ON BRITAIN

 

1.    In relation to the Irish, Scots, and Welsh, the English have always effectively functioned as proton equivalents, holding an atomic U.K. together through domination.  Thus the 'Celtic fringe' is - and has long been - a predominantly electron equivalent.  One might say, to extend the analogy, that the relationship of British imperialism to natives in Empire and Colony was akin to a proton domination of electron slaves.  Freedom for the enslaved is, above all, release from proton domination, and its realization must entail, at some point in time, the development of a free-electron society, a society consciously dedicated to the furtherance of spiritual freedom.

 

2.    If Britain signifies, through its allegiance to a Constitutional Monarchy, an autocratic democracy, then Eire signifies, in its allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church, an autocratic theocracy.  A bourgeois republic, like France, would correspond, by contrast, to a democratic democracy, whilst a People’s republic, like China, may be accounted a bureaucratic democracy.

 

3.    In religion Protestantism signifies a democratic theocracy, whereas Fascism is more akin to an autocratic theocracy.  The only true theocracy, a theocratic theocracy, so to speak, will arise from Social Transcendentalism, as germane to true religion.  Thus for Eire, evolutionary progress must entail a shift from autocratic theocracy to theocratic theocracy.

 

4.    Anyone who defines himself as a theocratic theocrat, i.e. a Social Transcendentalist, should find literature, particularly in its novelistic essence, beneath him, since literature is fundamentally a liberal art-form, scarcely to be countenanced by a theocratic mind!

 

5.    Democracy-proper, akin to literature-proper, is ever a liberal phenomenon.  For a late-stage petty-bourgeois era, essentially post-liberal in character, there are one of two possibilities.  Either democracy can be stepped up, or improved upon, and one gets a system of proportional representation, akin to a magazine short-story in literature, or it can be transcended in a new 'genre', namely the bureaucratic democracy germane to Socialism, a political equivalent to colour film.

 

6.    At present, proportional representation and bureaucratic democracies co-exist.  But there are also liberal and/or autocratic democracies still in existence, political anachronisms corresponding to the literary anachronisms of novels and plays, genres still favoured by many Englishmen, writers and readers alike!  Given these analogies between politics and literature, one is tempted to ascribe more relevance to magazine short-stories within a P.R. democracy than to either novels or colour films.  Likewise one might suppose colour films to have more relevance to a bureaucratic democracy than to either of the other kinds.  But this is purely speculative.

 

7.    From the autocratic kingdom to the democratic state, from the Father to the fleshy side of Christ (Liberalism).  From the democratic church to the theocratic centre, from the spiritual side of Christ (Protestantism) to the Holy Spirit.  Thus civilized evolution may be perceived as progressing from a subatomic proton inception in the Kingdom to a supra-atomic electron consummation in the Centre via an atomic compromise in the balance between state and church.  In other words, a progression from soul to spirit via matter.

 

8.    Matter evolved out of soul, but spirit evolves - and will increasingly evolve - out of matter.  Paganism and Roman Catholicism were alike religions of soul, Protestantism signifying a 'fall' (forwards) into matter, Communism yet another, as a later and in some respects more refined materialism, whereas Fascism signified a reaction, in part, against such materialism in the form of a new spiritual impetus, the inception of a religion of spirit that will develop more absolutely in the guise of Social Transcendentalism, the religion of spirit and, consequently, ultimate world religion.

 

9.    An alternative word for Centre would be 'Saviourdom', an antithesis to 'Kingdom'.  In the former, the dictator leads; in the latter, the monarch rules.  The one as embodiment of the Holy Spirit, the other as embodiment of the Father.  In between, the collectivized institutions of church and state, deriving their collective integrity from the Christian notion of the equality of all souls/spirits and, hence, sovereignty in the mass, the people, with the political concomitant of representation and, so far as the Church is concerned, the religious concomitant of guidance.

 

10.   Just as the first civilizations were beneath fictions and thus given to the propitiation or worship of facts, both cosmic and natural, so the ultimate civilization will be above illusions, and thus given to the comprehension and experience of truth.  Just as the propitiation of natural phenomena preceded the worship and/or propitiation of mythical abstractions (fictions), so the experience of spirit, or superconscious mind, should succeed the acknowledgement of such contemporary illusions (scientific abstractions) as the curved-space theory and the notion of an expanding (cosmic) universe.

 

11.   Distinctions between cosmic and/or natural facts and mythical fictions on the one hand, and between spiritual truth and scientific illusions on the other, are only relevant to a relative civilization, not to an absolute one; the same of course applying to those theological abstractions - a cross between the mythical fiction and the scientific illusion - to be found in quintessentially dualistic and, hence, atomic civilizations, such as the Christian.

 

12.   Hitherto civilization has never been entirely civilized but, except in the earliest absolute examples, a combination, to varying extents, of the civilized and the barbarous.  If the earliest civilizations were, in their stoical integrity, a kind of controlled or regulated barbarism, then the relative civilizations, including the Christian, signified a distinction between a civilized elite and a barbarous populace, a distinction still applying where petty-bourgeois civilization, with its transcendental bias, is concerned.  The development of a truly civilized civilization, embracing the vast majority of people, has yet to come about.  But it will only do so, it seems to me, on Social Transcendentalist terms, as the masses are led (from above) towards the highest cultural and religious allegiance.

 

13.   Even Communism, which is fundamentally a petty-bourgeois ideology on the side of the People, cannot create a truly civilized civilization, since, despite its commitment to the proletariat, it makes no provision for the highest culture and religion but tends, on the contrary, to represent the People on their own necessarily barbarous terms, in accordance with its democratic bias.  No ultimate civilization can be established on the basis of representative leadership!  It requires the utmost theocratic leadership, in which political sovereignty is firmly and absolutely vested in the Leader, the Saviour of his - and eventually all - people(s).  And not simply in a positive sense ... as saving for, but also, if less importantly, in a negative sense ... as saving from, saving, above all, from the State, and thus democracy, republicanism, parliament, elections, representation, and other such political concomitants of statehood, that atomic integrity stemming from the autocratic sovereignty of kingdoms.

 

14.   The highest, most civilized civilization is indubitably of a free-electron integrity, significant of the greatest spiritual freedom on human terms.  It will inexorably lead towards the still greater spiritual freedom of the post-Human Millennium.  And that, in turn, will inevitably lead to the ultimate spiritual freedom of pure spirit in the post-Millennial Beyond.  Verily, how can an honourable and progressive man not be in favour of all this?

 

15.   A truly civilized civilization will always act not in the name of the People but in the name of the Truth.  The Leader serves the Truth.  For theocracy is ever above and beyond democracy, the culmination of human evolution.

 

16.   Communism does away with the Church but extends the State.  Social Transcendentalism will, if successful, do away with the State but extend the Church ... into the Centre.  In the one case, a social democracy.  In the other case, a social theocracy.  Both, in their contrary ways, are absolutist, in accordance with the absolute criteria of an incipiently extreme age.  There is no church/state relativity in Communism, any more than there could be in Social Transcendentalism.  People do not congregate in a Communist church, as they would in a Protestant one, since no such institution exists.  An absolute age demands state or church, not both!  Communism chose the former, Social Transcendentalism has chosen the latter, and on no-less genuine terms than the other camp's was pseudo.

 

17.   For the progression, in respect of Communism, from liberal to social democracy, or bureaucratic democracy, corresponds to a development from the genuine state to the pseudo-state, which is to say, from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, from the national to the international entity beyond it, as beyond any intermediate petty-bourgeois nationalism/internationalism.

 

18.   Make no mistake, the pseudo-state, applying to a transformed proletariat (now electron equivalents) within the ideological context of an international entity, is historically superior to the genuine state!  And, by a like-token, genuine centrism, in a theocratic theocracy, would be superior to the pseudo-centrism of the RC church, which corresponds to an autocratic theocracy.  If Communism signifies a contraction of materialism from capitalism to socialism, then Social Transcendentalism most definitely signifies an expansion of the spiritual into the True World Religion.  The former, tied to the tail-end of the democratic spectrum, can never be anything more than petty bourgeois, even though it is pro-proletarian.  The latter, appertaining to an extension of the main, or non-schismatic, theocratic spectrum beyond petty-bourgeois Fascism, will be genuinely transcendental, one might even say the upholder of a People’s theocracy, bearing in mind its absolute status.

 

19.   But such a People’s theocracy would be primarily concerned with what is best in the People, namely their spiritual potential, and not with the People as a people, which, by contrast, would constitute an illogical concession to materialism, as appertaining to the democratic spectrum, and thus to Socialism.  Not for the ultimate theocracy to act in the name of the People, like some democracy, but primarily in the interests of their spiritual potential, whether in terms of the direct cultivation of spirit (awareness) in each individual or, less ideally but nevertheless imperatively, in terms of the dissemination of the Truth and, hence, Social Transcendentalism to various appropriate countries overseas - a procedure which, one way or another, may entail personal sacrifices on the individual's part.  One might say that this latter procedure corresponds to the 'social' side of the ideology, the direct cultivation of spirit, by contrast, to its 'transcendental' side.  Not until the Truth was established world-wide ... could a true spiritual absolutism emerge, paving the way for the post-Human Millennium.

 

20.   The higher, more intellectual men can make personal sacrifices in the name of the Truth, grasped in its theoretical and abstract formulation.  Not so the broad mass of people who, whether as soldiers or civilians, policemen or bodyguards, will respond to the concrete and tangible embodiment of the Truth in the person of the Leader.  They will make sacrifices for the Leader, not for his truth, about which they may be largely if not totally ignorant!  And the Leader will be more significant in their eyes to the extent that he appears before them as a spiritual guide, nay! the personification on earth of the Holy Spirit, rather than as a politician, be he president or prime minister, and thus a mere representative of the People.  For, in truth, the Leader is no politician, and he knows that the People generally despise and avoid politics, being potentially, if not actually, beyond it, as so many candidates for theocracy.

 

21.   Pertaining, as he does, to the climax of the theocratic spectrum, the Leader stands before them as a refutation of politics, the denier of the State, with its presidents and prime ministers, and thus the saviour of the People from democratic materialism ... for the life of the spirit, the Eternal Life to-come.  He signifies an electron absolutism, and so leads from above, leads from the Centre, the embodiment of spiritual freedom.  The People, if they are loyal to their selves and to their developing electron-biased constitution, cannot but be loyal to him; for he is their hope and encouragement, their promise of a better future, the phenomenal mirror to their spiritual selves.

 

22.   Autocratic subnationalism, democratic nationalism, social democratic internationalism, and theocratic supra-nationalism: a progression from the proton-biased tribe to the electron-biased ideology via the atomic nation-state.  A genuinely theocratic society, or Social Transcendental Centre, can only be supra-national, and hence dedicated to the establishment and furtherance of a federation of Social Transcendental Centres, in accordance with its classless integrity.  Neither bourgeois nationalism nor proletarian internationalism can be relevant to a genuinely theocratic society in a transcendentalist phase of social evolution.  To think in these anachronistic terms is to put oneself beneath the pale of genuine transcendentalist criteria.  If Eire is to do justice to its theocratic bias, it must progress from its current nationalist status to the ideological supra-nationalism of an Irish Social Transcendental Centre.  There is no evolutionary alternative!