Envisioning the Supra-Christian Beyond. Henry Miller had a phrase about reaching for his revolver when he heard such-and-such a thing that he took an immediate dislike to, and I have to say there are religious expressions that come close to exciting a similar response in me, if only because they are so patently false and lying. Take the expression, so often used by Irish Catholics, about ‘Holy Mary Mother of God’. It sounds innocent on the surface of it, but the more you think about it the more you come to realize that it is doubly wrong – wrong about holiness in connection with a female and wrong about God. Anyone familiar with my philosophy and indeed my teachings will know well enough by now that the only relevant term to use with the concept of ‘Mother’ is ‘clear’, since the female can be either clear or unclear depending whether she is in a sensually hegemonic position, as in metachemistry and chemistry, or in a sensibly subordinate position, as in antimetachemistry and antichemistry, the former options being hegemonic over antimetaphysics and antiphysics, the latter ones subordinate to metaphysics and physics. Thus there is no way in which either Devil the Mother in the one case or Woman the Mother in the other case can be other than clear, having intimate associations with Hell the Clear Spirit in the metachemical context and Purgatory the Clear Spirit in the chemical one. The Virgin Mary, being germane to Christianity, is more to be associated with Woman the Mother in phenomenal sensuality than with Devil the Mother in noumenal sensuality, and therefore we should have little doubt that her position, in chemistry over antiphysics, is such as to guarantee her a degree of purgatorial clearness at the expense of such anti-earthly unholiness as must typify, in psychic sin and somatic folly, her male or, rather, antimale counterpart, whom we can identify, in traditional worldly terms, with the phenomenal mode of antison in free soma and antifather in bound psyche, which is to say, with antiman under woman. Granted, then, that the Virgin has nothing to do with holiness, how much does her son have to do with God? The answer to that question must be: that he is less God than the so-called Son of God at best and, at worst, the Antison of Antigod who is really a mere extrapolation from what, in the alpha-most anterior context of things, has been identified, falsely, with the Father, being rather more germane to the metachemical context of Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father). Thus even as Antison, Christ or, more correctly, the Antichrist is merely an extrapolation from Devil the Mother hyped as God on the plane of antimetaphysics and an extrapolation from Woman the Mother hyped as holy on the plane of antiphysics. The only way in which Christ gets to be either Son of Man (phenomenal) or Son of God (noumenal), is in rejection of the Mother through hegemonic sensibility, since such terms have a limited applicability to both physics and metaphysics, albeit not as mere sensual extrapolations from anterior sensual positions in metachemistry and/or chemistry, but as contrary positions to anything sensual and thus subordinate to either Devil the Mother or Woman the Mother. But even the Christ independent of Woman the Mother in post-resurrectional transcendence of the world is not really Son of God (the Father), but a more elevated and in some sense linear extrapolation from Devil the Mother hyped as God, since there is no God the Father in metaphysics for the Christian so-called God but simply a want of free-psychic metaphysics by dint of the extent to which the metachemical alpha acts as anchor or root to a mere worldly extrapolation which cannot be anything other than ‘Son’ to a so-called Father which, in the Christian context, becomes sort of constitutional rather than autocratically absolutist (Jehovah) in the interests of this linear extrapolation which has been identified with the concept ‘Son of God’, the rightful fulcrum of Christian devotion. Christianity, by dint of this limitation, can never transcend the Son in relation to metaphysics, since that is the be-all-and-end-all of Christianity, and therefore such transcendence as it does uphold is merely somatic in relation to the paradigm for bound soma of the Crucifixion. Thus the Crucified ‘On High’ is still merely ‘Son’, is a cart not merely put before a horse but to the exclusion of the relevant horse, the horse, so to speak, that would have to precede it in metaphysical free psyche as the Word that made the bound soma of the Son truly possible. No such Father exists in Christianity for the simple reason that Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) continues to exist, Old Testament-wise, as root concept of God and to hold the Son accountable to itself as a mere linear extrapolation when it is not, as has already been demonstrated, simply an Antichristic ‘fall guy’. Christianity does not allow for metaphysical freedom in God the Father, and therefore it always falls short of ‘Kingdom Come’ by dint of being a worldly extrapolation from the alpha-most mode of Devil the Mother, the cosmic mode that the Hebrews contrived to think of in monotheistic terms but always, exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, as a continuation of the Middle Eastern tradition, conditioned by environmental factors, of stellar and solar domination of life to the effective exclusion of sensibility, whether cosmically – not least in respect of those Roman acknowledgements of Jupiter and Saturn which owed more to European sensibility – or naturally, as in relation to winged seedpods on trees of a sufficient stature as to qualify for metaphysical association. Beyond nature, such a civilization did not venture at all; for that would have implied a New Testament – and hence Christian – transcendence of the Old Testament, as germane to mankind as the next stage of religious culture, one necessarily more European than Middle Eastern. But even Christianity was tied, as we have seen, to the Old Testament, and therefore constrained to a mere Son-like extrapolation from a so-called Father which doesn’t amount to anything more than a pseudo-otherworldly extrapolation from – and effective repudiation of - netherworldly primacy, i.e. Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father), in the Catholic case and more than a sensibly worldly extrapolation from - and effective repudiation of - Woman the Mother hyped as holy in the Puritan case, notwithstanding the greater part played by the so-called Father in the case of Anglicanism. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint, God the Father can only be achieved independently of Devil the Mother, and therefore as a rejection and absolute repudiation of all alpha-stemming criteria, whether of the Mother or the Antison, not to mention, on linear terms, of the so-called Son. Godliness, in this ultimate sense, a sense which only the cyborgization of life in tandem with the use of synthetically artificial stimulants to enlightenment can properly establish, and then following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in paradoxical elections that would effectively put an end to worldly limitations – and hence the world – in the event of judgement favouring religious sovereignty, has nothing whatsoever to do with Creatorism in relation to Devil the Mother hyped as God, but stands, whether provisionally through the internet-oriented cyborg-like Word or practically and eternally through metaphysical praxis thereafter, at the furthest possible remove from anything metachemical. Doubtless those who most adhere to Devil the Mother hyped as God, which is to say all who slavishly adhere to the Bible, will find pretexts to deprecate this independent position, just as they have always deprecated what is either beneath them or contrary to them from a standpoint rooted in the utmost sanctimonious hypocrisy and cant. Does not the Antigod of both Antigod the Antifather in antimetaphysical bound psyche and, especially, the Antison of Antigod in antimetaphysical free soma get slagged off as the Devil, as Satan, the antimetaphysical form of Antichrist? And yet the real devil, notwithstanding the deprecation of Antiman the Antifather and Antiman the Antison in such terms, exists hegemonically over it as Devil the Mother hyped as God (the Father) and is the root, in metachemical free will and spirit, of all that is most evil in life. If there is a significant gender distinction between Devil the Mother and/or the Daughter of the Devil (for we have to consider what is effectively church-subordinate bound metachemical psyche as well as its state-hegemonic free somatic counterpart) and the Antison of Antigod and/or Antigod the Antifather, how much more significant is the wider distinction between metachemistry and metaphysics, between Devil the Mother and/or the Daughter of the Devil and God the Father and/or the Son of God, the latter of whom can only have meaningful existence in relation to that metaphysical free psyche which is commensurate with His Father as the psyche preceding soma of male gender actuality, whether on the absolute basis of a 3:1 ratio in metaphysics or on the relative basis, germane to phenomenal temporality, of a 2½:1½ ratio in physics, the context not of God but of Man, not of God the Father and/or the Son of God, but of Man the Father and/or the Son of Man, the actual New Testament Christ who stands sensibly apart from any so-called ‘Holy Mother of God’ just as he stands sensibly over his antichemical antifemale counterpart in the Antidaughter of Antiwoman and/or Antiwoman the Antimother, neither of which antifeminine positions (corresponding, after all, to free psyche and bound soma) could be other than unclear under what remains, despite its phenomenal limitations, a holy hegemony of the masculine male. But even that hegemony, merely equivocal in character, is subject to subversion to the extent that it becomes more a context of bound somatic emphasis in the Son of Man than of free psychic emphasis in Man the Father, and all because axial continuity and consistency on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms requires a polarity between metachemistry and antichemistry, as between evil and good where the free soma of the one and the bound soma of the other, corresponding to primary state-hegemonic criteria, are concerned, and between crime and punishment where the bound psyche of the one and the free psyche of the other, corresponding to primary church-subordinate criteria, are concerned, neither of which have anything male about them but, on the contrary, remain indicative of the extent to which state-hegemonic society, rooted in metachemical free soma, is always female-dominated, with but secondary male positions in the polarity between antimetaphysics and physics, whether in relation to the State, where the somatic antithesis is rather more between pseudo-folly and pseudo-wisdom, or in relation to the Church, where the psychic antithesis is rather more between pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace, the consequence of which, in phenomenal sensibility, is a pseudo-righteousness which is only equivocally hegemonic over genuine justice as far as the antichemical attachment to goodness and punishment, bound soma and free psyche, is concerned. Obviously I am not an apologist for Man, with his subverted physics axially obliging him to take second place, overall, to the metachemical-to-antichemical polarity of his female counterparts, and therefore I do not place much store by the secondary state-hegemonic bound somatic emphasis upon the concept ‘Son of Man’ which tends to typify the physical hegemony in relation, logically enough, to its primary state-hegemonic counterpart ‘Antiwoman the Antimother’, the focus, after all, of goodness in antichemical bound soma, and the voluminous base of subversion, through antivolume, of massive mass, the form of mass per se. And as the reader will have realized, neither am I an apologist for anything clear and unholy across the axial divide, even if such unholiness in antimale antiphysics and clearness in female chemistry, corresponding on their respective phenomenal planes to antimass (massed mass) and volume (volumetric volume), are preconditions, in post-worldly pseudo terms, of genuine salvation to male metaphysics and genuine counter-damnation to antifemale antimetachemistry, as to time (repetitive time) and antispace (spaced space), the holiness and unclearness of which is commensurate with godliness and antidevilishness, and thus with ‘Kingdom Come’; though that, as we have seen, will require a series of paradoxical elections if the possibility of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and its rights – the right, above all, to synthetically artificial enlightenment rendered viable, long-term, on a cyborg foundation to be thought of rather more in connection with the Son of God than with God the Father and, hence, with the Holy Spirit of Heaven than with Heaven the Holy Soul for metaphysical males and with Antidevil the Antimother than with the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and, hence, Antihell the Unclear Spirit rather than the Unclear Soul of Antihell for antimetachemical females – are to materialize officially and, eventually, institutionally. But it will not just be the ‘free for’ but also the ‘free from’ that will have to be addressed at such a critical and revolutionary time, and here we are of course alluding to the need for the then-relevant authorities, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty transpiring, to remove all religiously and culturally anachronistic obstacles to the development of a religiously sovereign people or, rather, supra-humanity earmarked for godly and antidevilish transfiguration, in order that they may be able to pursue their divine and antidiabolic courses in metaphysics and antimetachemistry without hindrance or detraction from those who would continue to identify God, contrary to all logical reason, with Devil the Mother and, hence, metachemical primacy. The Bible, rooted as it is in Old Testament fundamentalism or, more correctly, materialism in relation to metachemical free soma and fundamentalism in relation to metachemical bound psyche, the evil of the one complementary to the criminality of the other, will have to be officially consigned to the rubbish heap of history, and this is something that the relevant authorities, which I have tended to identify all along with Social Theocracy, will have to take care off in the religiously sovereign people’s best interests, in order that all traces of Creatorism, of alpha-stemming or alpha-oriented devilishness, with its immoral fixation on the concept ‘Almighty’ and hence, brute cosmic power, may be rejected and repudiated, never again to pass muster as godliness from a standpoint axially antithetical to God. The day of the reckoning with Devil the Mother in metachemistry and Woman the Mother in chemistry has still to come, but you can rest assured that when it does eventually come through the Grace of God there will be no more Antigods or Antimen under their freely somatic heel and no more possibility of clearness being hyped as holy at the expense of an unholy ‘fall guy’ done down as devil. Clearness, like unholiness, will be a thing of the past; for only holiness and unclearness will prevail, and the more they do so, in metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the greater will be the prospect of all that is metachemical and antimetaphysical being axially brought down to a pseudo-antichemical and pseudo-physical judgement which will determine whether those already pseudo-antichemical and pseudo-physical, in post-worldly vein, can be swivelled across from their position at the southeast of the intercardinal axial compass to the southwest foot of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis and be made over in the pseudo-antiphysical and pseudo-chemical images of those whose salvation and counter-damnation had already taken place, thus precipitating the collapse of the other axis which it is the will of godliness and antidevilishness to destroy in the wake of the overcoming of the world or, rather, of that segment of the contemporary pseudo-world which can be identified, in lapsed Catholic vein, with pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-antiphysics. For only the systematic overhaul of our own church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, now lamentably quasi-state hegemonic in pseudo-worldly deference to netherworldly-dominated somatic licence, can guarantee more genuine orders of salvation and counter-damnation necessary to the undoing of that axis whose secular exploitations are the bitter fruit of schismatic heresy. Without Social Theocracy there can be no ‘Kingdom Come’ of a religiously sovereign supra-humanity whose willingness to have their worldly shortcomings overcome will attest to their godly and antidevilish resolve.