A Critical Look at the Resurrection. Just as the Catholic term ‘Mother of God’ leaves much to be desired from the standpoint of both the sensual reality of Woman the Mother and the Christian fulcrum of Son of God, neither of which would qualify for equation with God, since God the Father can only be quite distinct from either the Mother or the Son, so the concept of the ‘Resurrection of Christ’ is somewhat problematic insofar as it infers a change of position from phenomenal to noumenal, sensuality to sensibility, which simply defies the underlining reality of entrenched class positions in both contexts – the contexts, that is to say, of antiphysics and metaphysics or, in the Christian tradition of a worldly fulcrum, antiphysics and pseudo-metaphysics. The ‘below’ does not transform itself into the ‘above’ because the sensible position comes to pass in consequence of a rejection of the sensual position relative to itself, whether on a noumenal or a phenomenal basis. The Son of God does not arise from Woman the Mother, the Catholic so-called ‘Mother of God’, because what immediately appertains, as direct extrapolation from or simply under-plane upended gender to Woman the Mother, is the Antison of Antiman, a phenomenal manifestation of the Antichrist. There is also, of course, the bound-psychic corollary of such free soma, which can be described as Antiman the Antifather and which would parallel, in antiphysical subservience to chemistry (to speak in general terms), the Daughter of Woman, its chemical counterpart. Therefore just as Antiman has intimate associations with Woman, whether as Mother or as Daughter, so it is inconceivable that Man could have such associations with her, since he comes to pass in consequence of a rejection of Antiman, whether as the Antison of Antiman in antiphysical free soma or as Antiman the Antifather in antiphysical bound psyche. And such a rejection, premised upon a sensible alternative to sensuality, establishes, by its very existence, the reality of Antiwoman in both psyche and soma, the Antidaughter of Antiwoman under Man the Father, and Antiwoman the Antimother under the Son of Man. Hence both Man the Father and the Son of Man come to pass in consequence of a rejection of their sensual counterparts, Antiman the Antifather and the Antison of Antiman, and not as a result of a resurrection from Woman the Mother (to take but the freely somatic aspect of chemistry). Man is the rejection of Antiman, whose existence under Woman keeps him pegged to the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass in typically mass Catholic fashion. But that is all that this type of Christ is. It is not godly. It is manly. And it comes to pass at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as a puritanical postulate that establishes humanism as the physical alternative to antihumanism and, by subordinate gender implication, antinonconformism as the antichemical alternative to nonconformism, using that term as synonymous with the chemical hegemony of feminine females over antimasculine males in antiphysics. But where, then, does the Son of God arise from? Certainly not Woman the Mother! The genuine Son of God must follow as a consequence of the coming to pass in metaphysics of God the Father as a sensible rejection of noumenal sensuality or, more correctly, noumenal antisensibility in antimetaphysics and, thus, of Antigod the Antifather. This sensible rejection of Antigod the Antifather paves the way for God the Father no less than the rejection of the somatic corollary of such a manifestation of Antigod, viz. the Antison of Antigod, paves the way for the Son of God, both of which male positions in metaphysics appertain to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as a noumenal antithesis to that which, in antimetaphysics, can only exist under metachemistry at its northwest point. But such metachemistry is equivalent to Devil the Mother in free soma and to the Daughter of the Devil in bound psyche. Therefore no less than Man comes to pass as a rejection of Antiman, so God comes to pass as a rejection of Antigod, of the antigodly modes, in psyche and soma, of the Antichrist, and in so doing he establishes the Antidevil under him as the antimetachemical rejection, in effect, of the Devil, i.e. Devil the Mother and the Daughter of the Devil. Thus it is logically incontestable that God does not arise from Devil the Mother, still less from Woman the Mother, but in consequence of a rejection, in noumenal sensibility, of all that is antigodly and beholden, as ‘fall guy’, to a metachemical hegemony rooted, somatically, in Devil the Mother. Antigodliness, no less than antimanliness in relation to Woman, has intimate associations with devilishness, with whom it is somatically and psychically aligned at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. Godliness, by contrast, only comes to pass on the basis of a rejection of such intimacy from a standpoint no less noumenal but profoundly sensible. The sensible ‘high’, or noumenal, remain antithetical to the sensual ‘high’, to speak more generally, no less than the sensible ‘low’, or phenomenal, are antithetical to the sensual ‘low’. The male ‘high’ do not arise from the antimale ‘low’ but are effectively high, if on antisensible terms, to begin with … before their conversion to sensibility and hegemonic independence of anything female. The only way that, in general terms, the ‘high’ can emerge from the ‘low’ in the future, in our hypothetical context of ‘Kingdom Come’ premised upon a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, will be in consequence of the transfiguration or transmutation of the ‘low’, cyborg-wise, as from the southwest to the northeast points of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. But that will be in consequence of those who are already metaphysically and antimetachemically high, in noumenal sensibility and noumenal antisensuality, being able to impact upon them and deliver them from their lowly plight. It will not be a natural transformation from phenomenal antisensibility and sensuality to noumenal sensibility and antisensuality, as though in a more gender representative paradigm of the Christian resurrection, but one that transpires, if ever it does, in relation to a combination of factors stemming from the ‘above’, not least of a substance and technological order. For there will already be, on provisional terms, godly and antidevilish elements in situ to effect the overall transformation of the antimanly and womanly elements, or their pseudo counterparts (to speak in contemporary, post-worldly terms), to a standing that will eventually be more genuinely godly and antidevilish in relation to both metaphysical and antimetachemical praxis taking place in increasingly communal settings germane to the wavicle cohesiveness of noumenal absolutism. Thus, with this in mind, it could be said that godliness ultimately emerges out of antimanliness and antidevilishness out of womanliness, but not without the provisional godliness and antidevilishness of those who were already noumenally high being instrumental in effecting such a mass transformation. And they spring, as was said above, from a rejection of antigodliness and devilishness, not from the ‘below’. The ‘high’ remain high and the ‘low’ remain low until such time as the former are in a position to effect the transfiguration of the latter in what becomes an artificial resurrection of the Many into the One or, when gender differentials are also taken into account, the Few. Not even the Son of God arises from Woman the Mother, the so-called ‘Mother of God’, but in consequence of the prior existence of God the Father as metaphysical psyche preceding metaphysical soma, the basis of male reality. The Son of God is certainly an extrapolation, though not directly, from Devil the Mother (hyped as God), just as the Son of Man is an indirect extrapolation, through rejection, from Woman the Mother (hyped as holy, if not as godly). But that is merely to posit one type or another of son-like fulcrum at the expense of a so-called Father (Creator) of Middle Eastern precedence, which is both the achievement and limitation of the Christian West. Unfortunately for Western civilization, the true Son of God does not stem, indirectly, from Devil the Mother hyped as Father, but in consequence of a godly individual whose psychic freedom puts him at loggerheads with Devil the Mother and leads him to repudiate the antigodly Antichrist, her antimetaphysical offspring, so to speak. The Son of God who is cart after horse in metaphysics requires the precedence of the metaphysical Father in order that he may implement, from the standpoint of state soma, the church psyche which is his Word and moral directive. Therefore the people, if they elect for religious sovereignty, become, by degrees, even more metaphysical and, for females, antimetachemical on both psychic and somatic terms, as God and the Antidevil really get properly up and running on terms quite independent of the initial leadership, though owing everything to it. For without the initial Father and Son of metaphysical independence of metachemistry, and hence of Devil the Mother/the Daughter of the Devil, there can be no New Order, corresponding to ‘Kingdom Come’, in which metaphysics and antimetachemistry will be more fully and practically realized thereafter, as the people come on board. Provisional godliness and antidevilishness paves the way for the bona fide modes of God and Antidevil to come when the people have been transmuted up from their lowly state by those who have appointed themselves to lead them. For without this leadership, nothing can or will be achieved by the people that would even remotely resemble ‘Kingdom Come’.