Monday, 28 March 2011


Just as the superego tends, in what I like to think of as its brain-stem proximity to the spinal cord of the central nervous system, to be pro-superconscious and thus effectively pro-metaphysical, so the ego, in its brain-centred proximity to the eyes, tends to be pro-supersensuous and thus effectively pro-metachemical, deferring not to soul but to will, not to essence but to appearance, not to truth but to beauty.

With the ego, thoughts are too often conditioned by what is seen rather than by what is felt, and there is no surer way of spotting an egotist than by witnessing the extent to which his thoughts are conditioned by what he sees and, as though to derive a modicum of self-respect from his predilection or, rather, predicament, reinterpreted, usually in the most cynically gross and sarcastic fashion, for the benefit of his ego.

But his ego is a sham, with no real independence of external appearances; for it is not only a poor reflection of himself but, being a focal-point for personal selfhood, an obstacle whereby access to the true self, the Soul, is denied, and precisely because it remains beholden – one might even say loyal – to the Will and merely subject to its empirical rule and arbitrary selectivity.

Without the Will to rule it, as when thought is conditioned by what is seen, the ego would collapse into self-loathing through personal knowledge, and quickly cease to have any value. For the ego, unlike the Soul, is not an end-in-itself, but a means for the Will to rule over what it sees. The close proximity of the brain to the ego or, rather, the reliance of the ego upon the brain ensures that the ego has no real existence of its own independently of empirical knowledge, but is merely a means whereby such knowledge, initially perceptual, may be conceptually interpreted to the satisfaction of the Will.

The axial link between the ego and the Will is what guarantees that the egotist can never be saved (in the metaphysical sense) but must continue to remain enslaved, despite his pretensions to intellectual independence, to the senses in a kind of Faustian pact with the Devil, not Satan, however, but Devil the Mother, who more corresponds to the Creator-esque ‘First Mover’ than to any ‘fall guy for slag’ (denigration), after the fashion of the proverbial ‘red under the bed’.

The egotist is already damned by subservience to that which, as free will, is undamned (but not on that account saved), but can only be damned when that which is governed by spirit has been delivered from its lowly pseudo-egotistical estate to soul, as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and that, correlatively, which is of free spirit has been counter-damned to pseudo-will, as from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, thereby depriving the wilfully metachemical and their pseudo-soulful pseudo-metaphysical underdogs of a captive audience for their manifold exemplifications of somatic licence, without which their ‘race is run’, both physically (economically) and metachemically (scientifically), once and for all, with pseudo-chemical damnable consequences for the metachemical and physical counter-saved consequences for the pseudo-metaphysical – at least temporarily and until the possibility of axial transference to church-hegemonic criteria from what is no longer a viable state-hegemonic axial polarity comes ideologically to pass.

Thus and only thus can the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father be defeated and effectively consigned to the ‘rubbish bin of history’. Until then, the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical will continue to rule over not only the physical/pseudo-chemical of their own axis but, indirectly and across the axial divide, the chemical/pseudo-physical, to the detriment of metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, the detriment, in short, of free soul over bound will or, more correctly (for it only transpires from male hegemonic pressure) bound pseudo-will, the pseudo-will of pseudo-Devil the pseudo-Mother under, as pseudo-space under time at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass on a stepped-up (resurrected) church-hegemonic axis, the free soul of Heaven the Holy Soul, the joyful soul of the superconscious as that which is One with soul, as God is One with Heaven and in no way a separate entity but merely the outer manifestation, so to speak, of Heaven, without which there would no more be any truth (god) than candlelight without a candleflame burning away in self-centred consumption.


Those who foolishly and superficially identify the heart with the Soul are either obliged, accepting that the heart is mortal, to reject any possibility of afterlife experience or, failing to realize the mortality of the heart, persist in identifying it with the Soul even though it fails to meet the criterion of eternity proper to the Soul, irregardless of whether such an ‘eternity’ is more of a permanent condition (of almost cannibalistic self-consumming by the spinal cord in an inner illumination or incandescence) than of indefinite duration due to the inevitability of the ‘petering out’ of the Self, the Soul, the spinal cord, the central nervous system, call it by what name you like, in due process of self-consumption, a process proceeding in tandem with – though eventually overhauled by – the extensive decomposition of one’s mortal remains, so that it could be said that the ‘inner light’ is fated to be smothered or overhauled by the darkness of its own negation.

But if this is the afterlife ‘in naturalis’ or, rather, ‘supernaturalis’, which those fated for burial rather than cremation are more likely to experience, particularly in the case of males, then it still leaves much to be desired from the standpoint of durational eternity, which, as I teach, can only transpire in the event of ‘man’s overcoming’ through substance-motivated (communal) cyborgization – such that, within the context of ‘Kingdom Come’, would preclude death and, hence, the need for birth through reproduction, allowing life to continue indefinitely on a basis parallel to that of what has been described above without risk of its ‘fizzling or petering out’, but with a controlling element that allows it to be switched on and off according to convenience.

Tuesday, 15 March 2011


It has been said, and by no less a luminary than Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that ‘man is born free’ … but that, I have to say, without wishing to drag in the rest of the quote, is manifestly untrue. The newborn child remains umbilically tied to its mother and, even after severance, remains directly dependent on her for several months and even years. One is not born free; one is born into maternal slavery, or dependence on one’s mother, and only gradually becomes free or, at any rate, freer, eventually going one’s separate way as a young adult individual who may or may not end up ‘in chains’ to a particular woman, having passed through sexual freedom or experimentation en route to familial responsibility and accountability, only to glory in the sight of somebody else – namely one’s offspring – even more enslaved than oneself.


Anti-Semitism is not natural, one might say, to the British; they remain axially aligned with Jews both ‘on high’, Judaically, and ‘down below’, Bolshevistically (or what used to be such prior to a number of transmutations, including radical Social Democracy), that is, to Jews behind Anglican Monarchism and beyond Puritan Parliamentarianism, so that they could be described as being (or of having been) flanked by more extreme manifestations, up and down the axis, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, even, in radical Social Democracy, to a near-absolute degree.

In contrast to the Americans, however, the British would traditionally have been more drawn to Bolshevism than to Judaism, given the contrast of political emphasis with America which, in Britain, focuses on ‘the below’ rather than ‘the above’, the sensible/pseudo-sensual phenomenal as opposed to the sensual/pseudo-sensible noumenal, that is, physics/pseudo-chemistry as against metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, so that, to give a sporting analogy, the British favour association football rather than rugby football, whereas the Americans favour American football (their kind of rugby equivalent) to soccer.

Sunday, 13 March 2011


Woman – symbol of man’s shame.


Few would deny that classical music is a whole lot finer – and more subjective – than rock, despite its depressingly state-hegemonic orientation whenever dominated by either strings or brass if not, in many instances, by both, to the detriment of metaphysics (wind). Nonetheless, rock is axially relevant to church-hegemonic criteria, as, in a higher way, is new-age electronica, and therefore not a music that finds its sensible 'fineness' in physics over pseudo-chemistry at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, in a neutron-like acoustic bowing remove from electron-dominated rock strumming/singing. Rock is also a music, despite its innate crudities, that allows the musician to express his feelings directly, not hampered by a score such that, in the classical context, always reflects a neutron-like physical predilection towards knowledge and thus the vitiation if not exclusion of soul as germane not to what is expressed on the printed score but to what resides within independently of outward show.


To be friends with a particular person, you need to have got away from people in general.


God or, as I prefer to say, godliness, is Heaven perceived from the outside, like candlelight from the flame, and the ratio of the one to the other can change, depending on the stage of metaphysical evolution and of one’s relationship to it. But there is no real distinction between God and Heaven, despite appearances to the contrary, since there would be no candlelight without candleflame, no evidence of superconscious joy (truth) without the joy of the superconscious (soul) to begin with. Therefore when we speak of the One ... we mean that metaphysical free psyche is centred in soul (heaven) and that the appearance of this soul from the outside (god) does not differ in any marked way from the soul as experienced within but, rather, confirms its beingful condition as a reflection of joy (truth). Thus God and Heaven, truth and joy, are one and the same superconscious reality - a reality which is noumenally transcendent in its universality and devoid of any physical or personal associations whatsoever.


With an autocracy there is only one ruler – namely the king or king-equivalent, more usually a military dictator. With a democracy, on the other hand, you get a choice of semi-autocratic collectivities called parties, only one of which – barring coalitions – will govern you. The Party elects its own leader, who acts as a kind of party autocrat, hiring and firing as he sees or, rather, thinks fit.


Trust is in what is; faith is in what could be.

Sunday 6th February, 2011 – started to copy some Gary Moore CDs onto my new laptop, having concentrated on other musicians during the previous 6-8 weeks since its purchase. Later on, that evening, heard over the Radio Four News that he had died in a hotel-room in Spain earlier that day. Shocked and amazed. He was my age – 58.

Gary Moore wouldn’t be my favourite guitarist; he wouldn’t even be my favourite singer; but as a leading guitarist who also sang and sometimes sang his heart out, I can think of none better.


To say ‘father’ to a priest is something I could never do, nor want to do. It would put me in the unenviable position of being a ‘son’, but that is merely, in relation to Christianity and, in particular, to Christ, the bound soma (crucifixional paradigm) of metaphysics, a shortfall from the free psyche of the ‘father’ – and more representatively of heavenly soul - in relation to a full complement of metaphysics, who and/or which doesn’t exist in the Western tradition except peripherally and on a surrogate basis in terms of ‘fathers’, i.e. Catholic priests.

But I am the intellectually-bovaryized personification – call it superpersonification – of free psyche, and to a degree beyond the comprehension, I wager, of most if not all priests. I am, in a sense, the ultimate free or, rather, superfree thinker, a veritable ‘philosopher king’ whom it would be difficult if not impossible to surpass. I could never kowtow to priests, whom I despise for being dominated, through the Old Testament, by Creatorism, i.e., by Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father in and as the noumenally objective embodiment of metachemical free will, the very thing that precludes all but a resurrectional straining on the leash towards metaphysics in the crucifixional paradigm of the so-called ‘true Cross’ by what is an extrapolation, in Catholic Christianity, from the Judaic anchor, so to speak, of the Middle East, an extrapolation, moreover, that has to accommodate and, to a degree, transcend ‘the world’ of the mass Catholic position below before approximating – and then imperfectly – to an axial antithesis to the aforementioned ‘Creator’, whose fundamentally somatic basis in metachemistry ensures that the Christ ‘On High’ remains figurative and thus well short of signifying, in male-hegemonic abstraction, anything or, rather, anyone freely psychic and, hence, properly metaphysical.

Hence the Judeo-Christian anachronism vis-a-vis global civilization in its alpha-stemming or formative manifestation, which only the paradoxical exploitation of the democratic process in certain traditionally church-hegemonic countries to a religiously sovereign end will enable us not merely to overhaul but, with the emergence of the Social Theocratic Centre, effectively consign to the ‘rubbish heap of history’, where it will join all those other bovaryized religions rooted in Creatorism that can have no place in ‘Kingdom Come’, a kingdom centred, metaphysically, in Heaven the Holy Soul.

Friday, 11 March 2011


The alpha-oriented and alpha-stemming distinction between decadent bourgeois civilization (Protestant secularism) and proletarian barbarism, the degeneration of Western civilization (in relation, for instance, to female priests or, rather, vicars, ministers, etc.) and the inception of global civilization (in relation, for instance, to feminism), the former of which overhauled, in its inception, the medievalism of Catholic Christianity, the latter of which has still to be overhauled, democratically, by the inception of global civilization-proper in terms of the transcendentalism of Social Theocratic Centrism, the ‘Superchristianity’, as it were, of ‘Kingdom Come’, which presupposes a majority mandate for religious sovereignty conceived as the sovereign ne plus ultra and means whereby not only ‘man’ can be ‘overcome’ but, more importantly, transfigured towards his evolutionary successor, the cyborg, who will be completely beyond what passes for God, i.e. Devil the Mother, in his enhanced metaphysical capacity for Heaven.

Thursday, 10 March 2011


Difficult not to see a connection between the Biblical 666 (Revelations), the so-called ‘number of the beast’, and 1666, the year of the ‘Great Fire of London’, which destroyed most of the city. To me, 1666, even more than 1066, the date of the ‘Battle of Hastings’, was the year par excellence of ‘the beast’, of the fire that ravaged and laid waste the capital of England. It was as though London became the Devil’s plaything on that hellish date.


When everybody does the ‘right thing’ on the Internet, as advocated by the self-appointed 'gurus', few if any will make any money. The bandwagon upon which so many climb will simply sink beneath the weight of success-hungry entrepreneurs, who think not for themselves but according to a set of rules and principles laid down by somebody else – the few who actually make most of the money from exploiting their gullibility.


To contrast the body-mind symbiosis of metachemistry and chemistry with the mind-body symbiosis of physics and metaphysics, as one would contrast the free soma and bound psyche of hegemonic females in metachemistry and chemistry with the free psyche and bound soma of hegemonic males in physics and metaphysics.

The delusion of only a body-mind symbiosis – all too contemporary – derives from the female hegemonies of metachemistry (fire) and chemistry (water), power and glory, wherein the ‘sonofabitch’ pseudo-male is upended in gender subordination from free psyche and bound soma (in physics and metaphysics) to bound psyche and free soma (in pseudo-physics and pseudo-metaphysics) in what would appear to be a pale reflection of the female hegemonic positions. In those particular elemental/pseudo-elemental contexts dominated by females, and hence ‘the star’, there is no place for a mind-body symbiosis, much to the disadvantage of males, whose form and contentment (in physics and metaphysics) takes an unpleasantly pseudo-formal and pseudo-contented nosedive.


The Bolsheviks repeated the Jewish or Judaic religiously scientific position in their combination of hegemonic star and subordinate cross-like emblem (hammer and scythe) which, in Judaism, is a kind of candlestick or candelabrum called a menorah. Both of these false religions, that of cosmos-based religious science and, in the case of the Bolsheviks and their Soviet successors, of Marx-based dialectical materialism, appertain to the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from the northwest (Judaism) to the southeast (Communism) poles of the intercardinal axial compass, extreme poles that in the one case are anterior to Anglican Monarchism and in the other case posterior to Puritan Parliamentarianism, though naturally sharing many values in common with the ‘Protestant’ polarities, which necessarily operate along less extremist lines.

But it would be difficult not to believe that English Protestants, not least, have a tolerance for Jews and even Communists, including radical Social Democrats, that derives from their common axial orientations, since Jews and Bolsheviks are simply more extremist manifestations, as noted above, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, manifestations that can become, as in Soviet Russia, state absolutist, and therefore against any form of religion, no matter how true or false.

In relation to what could be called the Judaic/Bolshevik polar parallelism, however, it needs to be remarked that a noumenal/phenomenal distinction exists between the two positions, or false religions, such that enables us to distinguish the absolute from the relative, not least in respect of the absolute star, or so-called ‘Star of David’ (which I believe to be a misnomer), with its six points deriving from two interlocked triangles, and the relative, or five-pointed star deriving, in its origins, from a lunar rather than a stellar paradigm, such that has more applicability to the corporeal than to the ethereal, and which, like its absolute counterpart ‘upstairs’, represents a female bias towards soma, a bias favouring the body – and hence in this particular case manual labour – at the expense of the mind.

The only ‘good star’, from a Social Theocratic standpoint, will be the contiguously-encircled absolute star (six-pointer) under the free-standing supercross of Y-chromosomal intimation and symbolism, the Saint-like supercross of metaphysics over the neutralized dragon-like pseudo-superstar of pseudo-metachemistry, which will remain forever subordinate as, in representative ratio terms, the pseudo-infinite pseudo-death that ‘lies down’ with or, rather, under Eternal Life – the eternity (in the preponderating ratio factor of free psyche) of metaphysical supremacy. That will be the opposite, in every respect, of Judaism, never mind Bolshevism and its subsequent communistic offshoots.

Tuesday, 8 March 2011


I wouldn’t go anywhere near a Christian Church, to stand in a mixed congregation and listen to the androgynous waffle of world-deferring priests, but I make a distinction, even so, between the celibate priest of the Catholic Church, who at least has some religious credibility and authority, and the priest or, rather, vicar or minister of the Protestant churches, who may well have had sex with his wife (or mistress) only the night before or, at any rate, on a fairly regular basis over a period of years if not decades, producing offspring who only confirm his worldly standing as one who has little or no religious credibility and authority but is effectively a mirror of the world and its family values. I can’t tell you how much I despise such people, some of whom aren’t even male, but the living embodiment of everything that conduces towards the world and the worldly submission of males to a female agenda!


We live in an age of screen addiction, whether to TVs, PCs, mobile phones, DVD-players, hand-held devices, cinema screens, LEDs on electric keyboards, MIDIs, etc., GPR systems, or whatever – you just cannot get away, seemingly, from screens of one type of another. Poor eyes! Poor mind! A lethal addiction? Certainly demonstrative of the female-dominated nature of our times and the pressure to ‘keep up appearances’, not least, it would appear, in relation to spectacles, contact lenses, etc., in order to be able to see or view, clearly and in the greatest detail, whatever is digitally and electronically afoot! No wonder I came up with an alternative system and possible lifestyle to all that! Who that wasn’t an appearance-obsessed bitch or a crazy sonofabitch wouldn’t?

Friday, 4 March 2011


‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ – a definite no-no from a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical standpoint, which is orientated, in religion and pseudo-science, towards race and pseudo-class as opposed, in metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics, to class and pseudo-race, or science and pseudo-religion.

Such a form of address as ‘ladies and gentlemen’ may be appropriate to the metachemical and pseudo-metaphysical but not, assuredly not, to the metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical, who are brothers and sisters or, rather, pseudo-sisters, i.e., the pseudo-angels under the divines, the pseudo-dragons (neutralized dragons) under the saints, the pseudo-lions and/or wolves (neutralized lions and/or wolves) under the lambs, and so on, through equivalent metaphors.

However, now that I have written the above, I can see a counter-argument along the lines that if, in metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, one can have brothers and pseudo-sisters, then surely one can also have sisters and pseudo-brothers in metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics. In fact, what is to preclude one from contending that the terms ‘ladies and gentlemen’ can also be split along such lines, with ladies and pseudo-gentlemen in the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical context and gentlemen and pseudo-ladies in the context axially antithetical to that, wherein the notion of the gentleman saint and the pseudo-lady neutralized dragon (pseudo-dragon) would surely have some applicability?

Be that as it may - and excluding for the moment the irrelevance of class to the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical context - it can certainly be argued that ladies and gentlemen, as an expression, is as cohesively implausible as would be the terms Devil and God, and for the very sound reason that what hangs together at any point of the intercardinal axial compass is less antithetical, as I am contending both the above terms would be, than hegemonic and gender subordinate, in which case the proximity, on different noumenal planes, of Devil and pseudo-God in the one case and of God and pseudo-Devil in the other must have a parallel in the use of such terms as ladies and gentlemen or, for that matter, brothers and sisters.

Yet, in broad terms, I still find it difficult to dismiss the idea that ‘ladies and gentlemen’ has class implications whereas ‘brothers and sisters’ doesn’t, being, if anything, more racially oriented, as in the use of ‘brother’ among large sections of the black or coloured community to distinguish themselves from their white or non-soulful counterparts.


Not Who You Are, nor What You Have. Not even Who You Have, but What You Are – this is what counts from a metaphysical (religious) standpoint.

Just as Who You Are requires a gender subordinate What You Are Not in the class/pseudo-race dichotomy of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, and What You Have a gender subordinate Who You Have Not in the occupation/pseudo-sex dichotomy of physics and pseudo-chemistry on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis stretching from northwest to southeast points on the intercardinal axial compass, so Who You Have requires a gender subordinate What You Have Not in the sex/pseudo-occupation dichotomy of chemistry and pseudo-physics, and What You Are a gender subordinate Who You Are Not in the race/pseudo-class dichotomy of metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis stretching from southwest to northeast points on the intercardinal axial compass.

Science and pseudo-Religion vis-a-vis Economics and pseudo-Politics on the one axis; Politics and pseudo-Economics vis-a-vis Religion and pseudo-Science on the other axis. Or, in more philosophical language, noumenal objectivity and noumenal pseudo-subjectivity vis-a-vis phenomenal subjectivity and phenomenal pseudo-objectivity on the state-hegemonic axis; phenomenal objectivity and phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity vis-a-vis noumenal subjectivity and noumenal pseudo-objectivity on the church-hegemonic axis.


The middle classes are not representatively Irish, any more than are the upper classes. Only the lower classes and their pseudo-middle-class counterparts in public sector service can be adjudged properly Irish – along with the quasi-classless (ethnic torch-bearers) and/or pseudo-upperclass priests, monks, nuns, etc., of the Roman Catholic tradition.

It is of course the lower classes/pseudo-middle classes approximating to chemistry/pseudo-physics at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass who can be saved (pseudo-physical) and counter-damned (chemical) once the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis in countries with the appropriate axial preconditions, like Ireland, has been resurrected on Social Theocratic (superchristian) terms in relation to a full complement of metaphysical and pseudo-metachemical factors, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty (and its pseudo-scientific corollary) from the paradoxical utilization of the democratic process by Social Theocrats with or without (though hopefully with) support from the Catholic Church in the necessity, amongst other things, of avoiding mass-movement associations to the detriment of world-overcoming and transcendental credibility.

For unless the relevant masses are saved and counter-damned, according to gender, they will never be released from the predatory clutches of the other axis, with its state-hegemonic disregard for religious idealism, and, no less importantly, those who appertain to it will never be damned and counter-saved to their respective polarities, pending a general re-alignment of the church-hegemonic axis on terms sympathetic to pluralism under a metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical umbrella that, with centro-complexification (a de Chardinesque term) should allow for long-term totalitarianism as the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical goal of all evolution and counter-devolution in space-centre apotheosis, celestial city-like, ‘On High’.

Thursday, 3 March 2011


What is Social Theocracy? - Social Theocracy is like Judaism the other way around. That is, a kind of Y-chromosomal Supercross over a contiguously-encircled absolute star, significant of pseudo-metachemisty and thus of that which, in soma, is predominantly bound, like a neutralized dragon, lion, wolf, etc. under the proverbial lamb (of godliness) and/or saintly heel of righteousness, this latter of course synonymous with metaphysics and, hence, the hegemonic male position alluded to above whose disposition, in absolute contrast to that of his pseudo-female counterpart, is preponderantly one of free psyche.


Wasn’t it Christ who is reputed to have said: ‘Love thy enemies”?

Frankly, it would have been no less daft had he said: ‘Hate thy friends’!

Loving your enemies would be the surest way of ensuring that you came to hate your friends. And then what would be the point of having any?

Wednesday, 2 March 2011


That which is only there to be looked at – say, a beach or country scene – works as a view. That which has particular uses rarely if ever does. Therefore for a satisfactory desktop photo, to take a single example, one needs to avoid the utilitarian in favour of the purely aesthetic. This necessarily excludes women, for instance, insofar as they may exist, in the mind, as sexual objects and not simply as objects to be contemplated, like a seascape or distant mountain. I accept that one can swim in the sea and climb mountains, but that is not necessarily what one would wish to do the way one might wish to make love to a beautiful woman, assuming one is of a romantic disposition. ]

With a picture or photo of a particular woman there will always be a certain unease in the mind that arises from the general concept of women as being more than objects of contemplation. One cannot contemplate that which is fundamentally utile for long without succumbing to this ambivalence over the aesthetic viability of the object of contemplation, and such ambivalence makes for psychological restlessness and a desire to change objects, which, of course, can continue infinitum if one is lacking insight into the underlying cause of such a desire.


The Irish Republic, rather like the Weimar Republic before it, has become a fucking disgrace – fit only to be condemned to the rubbish bin of history.

I never much liked the Tonean tricolour anyway; it sharply suggests the divide-and-rule policy of perfidious Albion, keeping the Green and Orange Celts apart while feigning unity between the main ethnic traditions – Catholic, Anglican, and Dissenter (puritan). An Anglo-Irish Republic that, as modern history has shown, has been quick to abandon its republican socialist traditions in pursuance of capitalist gain and an effective sell-out to the WASPS. But that is at the roots of its current undoing and ... enslavement to Western and, in particular, European capital.

To me, this Irish Republic is nothing but an interim stage of political ideology between Ireland's colonial past and, hopefully, its theocratically-liberated future.


The Weimar Republic, indubitably a female-dominated species of secular freedom, gave Germany the impetus to restock its population after the horrendous losses of the Great War. A paradoxical prelude to the rebirth of a male-oriented German nationalism and, ultimately, nation, who would follow a single leader rather than continue to be governed by people's representatives or regress to subservience before an autocracy such that, in any case, had plunged Germany into the First World War and subsequent bloodbath. Too bad the leadership was flawed.


A drum solo is the exemplification, purely and simply, of the Will, as an expression of metachemical dominance. It exemplifies the Life Force.

Jazz is the most backward kind of modern music – backward in the sense of exemplifying the Will in an alpha-stemming and/or alpha-oriented predilection towards percussion and … brass, that fiery ‘bovaryization’ of wind suited to a fundamentalist if not materialist disposition.

Jazz, fundamentally, is about space and pseudo-time – spatial pitch and sequential rhythm. That is what makes it materialist/fundamentalist and pseudo-idealist/pseudo-transcendentalist, as though a combination, to varying extents, of metachemistry and pseudo-metaphysics, Will and pseudo-Soul, which appertain to the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what would be the ruling positions of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis.

Jazz-rock, or 'fusion', is an accommodation of Jazz to 'the world' of that which, in rock or rock 'n' roll, properly appertains to the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what would be the deferential positions of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis. It is as though cinema were being accommodated, via film, to television.