28-31/05/13
Yesterday, being a Bank
Curiously, it might be fairer to say that my
works, my collections of ideas and experiences and reminiscences and opinions
and investigations and so on, don't really have an end because, quite apart
from the fact that each one is a kind of individual link in an ever-expanding
chain or, if you prefer, a succeeding rung on an ever-mounting ladder, they
don't really have a beginning either. You could start in the middle and work
backwards or forwards, but wherever you choose to start you'll soon find
something of interest if not of logical insight on virtually any page, so it
doesn't really matter where you begin so long as you approach the work with a
sufficiently studious or serious disposition.
Of course, strictly speaking, there is a beginning and there is an end even in writings that, like
these, are non-linear in construction and kind of spiral upwards in curvilinear
vein, but the beginning might read like an end and the end like a beginning,
since it is not in my nature to write a straightforward narrative like somebody
telling a story or writing a tall tale. After all, I am an artist of sorts,
with an original turn-of-mind, not a bloody novelist or whatever who sits down
at his desk every day, like a businessman, and imagines he's an artist when all
he does is write in a formulaic manner, according to the dictates of some plot
or other with a certain number of characters in a given number of situations or
settings. Frankly, being like that would bore me to tears, and I can't see how
anybody who writes novels, these days, could possibly be an artist, least of
all an original one, never mind a thinker or philosopher!
Poor buggers like that are just literary slaves
who have been bought by some publisher whose agents see to it that they comply
with whatever 'in house' rules or requirements the 'stable' demands. Such
people, frankly, give literature a bad name.
Religions of 'the Creator' vis-a-vis religions
or, more correctly, the religion of the Saviour …
from a world dominated by criteria owing more to 'the Creator' than to Christ.
For Christianity is the only so-called world
religion which is devoted, through Christ, to the worship of death and the
prospect, with the 'resurrection', of Eternity. All the rest, with the possible
exception of Buddhism, are devoted, one way or another, to the worship of
whatever presides over life as an expression of the Infinite. And the
acceptance of life through worship of 'the Creator' is, as Christians should
know, a kind of heathenish shortfall from repudiation of life, through Christ,
in favour of the prospect, following death, of Eternity – an eternity
commensurate, so I teach, with 'Kingdom Come', and thus of an end not only to
'the world', with its predator/prey axial dichotomy, but to any connection with
the worship – such that Christianity itself still upholds through the medium of
the Old Testament – of what lies behind 'the world', as also of
the world in general as planet, earth, etc., in the netherworldly guise of the
stars and of one star in particular that has been monotheistically singled out,
without necessarily being defined, for association with 'the Creator', the 'One
God', 'the Almighty', etc., which I prefer to term 'Devil the Mother' or,
latterly (following more general insights), 'Devil the Virgin' or, for that
matter, 'Devil the Vacuum' (in and of spatial space, or space per
se), stripping away the 'sugar coating' (over female dominion) of
what has tended to pass, in Old Testament usage, for God and turning away, in
disgust, from cosmic fundamentalism in the interests of the coming 'One Heaven'
that will be the antithesis of the so-called 'heavens', the stellar bodies
presiding over the Cosmos, from which, ironically, the 'One God' was
monotheistically extrapolated.
This 'One Heaven', hegemonic over a pseudo-Hell
or, more correctly (in relation to the actual fulcrum of the
pseudo-metachemical context under metaphysics being pseudo-bound will) a
pseudo-Devil, will be truly universal, not in the way that the polyversal
Cosmos duly hyped as universal in relation to monotheism is, which is to say
falsely, but in respect of a global resolution to the cosmopolitan
globalization of the present that will either replace or transcend all the old
so-called world religions, even Christianity, as it delivers religion from the
grip of cosmic infinity in the name of universal eternity, an eternity without
universal end.
If I have been reluctant to either play or
worship the Infinite in some Creator-esque disguise, it is because I have been
reluctant to live, whether in doing, giving, or taking. To beingfully exist is
certainly preferable to that, as I've said before, not least in my capacity as
artist or writer, but you still die and decompose, even if cadently so. Which
is the kind of non-existential eternity of being traditionally acknowledged and even anticipated by
Christians.
The eternity I have in mind, however, goes way
beyond this, since it does not involve actual death but only dying to 'the
world' in order to be reborn into a type of existential being or, rather,
non-existential being that, with the right kind of synthetically artificial
support and/or sustain system, would last for ever, defying the prospect of
death and dissolution that even the practising Christian, who had 'died to the
world' through Christ, cannot escape.
This, I believe, would be Eternal Life in
relation to 'Kingdom Come', which I equate not with Christianity, still less
Buddhism, but with Social Theocracy and the desirability of religious
sovereignty for a world that knows only political sovereignty because still
labouring under the delusion of God in the Beginning when, in actuality (and
not forgetting the place of pseudo-God under the Devil), God and, more
specifically, God-in-Heaven is very much in the End when and if the people
of certain axially predisposed countries or nations are granted the opportunity
to elect for religious sovereignty, conceived as the ultimate type of
sovereignty, and the rights accruing to it (as already discussed in previous
writings) within the overall context of 'Kingdom Come'.
It is not 'God-in-Heaven' (metaphysical
truth-in-joy) that is in the Beginning but 'Hell-in-the-Devil' (metachemical
love-in-beauty), and that, hyped as God/Heaven as the 'best of a bad job'
starting-point for civilization as the world has generally known it,
particularly in the Judeo-Christian traditions, is the Lie that only a majority
mandate for religious sovereignty will enable the Truth not merely to expose
but, through its appointed representatives in the Social Theocratic movement,
to depose and effectively consign to the proverbial 'rubbish
bin of history' and, more specifically, of outmoded religious history, for ever
and anon.
'The Ten Commandments' – the 'Thou Shalt Nots'
… Is it not too autocratic and authoritarian for our tastes, these days? Being
told what not to do like so many children before a stern (Mosaic) parent, or
father figure. Have we not grown beyond all that?
Of course, being a writer, I like to think of
myself as an authority on, well, religious evolution and the Social Theocratic
Centre leading, for the religiously sovereign (should any such eventually
transpire) to Social Transcendentalism in what has loosely been identified with
'Kingdom Come' as a context characterized by the universal prevalence of
religious sovereignty under messianic auspices. Now as the author or 'father'
of the said ideology I must be something of an authority, whether I like it or
not. And, in a way, I have to say I do.
The practical realization of this ideology,
however, requires the assistance of a 'son' or even 'sons' of the 'godfather'
of Social Theocracy, pretty much as Hitler to Nietzsche or Lenin to Marx in
their own respective spheres of influence, and therefore would have to be left
to a time when, having thoroughly familiarized himself with my philosophy, such
a person or persons were capable of implementing it and bringing about the
rudiments or beginnings of 'Kingdom Come' in whatever country or countries
proved most amenable to the development of Social Theocracy under the guidance
of a Social Theocratic Party and/or Movement. There is only so much that I can
do and, as this and other texts should prove, I am far more theoretical than
practical and see my work as existing on the philosophical plane where, as a
thinker, I have spent the greater part of my life, struggling towards the
formulation of a complete philosophy which theoretically leaves nothing except
its practical realization or implementation to be desired. In that respect, I
have succeeded like no other, and should be satisfied with my life's work.
Since existential being precedes, for males,
the non-existential being, or pure being, of afterlife experience in death, we
can contend that what may be called existential superbeing will precede, with a
more developed cyborgization capable of enabling substance utilization of a
purer, post-visionary constitution to regularly and substantively obtain,
non-existential superbeing, thereby permitting Eternal Life in 'Kingdom Come'
to truly 'come into its own' in terms of a stage of being, of metaphysics, more
analogous in character to afterlife experience in the grave, that is, less
visionary (and dream-like, perhaps even feverishly so with death-pending
existential being) than non-visionary in constitution, closer to what Huxley
would have called unitive knowledge of the Self.
But as existential being normally precedes
non-existential being for those who die naturally (and peaceably), that is, of
natural causes not unconnected with bodily degeneration, so it would be logical
for a form of existential superbeing to precede non-existential superbeing in
the eternity of 'Kingdom Come', as defined by me in relation to the culmination
of global civilization under the messianic aegis, through Social Theocracy, of
religious sovereignty, the sovereignty alone capable of being equated with any
society or social system existing under the guidance of messianic leadership.
It is difficult to feel particularly
enthusiastic about anything when the sky is so overcast, so leaden with dense
layers of sullen cloud, as to be like a lead weight upon the soul, which seems
to go into hibernation, leaving one feeling lackadaisical and generally
indifferent to everything.
People cling to life from fear of death, not
because life is particularly enjoyable or agreeable, which, for the most part,
it isn't, but simply because they don't want to die, since too committed to
living, as to a habit. Fear of death keeps them on the rails of life, but they
also know that, one day, they will come off the rails and die, whether into nothingness
or, more likely in the case of males, into a somethingness analogous to
afterlife experience.
Non-existential being, which I have described
as pure being, and regard as the antithesis, in tomb-encased death, to the
wilful birth of life in the womb, is actually supreme being, the being beyond
existential being and therefore that which has traditionally been associated
with God (the risen or crucified Christ) when, in truth, it would be of Heaven
the Holy Soul, the soulful fulcrum of the metaphysical context which, as
supreme (because non-existential) being, would lie beyond godfatherliness as
the 'outer face', as it were, of heaven, thereby transcending even the
crucifixional paradigm of metaphysical bound soma in the 'Son of God' (or son
of godliness) coupled to the 'Holy Spirit of Heaven', as lungs and breath
equivalents respectively that have always been beyond the Christian pale by
dint of the danger, from a Creator-deferring standpoint, of transcendental
meditation and a degree of lungs and breath-utilizing godfatherliness and
heaven-the-holy-soulfulness in metaphysical free psyche that would necessarily
be independent of the God of the Old Testament, meaning Devil the Mother and/or
Virgin duly hyped as God (the Father) as monotheistic anchor, in 'the Creator',
to the Christian extrapolations, both Catholic and (subsequently and more
directly) Protestant.
Such independence would have been denigrated as
'atheist', and consequently a truncated and effectively twisted concept of
metaphysics, as of God, was all that the Christian tradition would, in its
Catholic manifestation (and hardly at all in terms of the axial shift from
metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics with the
Anglican apostasy), make allowances for, thereby depriving people – and males
in particular - of knowledge of God in relation to experience of Heaven, or
Divine Truth in relation to Sublime Joy, the context conducive, with
existential being, towards one's becoming, as a male, a real human being and
therefore prepared, at death, for the experience of supreme being with the
non-existential being of the grave.
Even Catholicism was hamstrung, as it were, by
allegiance, if less directly, to metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and thus by
worship of doing and pseudo-being in the guise, effectively, of the
Virgin/pseudo-Father, the cosmic vacuum and pseudo-plenum of a kind of
stellar/solar distinction having both natural and human equivalents (as
discussed in earlier books) that, in more recent times, have been overhauled by
cyborgistic equivalents along the lines of monochrome and polychrome films, or
silent black-and-white movies and sound-oriented colour films.
Verily, beauty and pseudo-truth, love and
pseudo-joy (to cite only the 'bound somatic' aspects of the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical
dichotomy) continue to 'call the shots' and to 'pull strings' that have nothing
whatsoever to do with metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, or truth/joy and
pseudo-beauty/pseudo-love (to cite only the 'free psychic' aspects of what
would appertain, in metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry, to a kind of
Father/pseudo-Virgin dichotomy along the lines of Saint and (neutralized)
Dragon or, for that matter, 'lamb' and (neutralized) 'lion', the latter of
which would have more reference to the bound somatic or, more correctly,
pseudo-bound somatic aspects of pseudo-metachemistry (pseudo-ugliness and
pseudo-hatred) than to any pseudo-free psychic parallelism, after the manner of
pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love, with metaphysical free psyche in truth and,
especially, joy.
In the upper-order (noumenal) axial antitheses
between what, in a general kind of way deriving from Christian terminology, has
been called Virgin/pseudo-Father and Father/pseudo-Virgin, it could be said
that whereas the former distinction traditionally favours female monarchs at
the expense of males, not least in England, the latter will favour male
monarchs, as in Catholic Europe traditionally, at the expense of females.
Hence the Catholic predisposition of monarchs
to be male, in contrast to what has become, especially in Britain, the
Protestant (Anglican) predisposition towards female monarchs, as though in
reflection of the Virgin/pseudo-Father dichotomy between metachemistry and
pseudo-metaphysics, space and pseudo-time, with the former a plane above the
latter at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass on what, in
consequence, is a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis. Even Queen Mary
('Bloody Mary') profited from the Protestant reforms of Henry VIII ostensibly to
rule England in the Catholic interest but, ironically, as somebody whom that
king would never have envisaged as a suitable heir, less on the basis of her
religion (which he himself shared at one time) than of her gender. After all,
did he not wind-up being excommunicated from the Catholic Church by divorcing
Mary's mother, Catherine of
But then came the Reformation in England and,
with an effective switch of axis, the justification of a male heir became –
although Henry would not have known it – less important, one might even say
less relevant, as subsequent events, including the irony of a Catholic Queen
(his daughter by Catherine) superseding the young Edward VI but effectively
ruling from the standpoint of Virgin rather than (like Henry) pseudo-Father in
what, to my mind, removes the claim to rule by 'divine right' from the realm of
(truncated) metaphysics in relation to the Father or, more specifically, the
'Son of God' (Christ 'On High') to that of metachemistry and a justification
less subjectively divine in relation to repetitive time than objectively
diabolic in relation to spatial space, closer, in Western terms, to the Judaic
concept of God as 'Creator', 'First Mover', 'the Almighty', and other cosmic
variants on 'the Virgin', or what I have also, and in relation to free will,
more specifically called 'Devil the Mother' (duly hyped as God, even in
Christian usage as 'God the Father'). No small change!
In fact, more like a revolution than a
reformation. And one which was to have fateful consequences for England in
particular and Great Britain in general in the centuries to come, as female
monarchs continued to dominate the throne at the expense of their male, or
perhaps one should say pseudo-male (pseudo-metaphysical), counterparts, whose
right to rule would more derive, I believe, from the 'pseudo-Father', or
pseudo-God, than from 'the Virgin' (in the general metachemical sense to which
I am applying that term), thereby being paradoxically closer, if on an axially
antithetical basis favouring sequential time at the expense of repetitive time,
to the dieu et mon droit of
Catholic tradition, which has tended to favour male monarchs, corresponding to
'the Father', at the expense of their ('pseudo-Virgin') female counterparts,
who could not have risen higher than pseudo-metachemistry, rather like the
prone Mary at the foot of the so-called 'true cross' of truncated – but
Y-chromosomal-intimating – metaphysics upon which hangs the 'Son of God' as a
bound-somatic shortfall from what, in free psyche, could properly be identified
with God or, more specifically, godfatherliness in relation to Heaven … the
Holy Soul, the actual fulcrum of the metaphysical context which has always been
beyond the Western and, in particular, Catholic pale by dint of its ongoing
allegiance, through the Old Testament, to metachemistry in the netherworldly
rear of things Christian.
Not only gender, then, but also axis is a
significant factor in the status and justification of monarchs traditionally,
and that is something worth knowing, however reluctant one may be, in this day
and age, to endorse monarchism of any description. For monarchs are
fundamentally autocratic, not theocratic, and no amount of rhetoric can
disguise the fact that monarchy and papacy are two entirely different
functions, as different as state and church, whether or not the state is
hegemonic over the church or subordinate to the church, depending on the types
of state and church in question, neither of which would have any applicability
to 'Kingdom Come' and an entirely different type of relationship between the
state-like and church-like aspects of a society characterized by religious
sovereignty in what I have tended, in previous texts, to call 'the Centre'.
