PARADOX OF SUCCESS

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.

BODY-MIND SYMBIOSIS VIS-A-VIS MIND-BODY SYMBIOSIS

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.

STARS AND CROSSES

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.

OBJECTION TO WORLDLY (Western) RELIGION

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!

AGE OF SCREEN ADDICTION

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?

NOT 'AU FAIT' WITH 'LADIES AND GENTLEMEN'

‘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.

WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE/ARE NOT AND HAVE/HAVE NOT IN AXIAL PERSPECTIVE

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.