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