11. Such antithetical state-hegemonic absolutist scenarios are virtually inconceivable within a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial context, as in the Republic of Ireland, where neither Hegelian nor Marxist state worship could hope to prevail against the male-led current which lifts life from a somatic emphasis, whether in binding or in freedom, to a psychic emphasis, an emphasis upon psyche which will be either bound and sinful and/or pseudo-criminal or free and graceful and/or pseudo-punishing, according to gender.  Such a society, when not subject to a kind of blue-shirt reaction to secular encroachments of a communistic and therefore effectively alien or unrepresentative order in defence of the Church, will rather tend towards the possibility of a sort of church absolutism, which would not be incompatible with my own concept of ‘Kingdom Come’ in relation to Social Theocracy and hence the service, from a sort of administrative aside, of a religiously sovereign people should a majority mandate be forthcoming in the event of a paradoxical election in which the possibility of religious sovereignty was on the table as the only means by which the people could secure deliverance not only from their own – in relation to the axis in question – anti-omega/alpha worldly limitations, as already described, but also from those predatory exploitations to which they remain subject in the event of continuing exposure to the vanities and justices, coupled, in the male contexts, to pseudo-meeknesses and pseudo-righteousnesses of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society and thus, in effect, to the freedoms and bindings of the other axis, the secular product, with or without Hegelian or Marxist extremism, of schismatic heresy.  Now such a new ‘absolutism’ as that to which I allude in the event of the aforementioned majority mandate in a paradoxical election, might well find itself confronted by a right-wing backlash analogous to fascism, whether internally or externally, and that problem would have to be dealt with in due course.  For if Social Democracy invites a right-wing backlash in the form of Nazism, or some such defence of secular freedom, then it is not inconceivable that Social Theocracy would incur a similar backlash, relative to its own axis, in the form of a fascistic defence of traditional Catholic values, principally by those who hadn’t voted for religious sovereignty out of loyalty to the Church and fear or mistrust of the consequences.  However that may or may not be, there can be no question that whether Social Theocracy would incur as much reaction, in its own church-hegemonic/state-subordinate context, as Social Democracy did in relation to state-hegemonic criteria, some reaction there would certainly be, though with less justification, as far as I am concerned, than attended the reaction to Social Democracy.  For state absolutism of a bound, or democratic, order is not to be compared with church absolutism of a free, or theocratic, order, any more than one could compare bound soma with free psyche.  The reaction to bound soma from the standpoint of free soma is one of state-hegemonic ‘idealism’ vis-à-vis a more radical departure down the state-hegemonic axis that takes somatic binding, or democratic solidarity, to a new and altogether more absolutist order of humanism commensurate with the proletariat.  The reaction, hypothetically, to free psyche from the standpoint of bound psyche, on the other hand, would be one of church-hegemonic ‘realism’ vis-à-vis a more radical elevation up the church-hegemonic axis that aimed to take psychic freedom, or theocratic individuality, to a new and altogether more absolutist order of suprahumanism commensurate with God.  No small difference!  The ‘ideal’ on the church-hegemonic axis does not lie ‘down below’, with the broad masses, any more than does the ‘ideal’, somewhat materialistic and antifundamentalistic, of state-hegemonic axial criteria, but ‘up above’, and therefore any resistance to theocratic progress ‘from below’ would be ideologically and morally less justified than resistance, across the axial divide, to democratic ‘progress’ – in reality regress – ‘from above’, even if a certain degree of resistance or reaction to the said theocratic progress would have to be expected in light of the fact that not all those ‘down below’ are genuinely committed to ‘world overcoming’ and an end, in consequence, to their own worldly shortcomings and failings, never mind to deliverance from the sorts of commercial exploitations which, from a contrary axial standpoint, take full advantage of those shortcomings and failings.  But, that said, it would be unrealistic to suppose that most of those ‘down below’ were predisposed to reaction from an unduly conventional or traditional Catholic standpoint when the great majority happen to fall into the category of lapsed or quasi-secularized Catholics, who are precisely the ones who would have most to gain from being delivered from the secular predations of the state-hegemonic, following the overhaul of their own church-hegemonic axis in the manner described.

12. For those who accuse me of ‘extremism’, let me say that the absolutism to which I, as a self-professed Social Theocrat, subscribe is not only contrary to any autocratic extremism, but the only means whereby the lapsed Catholic urban majorities of countries like Eire could be delivered from their worldly relativities, whether or not such relativities are commensurate with moderation, and thus from the kinds of predations that take advantage of them from a largely autocratic point of view, even if such autocracy tends to have its extremism militated by pluralism and by notions of democratic accountability.  Sure, Social Theocracy is extreme, but you do not combat one order of extremism with moderation, with relativity, since such extremism has its own less than Social Democratic mode of relativity in economic partnership with it down the state-hegemonic axis, and the only other mode of relativity happens to pertain to those who are in the front line, so to speak, of being preyed upon by the vain and pseudo-meek fruits of commercial exploitation.  God and his female corollary the Antidevil are extreme, or noumenally absolutist, as befits the respective ‘natures’ of metaphysics and antimetachemistry, and it would be a rare privilege for those who were less than godly or antidevilish to gradually find themselves becoming more so in proportion as they were delivered both from themselves and their netherworldly/anti-otherworldly exploiters, something that is not likely to happen as long as they remain the subject of relative restrictions taking place under the cover of moderation and other such simplistic if not duplistic terms.  But human life cannot level with absolutism or extremism or noumenal sensibility – call it what you like – for long or in any great numbers, least of all where godly and antidevilish criteria are concerned, which is precisely why it can only be conceived of and developed in conjunction with cyborgization and the gradual transmutation of the relevant human material towards levels and stages of life which would be more at home in a comparatively absolutist context, and not simply for the sake of cyborgization, important as that is, but in order to remain at a discreet remove from the contexts in which commercial exploitation take place and to be able to handle the modified synthetic stimulants that would encourage inner development more painlessly and lastingly than would otherwise be possible, thereby turning life around, for those concerned, from a context in which they were subject to the impositions of, among other things, filmic outer light to one in which they were in control of their own inner light and able to develop an enhanced sense of inner freedom in consequence.  For only psychic freedom of a metaphysical and, for females, antimetachemical order is commensurate with godliness and antidevilishness and, hence, with the righteous and pseudo-just retort to the tyrannical impositions of vanity and pseudo-meekness to which the quasi-vain (lapsed female catholic pseudo-vain) and quasi-pseudo-meek (lapsed male catholic meek) will otherwise continue to remain subject, to the detriment of their souls and of all that is graceful and wise in metaphysical transcendentalism and idealism, coupled, for females, to all that is pseudo-punishing and pseudo-good in antimetachemical antifundamentalism and antimaterialism, as described in previous texts in relation to this elevated distinction between noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality, eternity and anti-infinity, ‘celestial city’ and ‘anti-vanity fair’, the focal points not simply of truth and beauty but of the truthful approach to beauty and the beautiful approach to truth such as are the prerequisites not simply of joy and love but of the joyful approach to love and the loving approach to joy, joy no less soulfully heavenly than the joyful approach to love is spiritually heavenly; love no less spiritually anti-hellish than the loving approach to joy is soulfully anti-hellish and therefore the female compliment, for all anti-infinity, to the joy of Heaven.  All this is incontrovertible.  Whether the people will accept it remains to be seen, but then so, too, does the capacity to deliver salvation and counter-damnation to them more efficaciously, and thus to provide the necessary inducements which, stemming ‘from above’, should encourage them to leave their low estate for pastures new.

13. Some will think me anti-democratic, but I do not see myself in terms of being against democracy per se, like an authoritarian autocrat, but rather as someone who upholds what he believes to lie beyond democracy and to require a majority mandate from the electorate if, as Social Theocracy, it is to emerge as the logical successor to political sovereignty and in some sense as its fulfilment and vindication.  For democracy will not have delivered the people from autocratic tyranny, whether such tyranny masks as theocracy or not, if they do not utilize it, in due course, to vote for religious sovereignty and thus for freedom not only from Creatoresque primitivity but, more importantly, for psychic self-development in relation to metaphysical and, for females, antimetachemical sensibility.  Yet there are different approaches, it has to be said, to democracy, and clearly the British approach is not one that logically lends itself to notions of ‘world overcoming’ and psychic emancipation.  Rather it is a sort of end-in-itself which, while fighting shy of Social Democracy, is held in check by Constitutional Autocracy in the form of the Monarchy and is thus the counter pole in the maintenance of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate continuity and consistency.  If this is democracy per se, then it is axially incompatible with the prospect of ‘Kingdom Come’ in relation to the utilization of democracy to a Social Theocratic end.  So, in that sense, democracy is incapable of its own self-overcoming except in the overly just context of Social Democracy, which would only signify a further regression of popular sovereignty.  Clearly, democracy as an end-in-itself, whether on a liberal or a social democratic basis, is something I do not and cannot approve of; but that is only because, as someone of Irish Catholic descent, I do not relate to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria.  Thus the kind of democracy I can condone, without being overly partial to it, bears little resemblance to the British variety, being, if anything, the traditional handmaiden of church-hegemonic criteria, if, in this age of Americanization, much less so than before on account of the extent to which the people of countries like Eire come under American cultural influence and think and behave in a quasi-state-hegemonic fashion, whether as quasi-vain chemical females vis-à-vis metachemical vanity or as quasi-pseudo-meek antiphysical males vis-à-vis antimetaphysical pseudo-meekness.  Yet that is only a transitional phase, the way I see it, to the possibility of a renewal, through an overhaul of the traditional system, of church-hegemonic criteria in relation to Social Theocracy and thus of an end to the paradoxical state of affairs which, while theoretically rooted in traditional church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, strains, almost heliotropically, towards the American brand of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate influence raining down from the overhauled manifestation of the schismatic axis, the manifestation that, contrary to Britain or to British tradition, is more genuine at the free somatic apex than at the bound somatic base and thus upholds its own version of autocratic freedom at the expense of democratic binding.  The British, for all their talk of freedom, are traditionally and overwhelmingly a bound people for whom loyalty to the reigning monarch – ‘long to reign over’ them – is virtually sacrosanct, whereas the Americans, despite their adherence to what I would call pseudo-democracy ‘down below’, are much more open, in cultural terms, to that which appertains, in modified autocratic fashion, to the apex of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, as the exemplification, par excellence, of somatic freedom.  But that is precisely the kind of freedom which the lapsed Catholic majority of countries like Eire need to be delivered from if they are to reap the benefit, through a renewal of church-hegemonic criteria, of psychic freedom, the noumenal antithesis, across the axial divide, to what passes for freedom in the contemporary Americanized world.  Only with a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in a paradoxical election can steps be taken to reorientate the concept and reality of freedom in such fashion that the Irish people will no longer be at cross-purposes, under American pressure, with their axial tradition but be enjoying the benefits of its Social Theocratic overhaul and renewal.  For only the male lead of society towards a divine/antidiabolic salvation can put an end to the female rule of society in diabolic/antidivine undamnation, causing that which gradually finds itself bereft of unsaved antimasculine/feminine prey to collapse, for want of economic viability, down its own state-hegemonic axis into the just damnation of the antifeminine/masculine.  For in saving the antimasculine/feminine the divine/antidiabolic will bring damnation to the diabolic/antidivine, whose only hope of redemption will lie with the antifeminine/masculine and the extent to which, in making the Damned over in their own image, they prove themselves worthy to be swivelled across, as it were, to the foot of the church-hegemonic axis and ‘made over’ in the image of those who had previously been saved up it to divine/antidiabolic pastures ‘On High’, thereby exchanging damnation for unsalvation as a precondition of salvation in due course, a process duly applying to their damned church-subordinate co-religionists, as also, of course, in respect of state-subordinate criteria and the inevitability of counter-damnation as the bound somatic corollary of psychic freedom.

14. All of this I have gone into before, so it is hardly new!  I am not the mouth for the majority of British or even American ears, to paraphrase Nietzsche, but the majority of Irish ears and like-minded traditionally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate peoples, and I speak less as an Irish Catholic than as a Social Theocrat, and therefore one who is beyond the Church even as he is beyond the democracy that appertains, if only in theory, to the Church, and axially distinct from anything Social Democratic.  If Social Democracy is extreme Left statism, then Social Theocracy can only be extreme Left churchism, the theocracy of radical progress as opposed, on the state-hegemonic axis, to the democracy of radical regress.  For there the people tend, when they are not liberal democratic, down, as into a black hole or vacuum of absolute justice, whereas over on the church-hegemonic axis of male-led criteria the people will have the possibility, when not overly Roman theocratic, of tending up, as into a white light or plenum of absolute righteousness coupled, for females, to pseudo-justice, the antimetachemical counterpart, in antidiabolism, to the divine righteousness of metaphysics.

15. Let those who shout the loudest for justice remember that justice and righteousness are incompatible, and that when justice has her way on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis righteousness can only be pseudo, whereas when righteousness has his way on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis then justice can only be pseudo and, hence, of subordinate significance.  For justice is a female, more specifically an antifeminine female when genuine and an antidiabolic female when pseudo, but righteousness is a male, more specifically a masculine male when pseudo and a divine male when genuine.  These are the sensible pairings of two separate and independent axes, two approaches to civilization, the justice/pseudo-righteousness pairing sensibly antithetical to the vanity/pseudo-meekness pairing of the female-ruled axis and the righteousness/pseudo-justice pairing sensibly antithetical to the meekness/pseudo-vanity pairing of the male-led axis, whether or not each axis is compromised by epochal overhaulings or modifications, as described in previous texts.

16. Speaking of two separate, independent axes, is it not the case that the square-topped bus-stops used in London and, presumably, in much of Britain connote the descending axis from noumenal sensuality/noumenal anti-sensibility to phenomenal anti-sensuality/phenomenal sensibility which, in geometric terms, is surely headed or, rather, ruled by squares, whether or not circles in squares (as in the case of London bus-stops) are correlatively in accompaniment, the same of course applying to rectangles in ovals or, more correctly once antichemical subversion of the physical is taken into account, ovals in rectangles for the relative base of the axis in question, both of which would contrast with the ovals in rectangles or, again more correctly when once the antiphysical subversion of the chemical is taken into account, rectangles in ovals at the foot of the ascending axis from phenomenal anti-sensibility/phenomenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility/noumenal anti-sensuality which, in geometric terms, would surely be headed, or led, by circles, whether or not squares in circles were correlatively in accompaniment, and thus by the type of bus-stops found in Dublin and, presumably, throughout Eire, which are demonstrably circular, or curvilinear, at the top and amply reflective, in consequence, of the distinction between theocratic and autocratic values which characterizes the two nations – Britain ruled by autocratic squares and Ireland, or Eire, led by theocratic circles.  All the difference, in short, between a matriarchy, like Britain, and a patriarchy, like Eire, irrespective of intermediate democratic factors in each case.

17. I am often amazed, as an Irish citizen in Britain, a person of Irish birth, by the fact that I am in Britain at all.  What the hell am I doing here? is a thought which is constantly brought home to me by the clash between my ideological insights and alignments and the state-hegemonic axial reality confronting me at every turn, not only at bus-stops (which I rarely stand under since I catch a bus – those shiny red things uncomfortably reminiscent, for me, of red phone booths and post-boxes – only as a last resort), but in any number of different contexts and circumstances, some of which are inescapable.  My only consolation is that I was not responsible for bringing myself to Britain in the first place, though the fact that my father – an Irish Catholic – married a woman who turned out to be less Irish and less Catholic, despite her returning-from-Britain Irish-Catholic mother, than he may have at first supposed, is doubtless at the roots of why I never knew him but was obliged to grow up, first in Ireland and then in Britain, without the benefit of any paternal parenting at all and with a mother whom I quickly came to despise for her inability to take his place and fulfil his role.  No wonder that when her mother died when I was about nine or ten and was packed off back to Ireland – yet again! – my mother lost no time in having me despatched to a Children’s Home in Carshalton Beeches and effectively washed her hands with me, since I must have been something of an imposition with no father around all that time and a painful reminder of their incompatibility, something that can only have been in consequence of her having been born and raised in Aldershot by dint of being the daughter of an Ulster Protestant who had joined the British Army as a youth and happened to be stationed there.  But when he died from unnatural causes apparently incurred in consequence of military service overseas, then her mother, who had apparently met him when he was on a tour of duty in Southern Ireland, wanted back to Ireland again, and that meant, in those days of dependency, that her daughter would have to go too, even though she was partly of British descent.  Thus Mary Aldershot – as I subsequently leant on a visit ‘home’ that various of my Galway relatives apparently thought of her – found herself marrying an Irishman (which ideally she would have preferred not to have done, so she once told me) who wasn’t long in growing disillusioned with his choice of wife and running out on her, leaving them to take care of their public house as best they could until, out of funds and with no prospect of keeping it going, they were obliged to return to their old lodgings in Aldershot … dragging me along with them.  Thus I, the Irish-born son of a Catholic Galwayman, grew up in Aldershot, home of the British army!  I was and continued to be an outsider and social anomaly, who despises women because he had too much experience of them in the one room he was obliged to share with his somewhat resentfully cold mother and rheumatic grandmother as a child.  I am, if you will, an unfortunate bastard who cares nothing for families, sexual relationships, or any of the other norms of British or, indeed, Irish society, and it was in consequence of this anomalous background, extending, as it did, from a sort of Irish Catholic upbringing in Aldershot under my grandmother’s ethnic protection to an English Baptist upbringing in Carshalton Beeches once my mother was free to get rid of me and start again, that I was set on the road to becoming a writer and artist, even if on a necessarily unrecognized basis in keeping with my unrepresentative status and loner’s lifestyle.   Meanwhile, with me out of the way and her mother too, my mother was able to get her life back together and make an attempt at carrying on as though nothing had happened, which, in her case, meant marrying a black West Indian and moving to Finsbury Park in north London.  Years later it all came to nothing, but I never saw that much of them in any case and I have seen even less of my mother in recent years, while she, to be best of my knowledge, has never made any effort to visit or do anything for me.  We are simply Irish/British poles apart, and would rarely or never agree over things like Northern Ireland, which I simply regarded as the consequence of British imperialism and not simply an indigenous struggle between what some would have us believe were warring tribes.  I am myself a consequence of ethnic antagonism and incompatibility, whatever various people may have done to mask the fact, and even now I cannot visit Galway with any confidence that my surviving relatives there would really wish to see me, in view of the goings on between my father and mother in the past and the total want of any paternal input into my upbringing, never mind the embarrassment, from an Irish Catholic point of view, that it largely took place outside the country, in England, of all places, and in Aldershot and Carshalton Beeches in particular!  I am, from their standpoint, something best ‘brushed under the carpet’ as something that never happened, ‘out of sight’ being, as far as they’re concerned, ‘out of mind’.  Thus I am an outsider in my native country even as I protest my incompatibility with England and Britain in general, detesting the axial irrelevance to my own preference, from a male standpoint, for church-hegemonic criteria, albeit, in consequence of my exile and upbringing, of a very different order to what prevails in Eire.  For I am after all a self-styled Social Theocrat, and therefore nothing but the democratic overthrow of religious tradition would suit me.  If I have never loved my mother, I have only contempt and hatred towards my father, who proved himself useless to me and harmful towards himself.  No wonder that my general attitude towards Irish males is cool to the point of sarcastic suspicion if not ironic contempt, since my father is no father in any real sense, and I tend to regard all Irishmen, in consequence, as guilty until proven innocent, the opposite, in effect, of the mass English position of being innocent (of crime) until proven guilty!  But then Catholic males are effectively guilty of sin until proven innocent by the grace that attends penitential contrition.  Well, they’ll get no penitential contrition out of me, Baptist upbringing or no Baptist upbringing, but only a merciless opposition to all things Catholic and Protestant that stand in the way of Social Theocracy, and which Social Theocracy and Social Theocracy alone can banish to the rubbish heap of history in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and an end to all things Christian and ethnically divisive in consequence!  I detest this half-and-half religion of worldly hypocrisy and sanctimonious cant!  I am absolutely incapable, with good reason, of honouring my father and mother, neither of whom honoured me, and long for the day when the Bible is no more, when, following the righteous judgement of the people, it can be consigned to the rubbish heap of history and cast out of evolving life, that life may evolve beyond anything rooted in Creator-worship and slavish adherence to the negative doctrines of the ‘thou shalt nots’.  Not ‘thou shalt not’ do something negative (a consequence in large part of the arrogation of divine attributes to the diabolic which has the effect of muzzling its wilful freedom as a metachemical, or diabolically female, entity) but ‘you can and should’ do something positive would be the doctrine of Social Theocracy, not least in relation to ‘self-realization’ through a variety of synthetic hallucinogens or psychogenic stimulants.  You can and should become, according to gender, either godly or antidevilish, and thus part company with your lowly estate in the alpha/anti-omega world, not least since what that makes you vulnerable to is considerably less than godly or antidevilish, being, even by Old Testament standards, devilish and antigodly!  Away with this lie and anti-truth once the truth and its anti-lie female corollary sets you free.  For only truth (coupled to the anti-lie) can set you free, as antimasculine males and feminine females, from yourselves and from those diabolic females and antidivine males who cynically avail of your limitations to commercially prey upon you and rip you off.  But, really, it is males who will be set free of psychic binding in psychic freedom and, despite diplomatic rhetoric from above, females who will be counter-damned up from somatic freedom to somatic binding, as far as would be compatible with the main gender emphases in each case.  For life is and remains a gender struggle, and who knows that better than I, who witnessed and experienced the consequences of gender incompatibility complicated by ethnic and even class factors as a child?  A beautiful approach to truth and a loving approach to joy is all very well in secondary church-hegemonic terms, but beauty and love are still more significant from a female standpoint, and that is precisely the state-subordinate standpoint of antimetachemical bound soma which I like to regard as secondary (in theory) compared to the truthful approach to beauty and joyful approach to love of its male counterpart which, as we all know, is much less significant, as Son of God and Holy Spirit of Heaven, than God and Heaven in the truth and joy of metaphysical free psyche.  Therefore just as primary state-subordinate criteria are an offshoot of primary church-hegemonic criteria in metaphysics, so secondary church-hegemonic criteria are an offshoot of secondary state-subordinate criteria in antimetachemistry.  God the Father may be of more metaphysical significance than the Son of God but, believe me, Antidevil the Antimother is of more antimetachemical significance than the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, whatever rhetoric, aiming at church parallelism, may have to say to the contrary!  And, by a like token, while Heaven the Holy Soul may be of more metaphysical significance than the Holy Spirit of Heaven, Antihell the Unclear Spirit can only remain of more antimetachemical significance than the Unclear Soul of Antihell.  For even in noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality males and females remain different and separate creatures, for whom the age-old difference between psyche preceding and predominating over soma in the one case and soma preceding and predominating over psyche in the other case will continue, despite cyborgistic modifications in the course of time, to exist.  In the final analysis there will still be Eternity and Anti-Infinity, not simply an Omega Point but an accompanying Anti-Alpha Point for that which is antimetachemically less than metaphysics and accordingly more anti-upperclass than classless.

18. It is this sense of the dual gender nature of ‘Kingdom Come’ that precludes me from falling into utopian error.  For the utopian thinker invariably reduces everything to one gender, whether male or female, and simply subsumes the opposite gender into his reductionist ideal.  But that is the last thing I could be accused of doing!  With me two gender standpoints always have to be accounted for, and no sooner have you accounted for the hegemonic gender’s position in relation to God and Heaven than you must also account for the subordinate gender’s position in relation to the Antidevil and Antihell, as in the above-mentioned context of Eternity and Anti-Infinity, the former male and the latter female.  An inability or failure to divide your thinking in this way will simply lead to utopian error, whereby it will be assumed that everyone can be subsumed into God and Heaven irrespective of gender.  Nothing, however, could be further from the truth, and the sooner people come to realize this, in rejection of the contemporary tendency to undermine gender discrimination in all walks of life, the better it will be for all concerned, females included!  Actually, what one has these days, in the wake of the undermining of gender differentiation and discrimination as a symptom of bourgeois and/or Western decadence, is the American-led tendency to go beyond Western decadence on an alpha-stemming global basis which is more openly sensual than degenerately sensible and consequently nearer to affirming gender inequality in terms of a female hegemony, the sort of hegemony which one would have characterized as being somehow compatible with the more blatant aspects of sensuality issuing via cathode-ray-tube technology and the like, not least in respect of females being coitally dominant over males.  Frankly, there is about much contemporary Anglo-American culture a parallel with Greco-Roman culture whereby matriarchal criteria take precedence over anything patriarchal in typically heathenistic vein.  Certainly the coming of Christianity changed all that, and it was not until the Reformation and the ascendancy of Protestantism that the balance began to tip back the other way, towards the secular openness we find ourselves living under today and the almost taking for granted of female hegemonic criteria in certain countries which, though not openly admitted to, spring from a want of gender discrimination and differentiation – indeed, crawl out of the gender equalitarianism which Western decadence, in the sense of bourgeois Protestant culture, encouraged.  For if you give a creature who is a XX-chromosomal negativity a proverbial inch of liberal licence she will sooner or later take a mile of wilful illiberality in the sort of pluralistic autocracy which characterizes contemporary American-lead secular culture.  Such is the heathenistic outcome of post-Reformation schism and heresy, and, frankly, it stinks to high hell!  So let those of us who still cling, no matter how fitfully or pessimistically, to church-hegemonic criteria remain faithful – as, indeed, did the Nazis despite their state-hegemonic aberrations – to gender discrimination and the possibility of its overhaul and renewal via Social Theocracy at some future date.  Let us continue to remain outside the Anglo-American liberal conspiracy against church-hegemonic values which both autocracy and democracy represent in their opposite ways, but let us work, more importantly, for the overhaul of traditional bureaucratic/theocratic norms in order that the majority of our people may be saved and counter-damned from the secular impositions which state-hegemonic societies continue to inflict upon their less secular and more traditionally faithful neighbours.  For it is not our destiny to follow the Anglo-Saxon model of liberal secularity, but to lead others in the development of a radical theocratic alternative to this heathenistic blight which is the immoral fruit of schismatic heresy.

19. The church-subordinate pseudo-Christians may encourage the spread of female ministers, since their Anglican to Puritan axis is characterized by the domination of female criteria over anything male, whether unequivocally in the subordination of antimetaphysics to metachemistry or equivocally in the subversion of physics by antichemistry, but it would be quite out of order for the Roman Catholic Church to follow suit, given its tradition of male domination, whether equivocally in the subversion of chemistry by antiphysics or unequivocally in the subordination of antimetachemistry to metaphysics.  Whether society is ruled by females or led by males is so crucial to the distinction between state-hegemonic/church-subordinate and church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria … that it would be inconceivable for either approach to civilization to do a deal with the other and fudge the issue as of small moment.  The Protestant situation is a consequence, in no small measure, of the liberal heresy of gender equalitarianism, and it is against this error that Social Theocracy must carry on from where Roman Catholicism left off, renewing the sense of gender discrimination which first Protestantism and then Liberalism did their best to eclipse, so that, with us, things become even more logically and methodically discriminatory than was the case in the Catholic past, when, in consequence of a genuine ‘below’ and a pseudo ‘above’, a true sense of metaphysics vis-à-vis antimetachemistry did not come to pass and the ‘above’ resorted to a verbal absolution ‘fudge’ that pandered, in some sense, to the ‘below’ while still being hamstrung, over and above this, by traditional alpha-based concepts of divinity which are themselves the product of an arrogation of divine attributes to the diabolic in the guise of Devil the Mother hyped as God.  No wonder, then, that the omega-oriented position was less than properly differentiated along metaphysical/antimetachemical grounds.  For a metaphysical postulate at the level – necessarily Christian – of mankind would not entail allegiance to the concept of ‘sacred heart’ so much as allegiance to the concept of ‘sacred lungs’, and thus to a TM-like break, Buddhist-like, with the tradition, open to either gender, of verbal absolution for penitential contrition.  Such was never the case, and therefore the Church, for all its metaphysical aspirations, remained the victim of metachemical/antimetaphysical conventions stretching back, Old Testament-wise, to Judaism.   This want of true differentiation above is what condemns the Church from a Social Theocratic standpoint and exposes its Western limitations even vis-à-vis Eastern transcendentalism, of which transcendental meditation is the epitome and acme of mankind’s departure from either natural or cosmic subservience.  But even radical Buddhism, being Eastern, is of mankind and thus no long-term alternative to Roman Catholicism as the most religiously representative manifestation of Western civilization.  Global civilization transcends both the West and the East, and is therefore beyond even TM in its commitment to synthetically artificial values, whether, as at present, with a sensual bias or, hopefully in the future, following a Social Theocratic revolution, with a markedly sensible one.  And it is for us to develop the gender differential between metaphysics and antimetachemistry to its logical conclusions in the interests of a virtuous circle of Eternity and Anti-Infinity, Time and Antispace, Celestial City and Anti-Vanity Fair, classlessness and anti-upperclassness, God and Antidevil, Heaven and Antihell, Yang and Anti-Yin, Lamb and Anti-Lion and/or Wolf, Truth and the beautiful approach to Truth, Joy and the loving approach to Joy, not to mention, where state-subordinate (bound somatic) criteria are concerned, the truthful approach to Beauty and Beauty, the joyful approach to Love and Love.

20. Thus we will not suffer from the Western-inspired fudge which tends to make a ne plus ultra out of Love, the concomitant of Beauty.  As I said before, love is a very secondary deal from a heavenly standpoint, which, being primary church-hegemonic, will always be centred in Joy, as, where God is concerned, in Truth.  But Truth, and thus joy, is not possible so long as the lie of Devil the Mother hyped as God continues to hold anything noumenally contrary to itself, in sensibility, back from full revelation and realization, thereby causing Love (and Beauty) to be exaggerated out of all proportion to their actual (antimetachemical) worth.  Only when this is rejected, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, will it be possible for what is really true to ‘come out’ and ‘stand tall’, independently of all alpha-based arrogations and able to master beauty and love and subordinate them to itself.  Then it will not be logically possible to speak religiously in the name of Love but rather in the name of Joy as primary church-hegemonic and, from a female standpoint, the loving approach to Joy as secondary church-hegemonic … within the overall context of the Centre, relegating the joyful approach to Love and, for females, Love to primary and secondary, metaphysical and antimetachemical, manifestations of state subordination within that self-same or, more correctly, notself-same otherworldly/anti-netherworldly relativistic absolutism ... of post-church/state worldly relativity which I have identified with the Centre, whether or not one prefers to consider the ‘state’ aspect of it Social Theocratic and the ‘church’ aspect of it Social Transcendentalist as I, for one, would, if only because the service and protection of a religiously sovereign people would be a different proposition from their religious rights in the Centre-proper, not least in respect of their defence from internal subversion or even outside interference.