, which of course
stretch from
the southwest point to the northeast point of the axial compass.
14. Hence
there is all the axial difference in the world, and even above it,
whether in
netherworldly anterior vein or in otherworldly posterior vein, between
rising
to salvation/counter-falling to pseudo-damnation and, largely in
consequence of
this, falling to damnation/counter-rising to pseudo-salvation, since
the latter
will not fall and counter-rise irrevocably until and unless the former
comes to
pass on a scale and to a degree which removes the unsaved and
counter-undamned
Many from their anti-omegaworldly/alpha-worldly predicaments at the
southwest
point of the axial compass and thus makes it difficult if not
impossible for
the undamned/counter-unsaved Few at its northwest point to prey upon
them from
their netherworldly/anti-otherworldly noumenally objective and
noumenally
anti-subjective heights, thus precipitating their downfall or
counter-uprise,
as the gender case may be, and effectively collapsing the heretically
schismatic state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis into its
anti-alphaworldly/omega-worldly base.
What transpires after that is something that the
damned/counter-saved
Many will have to determine for themselves, though I have made it clear
in
previous texts that proper justice and pseudo-righteousness on the part
of the
just and pseudo-righteous Many will facilitate their passage across the
axial
divide to take the unsaved/counter-undamned places of the saved and
counter-damned Many in such fashion, that with due
pseudo-antimanly/womanly
transformations, they too can avail of the possibility of salvation and
counter-damnation, as, ultimately, can those who had been damned and
counter-saved from the heights of vanity and pseudo-meekness and who
would be
last in the queue, as it were, for axial transference and moral
transformation. But none of this will or
ever could happen without the prior salvation and counter-damnation of
those
who already and traditionally appertained to
church-hegemonic/state-subordinate
axial criteria and were consequently first in line for the prospects of
elevation to the northeast point of the axial compass.
And for salvation and counter-damnation to
transpire on a scale and to a degree which is not only commensurate
with
blessedness and counter-cursedness of a more elevated – and
comparatively
genuine – order, but on a scale and degree which is likely to prove
problematic
to all who now – and with such ferocity! – prey upon those at the
southwest
point of the axial compass, it will have to avail of the requisite
self-enhancing and/or (depending on gender) notself-reducing substances
that
will be as ‘horse’ to the cyborg ‘cart’ characterizing the development
of
godliness and antidevilishness/heavenliness and antihellishness within
a
framework that can be logically and morally shown to be of a per
se order of metaphysics and
antimetachemistry such that only a global civilization, committed to
universality and anti-polyversality, could be expected to further, and
on the
basis, necessarily, of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in
any and
all countries which had the right kind of ethnic preconditions for
axial
overhauling and upgrading on the aforementioned terms, terms which I
have
always identified with Social Theocracy and thus with the coming to
pass of
salvation and pseudo-damnation from the anti-omegaworld and alpha-world
to
what, with global universality and anti-polyversality, would be
well-nigh
definitive manifestations of otherworldly and anti-netherworldly
criteria
commensurate with ‘Kingdom Come’, which is to say, with the Celestial
City and
Anti-Vanity Fair, Eternity and Anti-Infinity, the Omega Point and the
Anti-Alpha Point, God and the Antidevil, Heaven and Antihell of a
uniquely
synthetically artificial and therefore globally universal cast.
LONDON
2005
(Revised
2011)
