13-14/03/13
It is one of the great paradoxes of life in the
so-called British Isles that, whilst the Catholic Irish are politically free
(in the Republic of Ireland) but religiously bound (to Vatican papacy), the
Protestant British are religiously free (of Vatican papacy) but politically
bound (to a constitutional monarchy), so that neither people, whether Irish or
British, is totally free of either religious or political enslavement. But, to
my mind, the British are more bound, as subjects of the reigning monarch, than
their Irish counterparts, and this despite the fact that, for them, freedom is
primarily from the papacy, as from the moral stranglehold of the Catholic
Church.
Yet the British – and the English in particular
- became free of Roman Catholicism not through any virtue or especially
progressive disposition on their part, but in consequence of the
excommunication of Henry VIII back in the sixteenth century for refusing to abide
by the strictures of the Roman Catholic Church in regard to marriage or, more
specifically, with regard to divorce and remarriage, and thus, in contravening
the strictures of the Church by going ahead with his divorce from Catherine of
Aragon, he took England off the 'gold standard', so to speak, of Western
religion and was obliged to found a church independent of Rome, a church which,
to this day, attests to an heretical departure from the 'one true church' of
the Western tradition.
Henceforward the English – and eventually the
British in general – would pay for the apostasy (and tendency towards serial
monogamy) of Henry VIII through the binding of the Anglican Church, the Church
of England (not to mention those of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland) to the ruling
monarch, a procedure intended to preclude a return to Catholicism and tending
to ensure that Britain, in particular, though relatively free of
Catholicism,would remain characterized by the subjection of the populace – as
subjects – to political authoritarianism in the person of the ruling monarch,
and this despite constitutional modifications of the basic structure.
Even now, Britain is the land par
excellence of the politically bound, the parliamentary
representatives of the subject populace who had elected them having to swear an
oath of allegiance to the throne (which I have always tended to regard as being
the political equivalent of a Faustian pact), and one wonders, with its largely
Protestant bias, both Anglican and non-Anglican (puritan), whether Scotland
will opt for independence from the United Kingdom in the autumn of 2014, and
hence from the status of being British subjects, democratically choosing,
instead, the road to political freedom and the concomitant privilege of Scots
being, thereafter, free-born men (and women), like, it must be said, their
Irish counterparts in the Republic of Ireland who, by contrast, had to fight
the British for the right to be free.
The Pope, being a learned man, may well be
'infallible' in relation to the teachings of the Church, but he is in no way
independent, despite being 'Christ's vicar on earth', of the Creator-ism
associated with the Old Testament, and thus of the fundamental lie of Devil the
Mother hyped as God (the Father) and, correlatively, of what I call Hell the
Clear Spirit being hyped as Heaven (the Holy Soul), as though beauty in the one
case and love in the other had any function other than to secure, for the
female, the means whereby she might conceive offspring and thereby acquire the
surrogate plenum of maternity to release her, if only temporarily and, as it
were, intermittently, from the root cause of her need in the vacuousness of a
metachemical disposition, a disposition at variance, if not loggerheads, with
anything godly and, more specifically, heavenly … in what I have described as
metaphysical free psyche. On the contrary, beauty and love are attributes of
metachemical free soma, and therefore stand at an antithetical remove, alpha to
omega, from metaphysics and the prospect of Heaven (the Holy Soul).
It is not God that joins man and woman
together, in the phrase adopted by priests at official marriage ceremonies, but
Devil the Mother coupled to Hell the Clear Spirit, and this lie is fundamental
to the Church, as to Christianity in general, whereby beauty and love continue
to exclude, from state religion, the possibility of joy and truth, the
possibility, in short, of metaphysical free psyche and thus of a full
complement, as it were, of metaphysics over a genuinely deferential – because
neutralized – pseudo-metachemistry, the corollary of such a full-blown
metaphysics.
For me, it has always been less important to
question the philosophy of religion than to answer with the religion of
philosophy – namely, Social Theocracy and/or Social Transcendentalism, which I,
as a thinker, have developed over the course of several decades.
Psychological metamorphosis is the concomitant
of biological or physiological metamorphosis. For the child can only act as
a child, the youth as a youth, the adult as
an adult, and the geriatric as a geriatric. But physiological
metamorphosis can be, in certain instances, the concomitant of psychological
metamorphosis, as when the heathen become Christian and, in accordance with the
reality of rebirth, often symbolized by baptism, change both their appearance
and their lifestyle, or attitude to life, becoming virtually unrecognisable to
those who knew them before their conversion (rebirth).
Logically, I would incline to the argument that
females appear more prone to psychological metamorphosis in consequence of
biological or physiological metamorphosis, whereas my feeling about males is
that they would seem more prone to physiological metamorphosis in consequence
of psychological metamorphosis. But I would be reluctant, all the same, to
categorically contend that such gender-based distinctions were invariably
clear-cut.
The concept of Christian rebirth has a lot in
common with metamorphosis and even, in a special sense, with reincarnation. For
the Christian is, in some degree, akin to the butterfly that emerges, via the
chrysalis, from the caterpillar, his chrysalis being the religious
indoctrination which allowed him to slough off his heathen past and be reborn,
through conversion, as a Christian, or a believer in the teachings and example
of Christ and, through him, in the possibility of salvation, or deliverance
from temporal life to Eternal Life, from the sins of the world to the grace of
otherworldly blessedness.
But the Christian, for all his belief in a
better life, remains man, even human-all-too-human, to use that Nietzschean
turn-of-phrase again. The realization of Eternal Life, on the other hand, will
require the metamorphosis that leads from man to Superman, as from physics, or
any 'pseudo' approximation thereof, to metaphysics. Now the Superman, when he
eventually transpired, would not be Christian, still less heathen, but
effectively Superchristian, the fulfilment, in 'Kingdom Come', of Christian
faith, or belief in that 'better world', presided over by Christ or in this
instance of a Christ-like figure, to come.
A new day in life's sinister adventure,
punctuated, as usual, by periods of quiet hysteria and seething anger.
A dreadful film, whose title I can't recall,
full of fag-smoking degenerate lefties who, even if they weren't exactly fags,
were certainly arseholes! Guess, if you can.