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