1.   Anyone who has read my recent texts, not least those dealing with the Social Theocratic Centre, will realize that I am hardly a republican in the conventional or, indeed, radical Irish Republican sense.  For the ideology to which I subscribe would deliver the Irish people, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a paradoxical election commensurate, so far as I am concerned, with ‘judgement’, from the sorts of axial dichotomy and exploitation which the tricolour would appear to signify.  For the Irish tricolour is green, white, and gold and/or orange (depending on one’s ethnic and/or geopolitical orientation) and therefore symptomatic, it seems to me, of the distinction between the three main bodies of ethnic tradition in Ireland as a whole – namely, Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans (which latter term embraces Presbyterians as well as Methodists, Baptists, Unitarians, etc.).  But that is reflective of the axial distinction between British state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in which Anglicanism and Puritanism are subordinate to Monarchism and Parliamentarianism respectively, and Irish church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in which the Roman Catholic Church is primary and the republican state secondary.  Therefore the tricolour would appear to endorse, despite its associations with Southern Ireland (Eire), the exploitation of Catholics by Anglicans and Puritans in typically British and effectively heathenistic vein.  It is as though the white and the gold and/or orange parts were symptomatic of British state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria and the green part, or segment, alone commensurate with Irish Catholics and, in a cultural sense, Gaels.  But this is only too symptomatic of the Anglo-Irish nature of conventional republicanism and the satellite-like status which the Irish Republic enjoys, complements of Great Britain.  I cannot and will not endorse this republic, which flies in the face of the deliverance of the Irish people, specifically Catholics, from commercial and social exploitation at the hands of persons who, in Britain, would be affiliated with Monarchic and/or Parliamentary positions.  That is why the inverted CND-like emblem which I have customarily identified with Social Theocracy could not be juxtaposed with or superimposed upon the Irish tricolour.  It is symbolic of a refutation of heathenistic exploitation through a more than Christian disposition which could only take the place of republican values in the event of the aforesaid majority mandate for religious sovereignty at the crossroads to or, better, upon the threshold of ‘Kingdom Come’. Yet the emblem of the Centre, and hence of Social Theocratic Centrism, would not be symptomatic of a reversion to autocracy or monarchy or anything pre-republican in character but, on the contrary, of the transcendence of republican values through a new and ultimate order of sovereignty which, though of the masses, could not be described as republican, in the party-political sense, but as profoundly religious and therefore beyond any such political and economic means or ties as the Irish Republic, acting under duress of Anglo-American pressures, increasingly comes to signify at the expense not merely of traditional religious values but of religion in general.  If in the past I described Social Theocracy as signifying a new order of mass sovereignty, such sovereignty is profoundly cent(e)ristic, not republicanistic, in character, and therefore the refutation of a system of governance which leaves the majority of Irish people open to exploitation not merely at the hands of ‘Anglican’ and ‘Puritan’ elements but, these days more than ever, of their more secular and Americanized, if not American, counterparts.  Therefore a majority mandate for religious sovereignty would signify the death knell of the Irish Republic, together with its Tonean tricolour, and the birth, no matter how painfully, of the Irish Social Theocratic Centre, with its own completely independent ideological emblem.

2.   Authoritarianism is a pretty dirty word these days, and one can understand why persons of both republican and post-republican sentiment should take a poor view of a political stance which is rooted in monarchy of an overly autocratic and even absolutist nature.  But looked at from a more etymological point of view, such a word is surely synonymous with authority, which is no bad thing, and even with the concept of the ‘author’, who is no better or worse than the book or document he writes.  If I am the ‘author’ of a particular text, say a philosophical thesis, then I can be regarded as being something of an ‘authority’ on the subject to which I have dedicated my pen or, increasingly these days, word processor and/or personal computer.  But is not an ‘authority’ in the above sense also, by definition, ‘authoritarian’, since one cannot be an ‘authority’ on any given subject, still less an ‘author’, without being ‘authoritarian’, that is to say, without having authority derived from much study and/or practice in one’s art.  In this sense ‘authoritarian’ is merely adjectival, for what ‘author’, being something of an ‘authority’, is not ‘authoritarian’?  One could of course say ‘authorial’, but that is rather lame and something of a cop-out.  Let us not mince words, but simply acknowledge that the word ‘authoritarian’ can be divested from overly autocratic association and used in a more politically acceptable way which, after all, is no bad thing, since few if any people would trust someone who lacked authority to author a work that claimed to be true or in some sense philosophically or intellectually valid.  Authors are or should be ‘authoritarian’, and therefore reliable authorities on the subjects to which they dedicate their creative zeal.

3.   One could describe both Nazism and Sovietism as having been totalitarian with an authoritarian bias, since the rule of one man over a party is less totalitarian than authoritarian in character, and Hitler and Stalin were nothing if not authoritarian dictators who stamped their image on the totalitarianism of one party rule, Hitler doubtless more than Stalin, since Nazism was the beginning of global civilization rather than the culmination, social democratically, of Western civilization, and would have had more of an alpha than an omega tendency in consequence.  Stalin, after all, was an infringement of the Bolshevik concept of collective leadership and therefore something of a quasi-fascist departure from communist ‘idealism’, but, in the circumstances, hardly fatal to the survival, into the immediate post-war era, of the Soviet Union and to its return to something like collective responsibility.

4.   Collectivism is always more phenomenal and worldly than netherworldly or otherworldly in character, a symptom of the masses and of mass-participatory democracy and/or bureaucracy in the face of autocratic or theocratic alternatives.  Individualism, on the other hand, requires either of the latter dispositions for its full realization, since one must be absolutist on either an objective (autocratic) or a subjective (theocratic) basis to pass muster as a ruler or a leader, a devil, as it were, or a god.  The collectivism that fights shy of individualism is one thing, the individualism that strives to incorporate and transmute the collective is quite another.  All the difference, in short, between state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria.

5.   Communalism of a transcendentalist and/or anti-fundamentalist order should be regarded as the endeavour to transmute the collectivistic masses into an individualistic godhead and/or antidevil, not simply as the glorification or confirmation of a collectivistic ethic.  Herds and flocks are collectivistic, but so what?  They are preyed upon by lone wolves and led to higher pastures by lone shepherds.

6.   Whereas the diabolic individual, effectively barbarous, exploits the crowd, the divine individual, his cultural adversary, seeks to deliver it from itself to an individualistic destiny of perfect self-realization.  Crowds are simply there to be overcome, not endorsed.  For that which is ethereal and absolute is always at an individualistic distance from the relativity of the corporeal, whose collectivism is the product not of noumenal transcendence but of all too phenomenal gravity and somatic want of psychic courage.

7.   I spoke in the past of four points of an axial compass stretching from North West to South East on state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, and from South West to North East on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, and conceived of such intercardinal points as being divisible into two positions in accordance with the gender differential that must exist at any given point.  Let us now do compass-like justice to each of these positions, starting with the Northwest point which we contend to be divisible between metachemistry and antimetaphysics, the former diabolically female and the latter antidivinely male, the former accordingly North-northwest and the latter West-northwest, whereas down that axis of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria we have a point, duly Southeast, which is divisible between physics and antichemistry, the former masculinely male and the latter antifemininely female, and therefore the one effectively East-southeast and the other South-southeast.  Across the axial divide, the Southwest point is divisible between chemistry and antiphysics, the former femininely female and the latter antimasculinely male, the one accordingly West-southwest and the other South-southwest, while up this axis of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria we shall find a point, duly Northeast, which is divisible between metaphysics and antimetachemistry, the former divinely male and the latter antidiabolically female, the one North-northeast and the other East-northeast.  Confusing?  Some may think so, but I am sure that the axial compass looks more comprehensively readable, and hence intelligible, on such a secondary intercardinal basis than would otherwise be the case.  At no point, however, does this axial compass embrace cardinal points, since we are not concerned with a cross but with a diagonal axis between antithetical intercardinal points and, as noted above, their secondary extrapolations.  Hence what was characterized as the Northwest point is now divisible, on a metachemical/antimetaphysical basis, between North-northwest and West-northwest, and what was characterized as the Southeast point is now divisible, on a physical/antichemical basis, between East-southeast and South-southeast, with a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial link, female gender to female gender, between metachemistry and antichemistry on the one hand and, male gender to male gender, antimetaphysics to physics on the other hand.  Contrariwise, what was characterized as the Southwest point is now divisible, on a chemical/antiphysical basis, between West-southwest and South-southwest, and what was characterized as the Northeast point is now divisible, on a metaphysical/antimetachemical basis, between North-northeast and East-northeast, with a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial link, male gender to male gender, between antiphysics and metaphysics on the one hand and, female gender to female gender, chemistry to antimetachemistry on the other hand – the former in each case primary and the latter secondary.

8.   The word ‘valuation’ is effectively a root word that can be divided into four different categories, viz. the metachemical category of devaluation, which is noumenally objective, and the chemical category of evaluation, which is phenomenally objective, both of which fundamentally appertain to the free female side of life and contrast with the physical category of revaluation, which is phenomenally subjective, and the metaphysical category of transvaluation, which is noumenally subjective, each of which essentially appertain to the free male side of life in what is, by comparison with its female counterpart, a secondary order of valuation.  For valuations are primarily objective and only secondarily subjective, and therefore devaluation and evaluation, being objective, will be primary and revaluation and transvaluation, their subjective counterparts, secondary.  But this is in effect to distinguish sensuality from sensibility and vice versa, and therefore to contrast barbarity and philistinism with civility and culture, the latter of which require a male lead of society at the expense of female freedom, which tends towards devaluation and evaluation in patently barbarous and philistine terms.  But just as the male must be upended if the female side of things is to be hegemonically free, so the development of male freedom requires the correlative upending, or subordination, of female freedom, without which no lasting sensibility can be maintained in the face of sensuality.  Therefore if we speak of devaluation in connection with metachemistry, which is noumenally objective, we must speak of its male corollary in terms of anti-transvaluation in connection with antimetaphysics, which is anti-noumenally subjective or, better, noumenally anti-subjective.  Likewise if we speak of evaluation in connection with chemistry, which is phenomenally objective, we must speak of its male corollary in terms of anti-evaluation in connection with antiphysics, which is phenomenally anti-subjective.  Contrariwise, if we speak, in relation to sensibility, of revaluation in connection with physics, which is phenomenally subjective, we must speak of its female corollary in terms of anti-evaluation, which is phenomenally anti-objective.  And finally, if we speak of transvaluation in connection with metaphysics, which is noumenally subjective, we must speak of its female corollary in terms of anti-devaluation, which is noumenally anti-objective.  Therefore we have to distinguish between the devaluating of metachemistry and the anti-transvaluating of antimetaphysics in relation to upper-class and anti-classless criteria germane, in general terms, to the Devil and Antigod, and contrast this, down the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, with a distinction between the revaluating of physics and the anti-evaluating of antichemistry in relation to middle-class and anti-lowerclass criteria germane, again in general terms, to man and antiwoman.  Crossing to the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, we shall have to distinguish between the evaluating of chemistry and the anti-revaluating of antiphysics in relation to lower-class and anti-middleclass criteria germane, in general terms, to woman and antiman, and contrast this, up the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, with a distinction between the transvaluating of metaphysics and the anti-devaluating of antimetachemistry in relation to classless and anti-upperclass criteria germane, again in general terms, to God and the Antidevil.  Thus, from a sensible standpoint, the standpoint of civility and culture, revaluations take precedence over anti-evaluations and transvaluations precedence over anti-devaluations, and that which appertains to evaluation in the one case and to devaluation in the other is adjudged ‘bad’ or morally undesirable, to be rejected and, where possible, avoided in the interests of sensibility.  Contrary to which, a society not merely rooted in but effectively centred in or openly committed to sensuality, in short a heathenistic society whose standpoint is rather more barbaric and/or philistine, will allow if not encourage devaluations to take precedence over anti-transvaluations and evaluations precedence over anti-revaluations, whether because it is primitivistically ignorant of the possibility of transvaluations in the one case and revaluations in the other or because, having got beyond an older order of transvaluations and revaluations, it deems them ‘old hat’ and the product of superstition or oppression or elitism or what have you that should be avoided by the ‘progressive’ in the interests of sensual betterment or self-gratification (though I would normally use the term ‘not-self’ to describe somatic freedoms).  Now while the former type of society is simply backward and in want of civilization, the latter type may well be technologically and environmentally pretty advanced but unaware, for all its liberation from the past, that it is simply the tails side of a coin that has yet to achieve redemption in the development of a heads side, a side beyond where it is at and capable, through an enhanced sense of revaluation or transvaluation, of exposing its limitations and overhauling what it will perceive to be the fruit of female domination and consequence of too much somatic freedom.  Such a more advanced civilization may well be – and in the nature of national solidarity or social cohesion is almost certain to be – quite independent of the prevailing heathenistic type of society and not simply a development within it on a minority basis.  It will emerge in consequence of a different historical pattern of culture and society than that typifying the somatically free nations, and will stand up for what is beyond the contemporary manifestations of barbarism and philistinism in terms of a new and altogether higher order, compared with anything traditional, of culture and civility.  And, in doing so, it will affirm not merely revaluations at the expense of evaluations, in typically British revaluating and anti-evaluating vein, but transvaluations at the expense of devaluations and therefore be representative of the hegemony of metaphysics over antimetachemistry, of classless transvaluating over anti-upperclass anti-devaluating.

9.   The snag with revaluation at the anti-evaluating expense of evaluation is that it is only equivocally hegemonic and therefore subject to the subversion of physics by antichemistry acting in antithetical gender parallel with the rule of devaluation over anti-transvaluation in metachemistry over antimetaphysics back up the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, a subversion that, in overall axial terms, ensures that devaluating and anti-evaluating take precedence over anti-transvaluating and revaluating in the primacy of the female input into the maintenance of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, a primacy which results in an antithesis between vanity and justice at the expense of pseudo-meekness and pseudo-righteousness, whether in state or church.   Therefore revaluation is not as morally significant as its advocates and devotees like to think, but rather tends to be co-opted to the service of anti-evaluation in consequence of the extent to which an unequivocal devaluation holds anti-transvaluation in antimetaphysical submission to its metachemical will, making not simply for state-hegemonic criteria but for the primacy of the female aspects of such criteria, as in relation to the polarity between metachemistry and antichemistry, a polarity which cannot but reduce antimetaphysics and physics to a secondary role, even if the one is unequivocally subordinate and the other equivocally hegemonic.  Such a hegemony is a long way short of being metaphysically unequivocal in relation to a genuine order of transvaluation.

10. One cannot emphasize too often the female-dominated nature of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, and the fatality towards state absolutism which results less from the existence of liberal democracy vis-à-vis a constitutional monarchy, as in Britain, than from the degeneration of democracy from liberal to social democratic levels and the ensuing nazi-type backlash that will involve some degree or modification of autocratic criteria.  One type of state extremism tends, in the modern age, to engender another, and the situation goes from bad to worse as the state fatality becomes more deeply entrenched and polarized in the name of opposite ‘ideals’.  Yet, in reality, the only ‘ideal’, in the sense of freedom of action, is the somatic freedom of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, since democracy is, by nature, a creature of bound soma, of popular solidarity, and cannot reasonably endorse exploitative and predatory forms of free enterprise.  The great democratic delusion is to suppose that you progress from liberal to social criteria, as from bourgeois humanism to proletarian humanism, when in point of fact you are simply regressing further down an axis and inviting an autocratic backlash from those who, for whatever reasons, would oppose the digging and levelling down of society into a kind of black hole of proletarian humanism, from which hole, as recent history has amply demonstrated, it is very difficult to climb back out.  But this entire axis is the fruit of schismatic heresy and therefore of somatic freedom and psychic binding coupled, down below, to somatic binding and psychic freedom in what I have more than once described as the product of female dominion.  It is, to be sure, the older and more basic if not always prevalent of the two axial inclinations, and one would hesitate to regard its Catholic counterpart as anything more, traditionally, than a dotted-line affair in relation to its heathenistic counterpart.  But it invites state absolutism at the extremes, the pre-democratic or anti-social democratic extreme of the apex on the one hand, and the post-democratic or social democratic extreme at the base on the other hand, and in neither case is there much evidence of male values or of a male lead of society.  On the contrary, the whole ethos of state absolutism arises out of a want of male resolve and through a rejection, in effect, of Catholic criteria such that results in the aforementioned state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis of Protestant antecedents which tends, in the course of time, towards an increasingly secular decadence or degeneration the more ineffectual pseudo-Christianity proves itself to be in the face of state-hegemonic values, of which vanity and justice are not the least!  For it is the proletariat’s plea for justice that, if granted social democratic leverage, tends to encourage a backlash which would not be short on vanity if the extent to which its resort to public exhibitions and spectacles is anything to judge by!   Justice is precisely the antichemical fatality of democratic societies, except that in the liberal case it is held in check, one might say, by the pseudo-righteousness of its physical counterpart and not encouraged, at least not consciously, to take on an absolutist form such that would result in the social democratic vengeance of the proletariat upon the bourgeoisie.  Justice without pseudo-righteousness is the state absolutism of social democratic totalitarianism, and one can see without probing too deeply how much more female-oriented such a totalitarian outcome will be, since it is the logical extrapolation from antichemical justice and the enemy, in consequence, of physical pseudo-righteousness, which, in rejecting pseudo-Christianity (or what it takes to be Christianity and ‘the Church’), specifically with regard to its puritan aspect, it rightly adjudges bourgeois.  Thus no longer a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate partnership but, on the contrary, the overly-justice affirming state absolutism which signifies the nadir of political and ideological degeneration, its digging down into a black hole of female-based totalitarianism.  Frankly, could anything be worse?  Is not an equally female-based reaction to this Bolshevistic nadir nazistically inevitable?  History would confirm as much, and if the one is Marxistic then the other is surely Hegelian to a degree which leaves one in little doubt that any claim for ultimate or absolute justice by that segment of the people dubbed proletariat will be met by an equally absolutist approach to vanity, an approach no-less scornful of church-subordinate pseudo-meekness, and anxious to stamp out the tightening of somatic binding from a much looser and freer somatic vantage-point, one geared, in effect, to war and, ultimately, to total war as the vengeance of the metachemically reactionary upon the antichemically precocious.