An Examination of Faithfulness and Faithlessness. Christ claimed to have brought a sword to cleave the faithless from the faithful, the sheep from the goats, the chaff from the wheat, etc., etc., and it would seem that I can claim, with or without the benefit of a metaphorical sword, to have done likewise, specifically in relation to the metaphysical and the antimetachemical at the northeast point of our by-now well-established intercardinal axial compass, the former divine male and the latter antidiabolic female or, more correctly, antidiabolic antifemale, which puts them in the position of the Antidevil under God or, as I have elsewhere described it, Anti-Yin under Yang, Anti-Vanity Fair under the Celestial City, Anti-Infinity under Eternity, and so on. Clearly, this distinction between the metaphysically Saved and the antimetachemically Counter-Damned is equivalent to the Faithful and, if not to the Faithless then, in this instance, to the Anti-Faithless, since those who are antimetachemical can at least be expected to defer to the unequivocal hegemony of the metaphysical, and therefore to stand in a diametrically antithetical position to those who, ever faithless, rule over what could be called the Anti-Faithful, the antimetaphysical ‘fall guys’ for diabolic denigration from the unequivocal hegemony of Devil the Mother hyped as God in metachemistry. But what, you may wonder, constitutes the distinction between being faithful and being faithless? The answer is relatively straightforward. Those who are faithful, being male, are faithful to the eternity of godliness, to the possibility and, indeed, desirability if not actuality of Eternal Life from the standpoint of repetitive time, whereas those, on the contrary, who are faithless have no such aspirations or ambitions but, being female, are motivated by criteria stemming from the infinity of spatial space in what can be called Infinite Death. Therefore the absolute alpha and omega of things is Infinite Death on the one hand, and Eternal Life on the other hand. And consequently that which appertains, in antimetaphysics, to anti-faithfulness is anti-eternal life, whereas that which appertains, in antimetachemistry, to anti-faithlessness is anti-infinite death. The Anti-Faithful are no less the victims of anti-eternity under the rule of Infinity … than the Anti-Faithless the victims of anti-infinity under the rule or, rather, lead of Eternity. There stands the great gender-conditioned alpha/anti-omega and omega/anti-alpha antithesis between those at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass who are of the Devil and Antigod, viz. metachemistry and antimetaphysics, and those, by contrast, who, to the northeast of the said compass, are of God and the Antidevil, viz. metaphysics and antimetachemistry. The one category effectively excludes the other, since the one category can only triumph over the world at the expense of the other. So the Faithful have to be cleaved from the Anti-Faithless in the metaphysical/antimetachemical dichotomy between Eternity and Anti-Infinity, repetitive time and spaced space. For that which appertains, in metaphysics, to Eternal Life can only reign hegemonically if it is accompanied by that which, in antimetachemistry, appertains to Anti-Infinite Death, the antidiabolic antifemale whose existence is premised upon the prior hegemonic sway, in metaphysical sensibility, of the divine male. Death and Life, faithlessness and faithfulness, Infinity and Eternity, the overall alpha and omega of things which struggle, across the gender divide, for either primacy or supremacy, the primacy of the Faithless over the Anti-Faithful, of Infinite Death over Anti-Eternal Life or, antithetical to this, the supremacy of the Faithful over the Anti-Faithless, of Eternal Life over Anti-Infinite Death. But life itself derives from Infinity, just as death precedes Eternity. This, however, is on the phenomenal planes of volume and mass or, more correctly, volume/antimass in sensuality and mass/antivolume in sensibility. For life, in that sense, is subject to death, since all that is born of woman must die, whether to inherit Eternity or Anti-Infinity or, indeed, Infinity or Anti-Eternity. Such, at any rate, is how it stands for mankind, and thus in relation to the antithetical or complementary fates awaiting those whose death is the prelude to either an Afterlife or an Anti-Afterdeath, not to mention, in sensuality, to an Afterdeath or an Anti-Afterlife. For we cannot suppose that, even on this basis of phenomenal death, everyone is oriented to the same fate – say, to afterlife experience. There is a male/female distinction between the Afterlife and the Anti-Afterdeath, as between Eternity and Anti-Infinity, but there is also a female/male distinction between afterdeath experience and anti-afterlife experience, the former corresponding to Infinity and the latter to Anti-Eternity. Thus as one had lived (or died), whether in sensuality or in sensibility, under the ruling shadow of metachemistry/antimetaphysics or, alternatively, under the guiding light of metaphysics/antimetachemistry, so shall one live (or die) again, whether from the standpoints of chemistry/antiphysics at the southwest point of our intercardinal axial compass or from those of physics/antichemistry at its southeast. Death, in the general sense, is a prelude to one of a number of fates, and it is of no coincidence that the disposal of the deceased often mirrors this fact, whether in relation to cremation or to burial. For cremation is more to be associated with afterdeath (female) and anti-afterlife (male) experiences than would be burial in conventional Christian fashion, which suggests the likelihood of afterlife (male) and anti-afterdeath (female) experiences, depending on the overall lifestyles of the departed. Again, the above generalized distinctions between male and female could be subdivided more clinically into female/antimale and male/antifemale alternatives, since that which is female lives under the shadow of death even as it gives life to the male and, subsequently, his posthumous predilection towards either life or, if foolishly sensual, antilife. Hence, in overall terms, we can speak of life out of Death and death as a prelude to Life, but with due gender distinctions between the dead to ego and soul, to psyche, who are also alive to will and spirit, to soma, and the dead to will and spirit, to soma, who may also be alive to ego and soul, to psyche. But that posits a female/male dichotomy in the broader sense, and, as alluded to above, one must also allow, as the evidence suggests, for female/antimale and male/antifemale distinctions, the former pairing of which, ever sensual, will be alive to will and spirit and dead to soul and ego, the latter pairing of which, ever sensible, will be alive to ego and soul and dead to spirit and will, the antimales of the one context being more dead to soul and ego than alive, like their female counterparts, to will and spirit; the antifemales of the other context being more dead to spirit and will than alive, like their male counterparts, to ego and soul. For the one gender only triumphs over the other on the basis of the upending and confounding of its gender opposite, whether in sensuality (where the male as antimale is, strictly speaking, antisensible) or in sensibility (where the female as antifemale is, strictly speaking, antisensual). Antisensibility under a female sensual hegemony is equivalent to antilife under death, antipsyche under soma, antilight under darkness, while antisensuality under a male sensible hegemony is equivalent to antideath under life, antisoma under psyche, antidarkness under light. Small wonder that the posthumous fates of each gender, quite apart from their sensual or sensible predestinations, are so different, if complementarily so, in each case. There is no such thing as a female afterlife. Afterlife experience is solely male, whether in positive (sensible) terms or, in consequence of gender subservience to a female hegemony, in negative (antisensible) terms. Females, by contrast, can only experience afterdeath, whether in positive (sensual) terms or, in consequence of gender subservience to a male hegemony, in negative (antisensual) terms. That which was the ‘lady with the lamp’, whether or not though especially when also blonde, is not fated to experience an Afterlife, and even what could be called ‘the antilady with the antilamp’ of bound soma, of antispirit and antiwill, will only experience an Anti-Afterdeath, in keeping with her subordination to male hegemonic values in sensibility. Yet such ‘temporal’ afterlives and anti-afterdeaths, stemming from human life and, ultimately, death, should not be confounded with the properly eternal afterlives and anti-afterdeaths that lie potentially in store for humanity in the supra-human future … should ‘Kingdom Come’ actually come to pass on the back of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a series of paradoxical elections in various countries, and steps duly be taken, by the then-responsible authorities, to implement, gradually and methodically, the cyborgization of that proportion of humankind who had democratically opted for godliness and antidevilishness, for salvation from pseudo-antimanliness to godliness and counter-damnation to antidevilishness from pseudo-womanliness, in relation to their pro-psychic and anti-somatic rights, with ego being synthetically enhanced primarily in the male population (primary church-hegemonic criteria) in proportion as spirit was curtailed to antispirit in the female (antifemale) population (secondary state-subordinate criteria) and, later on, when cyborgization was sufficiently advanced to permit of it and other changes in society overall had also taken place, with soul being synthetically enhanced primarily in the male population (primary church-hegemonic criteria) in proportion as will was curtailed to antiwill in the female (antifemale) population (secondary state-subordinate criteria), the secondary levels of church hegemony having antifemale and the primary levels of state subordination male correlations respectively. But that is to anticipate a future outcome to society which is far beyond anything now existing and therefore dependent on the resolve, as it were, of certain higher individuals to help bring it to pass in decades or centuries to come. In the meantime, people will continue to die and to experience one of a number of alternative afterlife or afterdeath, anti-afterlife or anti-afterdeath fates, as they deserve. Even now a dichotomy between the faithful and the faithless exists which is symptomatic of the distinction between life and death, psyche and soma, light and darkness, Christian and Heathen, and such a dichotomy, amounting to an antithesis between sensuality and sensibility, has its axial and ethnic implications, for better or worse. Time alone will determine whether Eternity triumphs over Anti-Infinity at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass or whether, in all-too-contemporary vein, Infinity continues to ride roughshod over Anti-Eternity at the northwest point of the said compass, constraining the alpha and anti-omega world to its exemplification of somatic licence and dark denial of psychic enlightenment, while the omega and anti-alpha world continues to finance it from an axially antithetical standpoint rooted in humanism.