Another Look at Freedom. French republicanism paved the way for the concept of freedom we are still living under today, a concept based not in free psyche and bound soma but, contrary to male values, in free soma and bound psyche. Everything that is adjudged free today is basically reducible to somatic freedom and, hence, to the dominance of society by its female elements, whether in terms of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, diabolic females over antidivine males or, rather, antimales, or in terms of chemistry over antiphysics, feminine females over antimasculine antimales, the antimale elements in each case being such vis-à-vis their female counterparts and thus reducible to either antisons or antifathers in what could more generally be equated with antichrists. For the antichrist-type of antimale, whether noumenally antigodly or phenomenally antimanly, is an antison and/or antifather (but more antison in free soma than antifather in bound psyche, as a rule) of a bitch, and thus an antichrist of either Devil the Mother/the Daughter of the Devil or Woman the Mother/the Daughter of Woman, depending whether noumenal or phenomenal criteria are at issue. And yet just as Devil the Mother, to take the more prevalent and representative female attribute … of free soma, is hyped as ‘God the Father’ and Woman the Mother, likewise taking the more representative female attribute, is hyped as ‘Mother of God’, meaning the Son of God or, as some prefer, God the Son, so the antisons and/or antifathers of Antigod and the antisons and/or antifathers of Antiman are either hyped as Son or just not recognized for the antichristic creatures they manifestly are. In fact, once we have dismissed terms like ‘sonofabitch’ as exemplifying the former, whether consciously or unconsciously, we can see that the isolation of the concept Antichrist from a female ‘first mover’ holding hegemonic sway over it tends to play into the hands of the latter, insofar as all responsibility for the antichristic existence is then attributed to male wilfulness and rebellion against Christ rather than conceived in relation to female domination as the root motivation, in hegemonic sensuality, of antichristic behaviour. Therefore the antichristic male is not necessarily understood as existing in relation to a mother, whether diabolic or feminine, but taken to be a perversity of religion with specific reference to Christ. And yet how the facts belie this assumption! Those who have rejected Christ, whether in manly or godly vein, have actually done so, as a rule, under female hegemonic pressure that stems not from religion but from science, not from sensibility but from sensuality, not from the inner light of psychic freedom but from the outer light of somatic freedom whose psyche, being bound, is dark, that is to say, either criminally acquiescent in the evil of metachemical and/or chemical free soma (I shall forego, here, my usual more pedantic distinction between the genuine and pseudo manifestations thereof) or, if antimale rather than female, sinfully acquiescent in the folly of antimetaphysical and/or antiphysical free soma, and thus unenlightened. Therefore these antichrists, these antimetaphysical and/or antiphysical antimales are precisely what they are because of the hegemonic prevalence of free females, whether as devils in metachemistry or as women in chemistry. They have little or nothing in common with Christ, with man and/or god, because they have not rebelled against the female dominions of noumenal and/or phenomenal objectivity from a contrary subjective standpoint, but have continued, by and large, to exist under the shadow of antisubjective if not outright objective criteria, fighting shy of male independence as they cravenly defer to its female counterpart. And all this ‘liberty leading the people’ makes not for culture and civility but for their sensual opposites, philistinism and barbarity, the sort of philistinism and barbarity with which we are only too familiar as we witness the grovelling of antimales before the all-powerful and all-glorious onslaughts of triumphant females from standpoints that are based not in the self-oriented acceptance of ego and/or soul but in the worship of will and/or spirit and the correlative acceptance of antisoul and/or anti-ego, the very bases of antichristic behaviour. Therefore there is much to be done in this global age to reverse the terms of existence and further the cause of male-hegemonic sensibility, especially in relation to metaphysics and, hence, the triumph of godliness over its female or, rather, antifemale corollary, antidevilishness. Power and glory, notwithstanding the so-called Lord’s Prayer, do not fit with godliness but are contrary to it, as is Devil the Mother hyped as God. Only antipower and antiglory, bound will and spirit in metaphysics, accord with godliness, and then in relation to the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, not in relation to God as such, whose egoistic form is of the kind, unlike man’s, that desires nothing less than to be eclipsed by the blessed contentment of heavenly joy, his ego subsumed into soul in such a manner that all that it stands for, in truth, is vindicated, and Heaven the Holy Soul really is the resolution of God the Father. Therefore unto God … the Father we attribute form and, especially, the prospect of contentment in Heaven the Holy Soul. We leave power and glory to Devil the Mother and Woman the Mother, the one more power than glory, the other more glory than power, since the one is more will than spirit while the other is more spirit than will, as though of water rather than fire. But fire and water are not male elements. Only vegetation (earth) and air, and to air alone belongs the throne of God and Heaven. Therefore we who repudiate power and glory from a standpoint based not in physical but in metaphysical form and contentment also repudiate the female domination of society that characterizes much of what passes for freedom in the West today, whether it stems from the French Revolution or, indeed, from the earlier British revolution which firmed up the axis of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in defiance of everything Catholic and played no small role in giving to America its own brand of female-dominated state-hegemonic/church-subordinate freedom which, modified by criteria deriving from the French Revolution, currently rules the Western roost and is in the forefront of global imperialism. In fact, it is almost a truism, these days, that wherever red, white and blue is paraded, there stands the emblematic exemplification of the female domination of fire and water over vegetation (earth) and air, with few if any national exceptions. But it is precisely that that does not make for civilized maturity but, on the contrary, for a sort of wanton juvenility that fights shy of culture and civility even as it lays claim to them from standpoints rooted in their philistine and barbarous converse. Verily, it will be a long time before truth is aired and granted the sort of encouragement which is reserved for all that is contrary to it as the powerful tradition of Devil the Mother hyped as God … the Father and glorious tradition of Woman the Mother hyped as Mother of God … the Son continues to prevail in the face of all that would deliver males from their antimale repudiation of self to self more completely than in the Christic, man-based past. But the day when the repudiation of antigodliness by the godly and the salvation of the antimanly to godliness comes successively to past is fast approaching, and that will bring in its train the repudiation of devilishness by the antidevilish and the counter-damnation of the womanly to antidevilishness as a matter of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate necessity. Then instead of males psychically enslaved, as antimales, to somatically free females, females will be somatically enslaved, as antifemales, to psychically free males, and the dawn of culture and pseudo-civility on terms appropriate to global civilization will have officially come to pass, to signal the attainment of such a civilization to its universal omega point and antipolyversal anti-alpha point in the utmost metaphysics of divine males and antimetachemistry of antidiabolic antifemales. For the only alternative to the triumph of males over antifemales is the ongoing rule of antimales by females and that, as we have seen and should be only too keenly aware, is the enemy of everything true and beautiful if not beautifully true. Enlightenment stems not from free soma but from free psyche and it is to the advancement of enlightenment on suitably metaphysical terms for males that we should dedicate our efforts in the coming decades and centuries, that females may be brought to the pseudo-justice of divine righteousness and cease to be somatically free. For somatic freedom is not commensurate, believe it or not, with beauty, nor even the beautiful approach to truth that would constitute secondary church-hegemonic criteria from an antifundamentalist antifemale standpoint. Only the somatically bound female is beautiful, and out of this somatic beauty there arises the antifundamentalist free psyche which is the beautiful approach to truth and thus secondary church-hegemonic complement of the truth of transcendentalist free psyche which must forever characterize the primary church-hegemonic egoistic form of God the Father as he launches himself, via the Son and Holy Spirit, into the psychoistic contentment of Heaven the Holy Soul.