76.
Eventually, as these and other such texts should confirm, I succeeded, and that
is why today, after several decades' philosophical struggle, I am a Social
Theocrat and not either a Catholic (though officially I guess I would still
qualify through things like my christening certificate) or a Protestant, but an
advocate of what I take to be an ultimate religion capable of superseding - and
on the basis of its truth entitled to transcend - Christianity, not to mention
every other so-called world religion which currently exists.
77. I
would not admit to being, in Irish sectarian fashion, a Christian, either
Catholic or Protestant, but that does not make me a Jew, a Judaist, still less
a Hindu or Buddhist or Moslem, or whatever. I am, to repeat, a
self-styled Social Transcendentalist, and that means that I reject all worldly
and netherworldly religions in favour of this
ultimate otherworldly religion which stretches, or would have the capacity to
stretch, beyond mankind, and therefore towards and into a godlike ideality premised upon the extension of synthetic
artificiality, as especially germane to the urban proletariat, to ever-more
sensible levels of cyborgization capable of doing
more justice to truth and joy than anything godly/heavenly in the past, even up
to and including the transcendental meditation of Buddhists and Buddhist-like
cults.
78.
Just as Social Transcendentalism is beyond Christianity, meaning principally
Catholicism in one form or another, so it is beyond Buddhism, not to mention
Islam; for it is the ultimate theocracy, the freest of theocracies, and one
which is therefore intended to pave the way to global unity in the utmost
universality - a universality of metaphysical sensibility which would be as far
removed from anything cosmic as it is possible to imagine.
79.
For the cosmic is chiefly typified by the polyversal
subversion of universality in relation to Devil the Mother; the natural by the
impersonal subversion of universality in relation to Woman the Mother; and the
human by the personal subversion of universality in relation to Man the Father
(not to mention the Son of Man when soma displaces psyche, as it more often
does in the Son-centred fatality of Christianity). Only the universal,
which ultimately requires a cyborg precondition, is
capable of universality in relation to God the Father to an extent that is not
compromised by human or natural or cosmic factors, but is effectively per se
and thus definitive.
80.
And God the Father, in sensibly metaphysical ego, exists to be redeemed by
Heaven the Holy Soul, in sensibly metaphysical soul, as truth by joy, which is
equivalent to the form of the brain stem being eclipsed, in a heaven of timeless
bliss, by the contentment of the spinal cord, the like of which would not
happen without recourse to the Son of God, in sensibly metaphysical will or,
rather, antiwill, and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, in
sensibly metaphysical spirit or, rather, antispirit,
the subjective antidoing and antigiving
of which panders, in respiratory fashion, to the recoil of taking from the
threat of self-annihilation on the wings of exhalation to the self more
profoundly in the being of soul, the true end of life for the metaphysically
aware, with specific reference to males of a noumenally
subjective and therefore effectively upper-class disposition.
81.
This in itself automatically puts one beyond worldly relativity and the more or
less amoral fudging of religion in terms of a reluctance to be gender specific
and gender conscious. There is nothing liberal and androgynous about it,
and what I alluded to above in connection with a TM-like procedure, a genuinely
religious devotion involving the lungs and breath of transcendental meditation,
would apply to an even greater extent in relation to the synthetic
artificiality of 'Kingdom Come', when other than natural somatic factors would
have to be developed to allow the self, the brain stem and spinal cord, to
achieve its maximum self-realization and soulful redemption, and ultimately to
be given the sort of indefinite support not characteristic of the mortality of
the flesh.
82.
But the worldly shy away from gender consciousness in respect of hegemonic male
criteria as they shy away from religion, castigating the former as male
chauvinism and the latter as fanaticism and superstition. Little do they
realize the extents to which a failure to uphold a male hegemonic context both
in the interests of genuine religion and as a consequence of genuine religion
makes for the sorts of sensually-based vicious/immoral negativities which
plague modern life to such a barbarous/philistine extent, making it almost
inconceivable that anyone with enough self-respect and religious sympathy to be
sensitive to such a predicament could possibly remain unaware of its baleful
influences and therefore impartial to its negative consequences.
83.
Doubtless my own experiences in England have conditioned me, over many years,
to keep my distance as much as possible from the sorts of people and contexts
likely to prevail upon one to abandon reason and sell-out to the
Devil-worshipping and/or woman-worshipping promiscuity of contemporary
secularity, in which somatic freedom under female hegemonies is more or less
taken for granted, with the psyche firmly placed under wraps.
84.
To some extent my ethnicity as an Irishman of Catholic descent has precluded me
from achieving the kind of worldly success that falls to the more superficial
and coarser minds; for it cannot be denied that anyone who writes from a
genuinely philosophical standpoint in favour of greater theocratic freedom will
not be representative of mainstream British writing but, rather, a sort of
ethnic outsider who is likely to have his work spurned by the more
democratically-minded editorial representatives of the civilization in
question, a civilization that, with liberated females and feminized males in
positions of editorial responsibility, has long fought shy of theocracy, and
thus of the possibility of truth and godliness, in defence of its own
autocratic-democratic axis and racial mean, one, as was noted above, more
typified by Anglo-Saxons than by Celts, in which freedom, to the extent that it
is countenanced, necessarily has to take a democratic turn in conjunction with
a plutocratic disposition.
85.
Unfortunately, despite my considerable talent for philosophy, as for truth and
its general ramifications, I have never been encouraged to write and/or pursue
a literary vocation in England, nor granted any sort of intellectual
recognition whatsoever, but been studiously ignored and rejected by the
defenders, for the most part female these days, of democratic values. So
I am in the quite unique position, for a radical self-taught intellectual, of
having completed a large literary oeuvre which, by any objectively
fair evaluation, would tower above most if not all philosophical writings
to-date, but which, because it is unrepresentative of British values, would
simply be perceived as an Irish-type subversive threat to the status quo and
therefore as something to reject from an Anglo-Saxon standpoint as, quite
frankly, irrelevant and potentially disruptive.
86.
Thus instead of living in the country of a people open to truth and the
sensible pursuit of higher values, one finds oneself being ethnically
discriminated against by a people that are closed to truth - even though they
may proclaim otherwise for the benefit of the international community and to
salve what remains of their consciences - and only interested in protecting or
advancing the sorts of lowland values which culminate in democratic freedom,
albeit of a relative and therefore strictly worldly order which pays attention,
for the most part rather cynically, to aristocratic tradition and the
power-oriented values of autocracy.
87.
This people do not care a fig for theocratic liberation, for they were never
theocratic enough in the first place, never subject to the bureaucratic
subversion of theocracy through 'Mother Church' but only - Catholic minorities
excepted - to the autocratic subversion of democracy through what they would
probably call 'Father State', though I would not hesitate to equate that with a
worse kind of 'Mother' than anything properly germane to the Roman Catholic
Church!
88.
Be that as it may, such autocratic subversion of false, or Anglican,
theocracy through the Monarchy and such democratic subversion of false, or
Puritan, theocracy through the Parliament ensured that the State remained both
genuinely (if partially) autocratic, even with a Constitutional Monarch, and
genuinely (if partially) democratic, through a free parliament, with scant
place, in consequence, for any prospect of genuine theocracy, never mind its
subversion under the bureaucratic aegis of 'Mother Church'.
89.
Therefore anyone who preaches church freedom in Britain is as unrepresentative
of the English people in general as an advocate of state freedom would be of
the generality of Irish people in Catholic Ireland, where the bureaucratic subversion
of theocracy by the Catholic Church ensures that there is scant room or call
for the subversion of democracy by autocracy and no place, in consequence, for
anything resembling a genuine State, with state freedom of either a somatic or,
in the case of parliament, a psychic bias. On the contrary, the State
will be subordinate to the Church; for it is not a falling
autocratic-democratic axis that typifies the Celtic Irish people of the
90.
Their freedom concerns can only be theocratic, and it is because of their
racial and cultural superiority to the Anglo-Saxon, in this respect, that they
require independence from outside meddling of an English or British kind.
For just as the English Establishment, whether literary or otherwise, will
reject theocratic subversion or, rather, inversion of their democratic sensibilities
from a Celtic standpoint, not least when the Celt happens also to be Irish and
therefore Catholic or, in my case, professedly Social Theocratic, so the Irish
Establishment should, in the interests of cultural hygiene premised upon
a certain racial foundation, in their case Celtic, reject democratic inversion
of their theocratic sensibilities from an Anglo-Saxon standpoint, not least
when the Anglo-Saxon also happens to be English and therefore Protestant or, in
some cases, Social Democratic.
91. But
that they should reject the more freely theocratic work and advice of someone
who, through no fault of his own, was taken into English exile as a young boy,
would, even if he were not avowedly Celtic and of Catholic descent, be nothing
short of disgraceful and a mark of the most unreasoning stupidity! I do
not say that they will rush into its arms, since there are all sorts of fools
and confusions at large these days which entitle even the most curiously
optimistic to be wary, but I would certainly expect better from them than I
have received at the hands of the British, with a philosophy that in the
exacting comprehensiveness of its thematic structures is arguably
second-to-none and still, at the time of writing, completely unknown!
92. I
think the reasons for that have been sufficiently dealt with, though I could
add a certain want of commercial viability in view of the profounder scope of
my work, coupled to a disadvantaged background which ill-qualified me as
attractive prey for the publishing predators to latch-on to the way they snap
up persons with even comparatively shallow and vulgar minds who, having had the
benefit of settled homes and, thanks of parental financing, gone to the 'right'
schools or colleges, happened to secure the sorts of high-profile jobs or
positions in the media or elsewhere which subsequently attract publishers
anxious to cash-in on their fame or public standing when they eventually turn
to writing with the confidence, moreover, that with all the money spent
on their education they have an almost 'divine right' to publication and
recognition.
93.
Frankly, I can conceive of a literary canon taking shape for future generations
which has no reference to intrinsic excellence at all but, rather, follows from
such commercial viability and success as their authors managed to achieve
during the course of a rip-roaring literary career. Perhaps some if not
many of the 'greats' of the past were of a similar ilk, not intrinsically great
at all but simply well-set up gentlemen - and even ladies - whose shallowness
of mind was all the more attractive to publishers in view of its association
with a track-record of public notoriety or fame?
94.
Frankly, I don't wish to enter into such unsavoury realms of speculation!
But I can conceive of instances of that sort of thing which have since
multiplied to an alarming extent, and will probably carry-on multiplying if
markets remain dogmatically free of moral scruples and publishers are able to
exploit their more gullible and vulgar authors in the interests of a
substantial profit.
95.
But that is really what these democratic types are all about; for democracy
exists, remember, in conjunction with plutocracy, and plutocrats are there to
make money, come what may, by whatever means are deemed most efficacious and on
the pragmatic basis of what sells must be best, irrespective of its probable
want of intrinsic value. In point of fact, any intrinsic value a work -
say, a literary work - may have is soon compromised by the extrinsic value
attaching to it as a commercial product, so that its value to the businessman
rests primarily on how well it sells rather than what it is in itself.
96.
So many units sold is the mark of success from a capitalist standpoint, and
therefore it stands to reason that only works which are likely to sell well in
the first place will be published, not least in terms of fiction, with
particular reference to novels, which are the form of literature par
excellence most according with a democratic/plutocratic mean, the
voluminously physical literature of a democratic age or society which is
commercially best-served, it would appear, in a standard book-like format.
97.
When Christ said, or is reputed to have said, that it was easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the 'Kingdom of
Heaven' he was only confirming what every wise or holy man knows to be the case
- that economic wealth and religious health are incompatible, as incompatible
as, say, democratic freedom and theocratic freedom, or fiction and truth, or
literature and philosophy, or man and God, or books and ... discs.
98.
When your god is economics, or rather the wealth accruing to a plutocratic
disposition within the context of democratic freedom, then there can be no room
for God as such, but only the subversion of God, in time-honoured Western vein,
by man, so that fiction is passed of as truth or, failing that, only a rather
essayistic and therefore 'bovaryized' approach
to philosophy is countenanced as philosophy, and genuine philosophy, which can
only be aphoristic in respect of the noumenal
heights, is either regarded as being beyond the Western pale or not credited
with any existence or reality at all (like certain Irishmen in Britain of a profounder
stamp)!
99.
But of course that is only from a phenomenally physical - one might
almost say a Lockean - standpoint, not in relation to
metaphysics, and so whilst it is possible for genuine philosophy to exist and
to achieve something approximating to truth in a higher sense than mere
knowledge would allow, it is not possible for it to exist in relation to the
sorts of God-excluding societies which make man the measure of all things and
ensure that anything that poses for or passes as truth is given a physical
presentation and not allowed or encouraged to be true to itself in properly
metaphysical terms.
100.
Thus what is published in book form as truth is, in reality, most unlikely to
be metaphysically true, but simply some hyped knowledge or even ignorance
designed to pass muster as truth for a civilization which, in its democratic
instincts, makes it its business to reject actual truth and exclude it as
something either fancifully irrelevant or potentially subversive to its own
integrity, which is far better served, in fundamentally female fashion, by fact
and the hyping of fact as truth in typically empirical vein.
