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