CYCLE THIRTY-FOUR

1. SALVATION FROM THE FATHER. Neither the Catholic Father, extrapolated from the quasi-superfeminine Jehovah, nor the Protestant Father, extrapolated from the submasculine Satan, can have any place in 'Kingdom Come', since no alpha-stemming deity would be relevant to an omega-oriented society in which, thanks to Messianic guidance, the Holy Spirit of Heaven was the presiding deity, and one presiding not in space, or in any imaginary theological realm, but in the saved self of those who had democratically opted, through the Second Coming, for religious sovereignty and the right, thereby, to spiritual self-determination. Consequently there could be no clerical fathers in 'Kingdom Come', for such fathers are rooted in the Father, and thus reflect, no matter how Christian they may profess to be, both Heathen and Superheathen traditions of patriarchal authoritarianism. A people who had elected to be saved from 'sins of the World' would also have elected to pass beyond clerical fathers, and thus the Church of which the Father is the ruling deity, a deity who does not lead to the Beyond but, on the contrary, stems from the Behind/Before ... of Superheathen primacy. Thus, in a certain sense, a people who had elected for religious sovereignty would also have elected to be saved from the Church, since that which upholds the fundamentalism of the Father is contrary to the will of the Second Coming to advance the Holy Spirit of Heaven at the Father's expense. Only the Republican State can provide the democratic framework in which the People can decide for themselves whether they wish to remain tied to the fundamentalism of the Church, like so many children of a stern parent, or break away from it in the interests of true spiritual salvation in the Social Transcendentalism of the Centre. For only the Second Coming can liberate them from the Father.

2. SALVATION IN FREEDOM. Sense in which the struggle of 'political' peoples from the autocratic Kingdom to the democratic State (republic) is akin to a progression from science (cosmology) to philosophy, as from the Devil to woman. Likewise, for 'religious' peoples there is what might be called a struggle from the theocratic Church to the meritocratic Centre, as from theology to theosophy, and hence from man to God. Thus, on the one hand, a feminine-based devolution from Superheathen binding in the Kingdom to Heathen freedom in the State, as from the absolute barbarism of supernature to the relative barbarism of nature, whilst, on the other hand, a masculine-based evolution from Christian binding in the (Father-dominated) Church to Superchristian freedom in the Centre, as from the relative civilization of culture to the absolute civilization of superculture. Either way, the purpose and goal of the struggle is freedom, freedom from cosmological and/or (depending on the people) theological tyranny. And we have every right to regard both types of freedom struggle as reflecting contrary modes of salvation, the devolutionary one a democratic salvation from autocratic damnation, and the evolutionary one a meritocratic salvation from theocratic damnation. For the Damned are bound (enslaved) whereas the Saved are free (liberated). Whether one's freedom is through philosophy or through theosophy, the flesh or the spirit, that freedom is a salvation from the damnation of binding to cosmology or theology, viz. science or religion, the soul or the intellect.