26. However,
even with such patently hedonistic limitations and constraints, I will not say
they are dirt, or that their sexuality is pure dirt, analogous to a hard-line
mode of 'shit'; for that is something one has to reserve for 'sodd*** pricks' and, most especially, for a more stupid
species of 'sodd*** prick' who is not prepared to
compromise with 'fuck*** pricks', as from a liberal democratic standpoint, but
strives for and actually relates, in outright homosexual vein, to what could,
in political terms, be described as a Social Democratic absolutism, with the
implication of an atheistic rejection of any form of religious affiliation in
the interests of a sort of Marxist dead-end of proletarian humanism.
27. Thus
the more absolute 'sodd*** prick', a Social Democrat,
is not even prepared to compromise his political humanism with religious
humanism, in a sort of parliamentary/puritan relativity, but sees freedom in
terms of an end to such a relativity and an outright state totalitarianism, the
sexual corollary of which would be less bisexual than overly homosexual and
thus completely earthy, totally 'shitty' in its refusal to tolerate even a
'fucking' approach to being a 'prick' which at least endows pleasure - for that
is, after all, the principal concern of 'pricks' - with a liberal dimension
equivalent to heterosexual intercourse.
28. It
was in the penultimate decade of the last century, I believe, that an attempt
was made in
29. Whether
or not the movement for Social Democracy would have taken Britain towards a
totalitarian state, which on the evidence of their limited following and
popularity must seem exceedingly unlikely even if other, more traditional
factors, including the entrenched power of autocracy, are not taken into
account, the implications of a Social Democracy are such as to leave no room
for doubt that any compromise with 'fuck*** pricks' would be considered
undesirable and that a more totalitarian approach to humanism, as to sexuality,
must alone rank as properly Social Democratic.
30. But
this is the nadir of both the State and sex along the autocratic-democratic
axis, a nadir that, taken to its logical conclusion, desires the eradication of
constitutional autocracy and its correlative religious 'bovarization'
of established-church fundamentalism, and an end to the parliamentary pluralism
of liberal democracy and its correlative religious 'bovaryization'
of so-called 'free church' humanism, so that there are neither soft-line 'frigg*** jerks' and 'snogg***
jerks' on the one hand, nor soft-line 'sodd***
pricks' and 'fuck*** pricks' on the other hand, but only hard-line 'sodd*** pricks' whose politics are as 'shitty' as their
sexuality, and no-less unproductive!
31. Fortunately
for Britain, Social Democracy did not come to pass, and it is hard to see how
it could, short of the break-up of the United Kingdom and an end to the
Monarchy, as to the Celtic/Anglo-Saxon relativity which plays no small part, I
believe, in keeping Britain pluralist and open to compromise.
32. But
even in the 'good sense' of its liberal pluralism, Britain - the land of sexual
perversion par excellence
according to a well-known if not always respected literary authority - is still
a place where sexual perverts are free to pursue their respective 'frigging' or
'sodding' bents under the protective mandate of an
autocratic-democratic axis, and where any form of positive or natural sex gets
a comparatively raw deal, bearing in mind the extent to which such wholesome
sex requires a bureaucratic-theocratic precondition if 'fucking' and 'snogging' criteria are to more openly and even conservatively
prevail.
33. Even
the 'sodd*** pricks' of the parliamentary relativity
are less, in logical terms, than au fait with sexual conservatism if we accept a 'fuck*** prick'
paradox as being more germane to the religious corollary of parliamentary democracy
in which an almost puritanical horror of conception, of fertility and
fecundity, leads to a paradoxical emphasis on pleasure, for better or worse,
with the use of contraception in heterosexual intercourse virtually de
rigueur if the worst is not to come to the worst and earthy humanism be
conceptually subverted in nonconformist, or Marian, watery vein.
34. But
if that is the more likely attitude of religious humanists, then their
political counterparts can only, in the dubious privileges of a state hegemony,
be of an ilk that logically fights shy even of heterosexual pleasure in one of
two - or even a number of - ways, according as to whether their 'sodding' predilection takes an oscillatory Celtic or a
middle-ground Anglo-Saxon form, the former arguably involving bisexuality, the
latter the anal violation of women and sometimes - on the so-called far left -
even outright homosexuality, in effectively Social Democratic mode.
35. Certainly
there is nothing about recourse to a rubber sheath that necessitates that one
sticks to heterosexual intercourse, and it has not escaped my attention that
perhaps the anti-conceptual confidence that comes from wearing such a sheath
facilitates a move towards homosexuality, whether directly, in outright male
terms, or indirectly, via the anal violation of women or some paradoxical
bisexual oscillation more likely to suit liberals than either radicals or, in
the case of heterosexual sodomy, conservatives.
36. However
that may be, anal violation, whether of women in respect of heterosexual
conservatism or of men in respect of homosexual radicalism, is what accords, in
parallel terms, with a democratic proclivity; for democracy, like its religious
handmaiden, puritanism, which democratically subverts
theocracy, is a corrupt form of politics, as is any form of politics, including
autocracy, that parts company from a Church hegemony and proceeds to rule
and/or govern on its own behalf, with 'frigging' or 'sodding'
consequences, consequences which corrupt sexuality and thus a person's whole
attitude to life and the bedrock of life in conception.
37. Therefore
it is not with irony or flippancy that I equate democracy with 'sodd*** pricks' whether of the left or the right or even
something in between which strives to reconcile the conflicting bents, in
paradoxically liberal vein, of conservatives and radicals - the latter always
seemingly stretching things, or wanting to be seen as stretching things,
towards an outright homosexual dead-end in Social Democracy.
38. For
whatever the form of parliamentary democracy, the 'sodding'
bent is still what most characterizes it, and it is a bent which has always to
do with the sexual violation of a non-reproductive organ which, as the
anus/rectum, has only one function, and that is to excrete faeces or, in common
parlance, 'shit'.
39. But
when your ideal of freedom is earthy, or democratic,
then a 'shitty' sexuality is its logical concomitant, whether or not you are
aware of the fact or would consciously endorse anally-oriented behaviour. It is 'shitty' on the conservative right,
which remains paradoxically faithful to heterosexuality, 'shitty' on the
radical left, which equates with a rather more homosexual approach to sodomy,
and at least part 'shitty' in the liberal centre where, paradoxically, some
kind of bisexuality suggests the likelihood if not of an oscillation between
heterosexual and homosexual forms of anal violation, then an oscillation
between pleasure-centred heterosexual coitus and anally-oriented homosexuality,
so that a puritan-like dimension cannot be entirely ruled out of our logical
equations.
40. So
much for parliamentary democracy and its sexual or, rather, anti-sexual
parallels! If the well-known notion of
the British not being in favour of sex - the 'no sex, please, we're British' -
is to be properly understood, it is not because the British are against the
corrupter forms of sex, but precisely because of their 'frigging' and/or 'sodding' commitments along an autocratic-democratic axis to
anti-sex, to negative sexual attitudes and behaviour, that they have such
little respect, compared with most other nations, for positive and wholesome
sexual behaviour in the manner of a 'fucking' and/or 'snogging'
disposition, a disposition which, it if is to flourish unimpeded by political
or other constraints, requires a bureaucratic-theocratic axis as its
ideological precondition, one characterized not by the hegemony of one form or
other of the State but, on the contrary, by the hegemony of one form or other
of the Church.
41. Thus
the British uneasiness with sex, their reluctance to be open, in Continental
fashion (including Ireland), about the more positive forms of sexuality, stems
in large part from their ideological structure, their political system, and is
therefore the systemic product not of moral superiority, as many of them would
have us believe, but of a gross failure in morality stretching all the way back
to the excommunication of Henry VIII and the subsequent corruptions of politics
and religion which inexorably led to the State hegemonies of both autocratic
and, subsequently, democratic freedoms and, as a corollary of that, to the
autocratic and democratic subversions of the Church which led both to Anglican
fundamentalism and to Puritan humanism, to the monarchic subversion of
transcendentalism - for after all religion, when properly theocratic, is all
about transcendentalism - in the one case and to the parliamentary subversion
of it in the other case, neither of which forms of the Church can be anything
but subordinate to the State in consequence.
42. But
in Ireland, by contrast, it is the State which, at least since independence, is
by and large subordinate to the Church, principally in terms of Liberal
Republicanism of a non-executive presidential order vis-à-vis Roman
Catholicism, the bureaucratic form of the Church par excellence which has been correctly
identified with 'Mother Church' by dint of its basis in Marian nonconformism (nonconformism
vis-à-vis fundamentalist precedent tending to be the classical Western form of
religion and basis of Christian independence from and rejection of Judaism) and
tendency to subvert transcendentalism, and thus theocracy, accordingly.
43. Therefore
one would have to say that, in sexual parallel to the above, the 'sodd*** cunts' of a secondary State were subordinate to the
'fuck*** cunts' of the hegemonic Church, and in sexual terms this would imply a
distinction between heterosexual coitus with a female contraceptive bias on the
one hand, that of the State, and conceptually-oriented heterosexual coitus on
the other hand, that of the Church.
44. Whether
the 'sodding' form of heterosexual coitus implies
humiliating recourse to intrauterine devices (IUDs) or to the Pill, it would be
the republican mode of coitus par excellence and thus the secondary form of heterosexuality
as relative to the State. It would exist
in the shadow of unprotected heterosexual coitus, as in the shadow of the Roman
Catholic Church, as something 'soddingly'
life-denying or life-thwarting from a female point of view, and therefore
inferior to the conceptually-oriented form of heterosexual coitus one would
have to identify with 'fuck*** cunts'.
45. Thus
the bureaucratic subversion of theocracy germane to the Christian 'worldliness'
of the Roman Catholic Church ensures that conception remains the bedrock of sex
and justification for intercourse. It is
the Marian 'ideal' of the Madonna and Child which persists at the expense of
theocratic otherworldliness in some freer transcendentalism and truer idealism,
but it also persists to protect the world, at least of the Faithful, from
democratic corruption and pleasure-centred sex, whether heterosexual or
homosexual, and if the price of that has to be tolerance of female-oriented
heterosexual contraceptive sex in respect of republicanism of a secondary state
order, then that price is surely worth paying in view of the more freely
anti-sexual nature of the democratic alternatives!
46. But
theocracy still exists within the relative framework of the Roman Catholic
Church, and one may speculate that it does so 'snoggingly'
in respect of the church order of 'bum' who would be a like-cut above any
secondary state parallel of a 'frigging' order which one may surmise to have
intimate associations if not with plastic inflatables,
or so-called 'sex dolls', then arguably with anal masturbation.
47. Laying
a kiss upon someone non-lasciviously is certainly within the bounds of
theocratic probity, and for a sexual parallel to theocracy one need look no further
than kissing, whether on a heterosexual or, indeed, a homosexual basis, this
latter likely to appeal to the more radically theocratic as a metaphysical
expression of Social Theocracy and thus properly otherworldly kind of kissing
which has long been practised in the Orient with the utmost discretion and
noble intent.
48. Doubtless
expressions of brotherly affection between theocratic males would continue
within the more radically theocratic framework of 'Kingdom Come', as habitually
identified by me with Social Theocracy, though always on a discreet and
honourable basis. For there is a
distinction, after all, between religious praxis in transcendentalism and any
possible sexual parallel which would tend to prevail independently of one's
religious devotions.
49. Transcendentalism
is not about kissing, or 'snogging', even if that
happens to be the sexual parallel to it, and the same would apply to its
political or state corollary of what, in previous texts, has been termed the
administrative aside to the triadic Beyond, where recourse to anal masturbation
and the like would be a quite separate matter from the actual Social Theocratic
administering of political, economic, or scientific expertise in the interests
of enhanced religious fulfilment and the overall development of
transcendentalism, not to mention, in the lower tiers of our projected triadic
Beyond and their respective subsections (as already described in previous
works) the overall development, within Social Transcendentalism, of modified fundamentalist,
humanist, and nonconformist devotions.
50. Actually,
if one allows that fundamentalism is usually more alpha than omega, and
therefore more sensual than sensible, more negative than positive, and nonconformism likewise, then any such modifications of
fundamentalism and nonconformism would, in view of
their female natures, be contrary to their free manifestations in sensuality
and accordingly pertain not to doing but to antidoing
in the one case and not to giving but to antigiving
in the other case, so that one could logically speak of antifundamentalism
and antinonconformism, the former as subordinate
complement to transcendentalism, the latter as subordinate complement to
humanism, albeit that, too, would be modified transcendentally in relation to
Social Transcendentalism and therefore be less than germane to itself and
correspondingly more deferential to the religious ideal of godliness per se.
