Exposing the Antichrist Hype. One hears so much about the coming of the Antichrist in the time of Christ, or of the Second Coming, and other such Christian – and therefore Western – related subjects from films, serials, the media generally and the like, that it gradually grows on one just how irrational such notions are and of how partial and misleading they can be. One would think that the Antichrist was the big bad ‘first mover’ in things, evidently male, and simply an antithesis to Christ. But as my philosophy should have made equally evident by now, the concept of ‘the Son’ is in relation to the concept of ‘the Father’, and this can sensibly exist at either phenomenal or noumenal levels of the intercardinal axial compass, wherein one has ‘Son of Man’ in relation to ‘Man the Father’ in the one case, that of physics, and ‘Son of God’ in relation to ‘God the Father’ in the other case, that of metaphysics. Let us, therefore, just limit ourselves to metaphysics for the time being, which would qualify as being more Roman Catholic than Puritan in character, since Puritanism effectively operates, humanistically, on the basis of the New Testament and not of any faith in a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ (at the northeast point of the axial compass) who would approximate to what is axially antithetical to the so-called ‘Father’ (at the northwest point of the axis in question), much as the ‘Son of Man’ lower down (at the southeast point) would approximate to what is axially polar to the so-called ‘Father’; though, in reality, this ‘Father’ (at the northwest point of the intercardinal axis) would be more metachemical than antimetaphysical, and therefore not strictly polar to anything male in physics at all but to its antichemical female (and antifeminine) counterpart, which we have elsewhere described in terms of ‘Antiwoman the Antimother’ as far as the relevant bound soma is concerned, and can therefore place in a polar position – bound soma in antichemistry to free soma in metachemistry – to ‘Devil the Mother’, i.e., to what traditionally and conventionally passes for God (the Father), as creative ‘first mover’ in, for example, the Cosmos. Thus not only is the ‘Son of Man’ not polar to ‘Devil the Mother’, it is not even metaphysically antithetical to ‘Devil the Mother’, but the axial antithesis to what, in antimetaphysics, we may call the ‘Antison of Antigod’. Now this ‘Antison of Antigod’, the antimetaphysical free soma of that which exists under the hegemonic sway of ‘Devil the Mother’, is a lot closer to being ‘Antichrist’ in relation to the ‘Son of God’ than in relation, polar-wise, to the ‘Son of Man’, since the noumenal should be contrasted, across the axial divide, with the noumenal and the phenomenal, lower down, likewise with the phenomenal, which, in the case of the ‘Son of Man’, would give us a Catholic antithesis of the order of the ‘Antison of Antiman’, or something to that effect. But that is obviously one kind of Antichrist in contrast to the other, and in both cases, irrespective of the co-existence of bound psyche to free soma which demands antitheses to ‘God the Father’ and ‘Man the Father’, we have positions which are not free-standing and capable of initiating themselves but, on the contrary, positions which owe their negatively sensual existences to the hegemonic prevalence, in each case, of either metachemistry or chemistry, depending on the class context, and thus to the prior existence, on the female side of the gender divide, of what we have identified with ‘Devil the Mother’ in the one case and what should be identified with ‘Woman the Mother’ in the other case, the former of which is as somatically hegemonic over the ‘Antison of Antigod’ as the latter over the ‘Antison of Antiman’, neither of which would be capable of an independent existence of this female-based control. Therefore before we talk of Antichrists and other such scapegoats for male denigration, we should think about what causes such antimale positions to arise in the first place. We should bear in mind that neither position would arise without the prior existence of their female counterparts, which are the actual ‘first movers’ in the sensual game. Thus without a demonstrably active ‘Devil the Mother’ in metachemical free soma there would be no ‘Antison of Antigod’ in antimetaphysical free soma; without a demonstrably active ‘Woman the Mother’ in chemical free soma there would be no ‘Antison of Antiman’ in antiphysical free soma. And neither, in relation to bound psyche, would there be much evidence of ‘Antigod the Antifather’ without the ‘Daughter of the Devil’ or, down below in the phenomenal sphere, of ‘Antiman the Antifather’ without the ‘Daughter of Woman’, both of which accord with the bound psyche stemming, in metachemistry and chemistry, from free soma, and therefore effect the binding of male psyche in antimetaphysics and antiphysics as a precondition of the correlative free soma of the aforementioned, over-hyped, Antichrists whom we have identified with the ‘Antison of Antigod’ and the ‘Antison of Antiman’ which, contrary to popular belief, complete the vicious circle in each class case – ‘Antison of Antigod’ to ‘Devil the Mother’, ‘Antison of Antiman’ to ‘Woman the Mother’; though in the latter case, traditionally, church-hegemonic criteria have ensured that ‘Woman the Mother’ takes a secondary place, in state-subordinate vein, to the ‘Antison of Antiman’, while, more importantly, the ‘Daughter of Woman’ takes a secondary church-hegemonic place to ‘Antiman the Antifather’, the antiphysical bound psyche which is the primary church-hegemonic (sinful) precondition of grace in salvation to ‘God the Father’. But, alas, this latter is still a problematic term in Christianity, as in Christendom, because Christianity operates less on the basis of the metaphysical precedence of ‘Son’ by ‘Father’ in relation to the male actuality of psyche preceding soma (also applicable to ‘Man’ down in physics) than on the basis of a kind of worldly extrapolation from a netherworldly Alpha, call it Creator or Father or Jehovah or First Cause, which makes for a rather more linear – and populist - situation in terms of ‘Father’ leading to ‘Son’ than is compatible with the actuality of metaphysical reality at the northeast point of the axial compass. Christianity was not able to escape from the northwest point of the axial compass, from the Jehovahesque ‘First Mover’ of ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as God, and no matter how much this root or anchor of cosmic precedence is attenuated by the Christic extrapolation from it and by an intermediate (between Alpha and Omega) focus on ‘the Son’, on Christ, it remains ‘in situ’ to bedevil the development or, rather, concept of metaphysics at the northeast point of the compass in question, a point unique, as we have seen, to Catholicism, but still short of that metaphysical fullness or completeness that is only possible once ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as God is rejected and one can regard the concept of ‘Father’ preceding ‘Son’ solely in relation to the precedence, for males, of soma by psyche in metaphysics, so that the terms are less historically linear than metaphors for male actuality as it actually exists on both the metaphysical and even physical planes. This, however, will take a Social Theocratic revolution to achieve, since Creatorism, steeped in the Old Testament, will not go away by itself. It will take a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in paradoxical elections in certain largely Catholic countries, like Eire, to start the ball rolling, as it were, in this respect, since before one can institute a new and effectively ultimate religion the principal upholders of that religion must be in power and be able to take the necessary measures not only to develop it in the interests of the People, but to demolish the old religion(s) in order that all Creator-based obstacles to metaphysical maturation, coupled, be it not forgotten, to its antimetachemical female counterpart, may be swept away and effectively consigned to the rubbish heap of ecclesiastical history. Only the sovereign People can remove the historical Church and embrace, via the paradoxical utilization of democracy, the revolutionary Church which I have identified with the Social Theocratic Centre…. Though, in point of fact, like Marx, who believed that Socialism would transmute into Communism with the ‘withering of the State’, I believe that Social Theocracy will gradually be superseded by Social Transcendentalism as the Church passes from a kind of pluralist to a totalitarian phase of its evolution in the course of theological centro-complexification, evolving, as it were, from Social Theocracy, which will be based in the State-like aspects of the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond of the Centre-proper, to Social Transcendentalism, as the Church becomes more prevalent with the supersession of ego by soul, of brain stem by spinal cord, of synthetically artificial visionary experience by synthetically artificial unitive experience of the sort that would signify the triumph of soul over ego and thus of contentment over form – in a word, of Heaven over God. But that will take some time, since the precondition of unitive experience on the necessarily global level of synthetic artificiality will be a correlative degree of cyborgization in the masses that will take some time to develop in view of its communal sophistication and render it almost inevitable, in the shorter-term, that they will have to make do with visionary experience in a kind of supercatholic precedence of a kind of superpuritanism until such time as the cyborgization is sufficiently advanced as to render the purer – and more potent – unitive experience viable. One cannot ‘jump the gun’, as it were, but must take each stage a step at a time, allowing the religiously sovereign people (if that comes to pass) only that which is clinically and technologically feasible at the time, since premature idealism in this regard would almost certainly lead to fatalities and hence to the discrediting of Social Theocracy. Naturally, one wants the religiously sovereign to be able to remain up at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass for longer and longer periods, in order that they may be delivered from their immoral predators at the northwest point of the said compass. Yet that is contingent not only on the type and quality of the synthetically artificial substances to which religious sovereignty would entitle them (as rights), but on the correlative development of cyborgization as the ‘cart’ that follows the ‘horse’, or the bound soma accompanying the free psyche in both metaphysics (for males) and antimetachemistry (for females). Without the relevant, for the era, types of synthetically artificial substances their rights will not have been respected; but without the correlative cyborgization, those rights will not be advanced and will not bring them to a position, ultimately, from which there will be no return, no degeneration, in Catholic fashion, to the world of the southwest point of the axial compass but simply the heavenly (for males) and antihellish (for females) transfigurations that would be commensurate with the divine and antidiabolic destinies of the metaphysically Saved and the antimetachemically Counter-Damned in the Social Theocratic/Transcendentalist Centres of ‘Kingdom Come’.