76.  Thus instead of a moral-virtuous-blessed-saved circle conditioning a virtuous-blessed-moral-saved circle, as in the aforementioned examples of male hegemonic sensibility, the examples of female hegemonic sensuality would attest to a vicious-cursed-immoral-damned circle conditioning an immoral-damned-vicious-cursed circle in which not primary and secondary manifestations of culture and civility but, on the contrary, primary and secondary manifestations of barbarity and philistinism duly obtained.

77.  Therefore the only consequence of a female hegemonic society, or a society, in short, in which females have been liberated from somatic repression at the hands of psychically free males and are now free to impress soma (upon the self) as they desire, is the prosecution of all that is worst in life, from crime and evil in chemistry and metachemistry to folly and sin in antiphysics and antimetaphysics, as all that is vicious, cursed, immoral, and damned runs its barbarous and/or philistine course in primary (female) or secondary (male) terms.

78.  Conversely, the only consequence of a male hegemonic society, or a society in which males have been liberated from psychic oppression at the hands of somatically free females and are now free to express psyche (at the expense of not-self) as they desire, is the furtherance of all that is best in life, from grace and wisdom in physics and metaphysics to modesty and punishment in antichemistry and antimetachemistry, as all that is moral, saved, virtuous, and blessed runs its cultural and/or civil course in primary (male) or secondary (female) terms.

79.  Civilization can be balanced rather precariously between these two extremes or it can demonstrate a bias one way or the other, without ceasing to be worldly and effectively relative.   But it can also demonstrably tip one way or the other on the scales of judgement, and thus revert to barbarism or progress to civility, revert to philistinism or progress to culture.  The scales are always there in worldly society, but the judgement that indicates one bias or another will point to the most likely fate of any given society in the course of its unfolding for better or worse.

80.  Societies that are typified by the descending autocratic-democratic axis of crime and punishment tend to see the world in terms of a correlative interpretation of black and white as tyranny and freedom from tyranny, but always with a bias for freedom which is implicitly if not explicitly democratic, so that their Weltanschauung is one which regards progress from a democratic point of view and is partial to the concept of freedom in democratic, though usually liberal democratic, terms.

81.  Societies, by contrast, which are typified by the ascending bureaucratic-theocratic axis of sin and grace tend to view the world in terms of a correlative interpretation of black and white as worldliness and freedom from worldliness, but always with a bias for freedom which is implicitly if not explicitly theocratic, so that their Weltanschauung is one which regards progress from a theocratic point of view and is partial to the concept of freedom in theocratic, though usually liberal theocratic, terms.

82.  No society is, as a rule, completely one thing or another, but most societies tend to be identifiable in regard to the predominance of one of the two axes which officially characterizes that society, country, nation, or whatever, as pertaining, when not unduly conservative and reactionary, to either a democratic or a theocratic interpretation of freedom, the one low and the other high.

83.  The notion, however, that autocracy is black and democracy white may at first seem somewhat problematic, since autocracy would appear to correspond to an outer light and democracy to an inner darkness.  But, in actuality, autocracy corresponds not primarily to the outer light but to  a higher outer darkness which, as free will, is rooted in somatic force and causes soul to behave in a somewhat eccentric and effectively pseudo-expressive manner compatible with what I have called outer light, whereas democracy primarily corresponds to a lower inner light which, as free ego, is centred in psychic heat and causes spirit to behave in a somewhat concentric and effectively pseudo-impressive manner, so that as we proceed down the autocratic-democratic axis from noumenal objectivity to phenomenal subjectivity it is, in fact, fair to maintain that autocracy is primarily black and democracy primarily white, even if we allow secondary white and black features to each, since in overall terms the former corresponds to crime and the latter to punishment, with the one appertaining to the metachemical heights of the autocratic Few and the other to the physical depths of the democratic Many, albeit the physical depths are compromised by antichemical objectivity which twists the physical self against the metachemical not-self in anti-notself terms.

84.  As regards the ascending axis of bureaucracy-theocracy, however, the metaphorical interpretation of bureaucracy as black and theocracy as white certainly corresponds to the primary distinction between sin and grace, the lower outer darkness of free spirit, which is rooted in the phenomenal objectivity of somatic motion and renders bound ego pseudo-expressive, and the higher inner light of free soul, which is centred in the noumenal subjectivity of psychic light and renders bound will pseudo-impressive, and therefore remains a valid perspective for distinguishing worldliness from otherworldliness, or anti-self behaviour from pro-self behaviour, with the former appertaining to the chemical depths of the bureaucratic Many and the latter to the metaphysical heights of the theocratic Few, albeit the chemical depths are compromised by antiphysical subjectivity which twists the chemical not-self against the metaphysical self in anti-self terms.

85.  Of course, the notion of democracy as white in relation to autocracy as black, though logically sustainable in that democracy does strive to extend freedom of expression at the expense of what its adherents prefer to call tyranny, or unconstitutional monarchy, authoritarianism, despotism, etc., has less to do with the self than with being either pro-notself in the case of autocracy or anti-notself in the case of democracy, which is accordingly in opposition to a mode of fiery freedom pertaining to metachemical soma as an impression, in a higher order of outer darkness, of force upon light, will upon soul, and precisely from the standpoint of freedom from such higher outer darkness in the vegetative lower inner light of physical psyche which egocentrically represses motion, or spirit, in order to oppose force.

86.  However, the opposition of democracy to autocracy is not one that does away with the reality of a hegemonic state but, rather, transfers the not-self reality of state hegemony from the Few to the Many, as from the (not-self affirming) criminality of the higher outer darkness to the (not-self rejecting) punishingness of the lower inner light, as though in a descent from Henry VIII to Oliver Cromwell and what has since stemmed from his parliamentary victory over the royalists in terms of the liberalism of parliamentary democracy.

87.  Therefore the diagonal descent from autocracy to democracy, though significant of a 'progression' from higher outer darkness to lower inner light, from the 'black' of force to the 'white' of heat, remains indicative of a state-hegemonic aberration which removed the State from subservience to the Church and turned it into a free entity which would henceforward subordinate the Church to itself, meaning principally the types of Church commensurate with free autocracy (initially) on the one hand and free democracy (subsequently) on the other hand, neither of which would or ever could be Roman Catholic but, rather, Anglican in the one case and Puritan in the other, and thus paradoxical falsehoods designed for the benefit of a fundamentally corrupt society.

88.  That subject was, of course, dealt with in my last text, so I shall not repeat myself here.  The terms I then used, though hardly conventional, were highly efficacious in highlighting the underlying moral distinctions between state hegemonic and church subordinate societies on the one hand, and church hegemonic and state subordinate societies on the other hand, the former of course germane to the descending autocratic-democratic axis in respect primarily of 'frigg*** jerks' and 'sodd*** pricks', the latter germane to the ascending bureaucratic-theocratic axis in respect primarily of 'fuck*** cunts' and 'snogg*** bums', with 'snogg*** jerks' and 'fuck*** pricks' being no less paradoxically church subordinate to the one context than 'sodd*** cunts' and 'frigg*** bums' state subordinate to the other.

89.  So, of course, it is hardly credible to suppose that one could make a positive, or church-hegemonic, case out for, say, 'sodd*** pricks' at the expense of 'fuck*** pricks', nor for 'frigg*** jerks' at the expense of 'snogg*** jerks', even though the former in the first category would be in democratic opposition to the former in the second category, like punishment to crime, and the latter in the second category would more likely despise the latter in the first category, whose pseudo-sin left something to be desired from the more elevated standpoint of pseudo-grace.

90.  Be that as it may, the overall reality of 'jerks' and 'pricks' is one of state freedom and church binding, of a hegemonic autocratic or democratic state and a subordinate aristocratic or plutocratic church, and neither context commends itself to the self-respecting, nor even, where sin is paramount, to the self-abusing.  Rather, they are significant, relative to the respective concerns of 'cunts' and 'bums', of a regressive aberration, one that brought the not-self to prominence at the expense of the self, so that even democracy, contrary to what normally passes as gospel, has no business pluming itself as the epitome of progress and enlightenment - not even when it takes a Social Democratic turn and probably least of all then, whether on extra-parliamentary or state totalitarian terms.

91.  For Social Democracy is the nadir of state hegemonic regression in which authoritarianism is paradoxically resurrected in the guise of state totalitarianism, and the People are crushed by and in the name of manual labour, democracy becoming ever more pseudo as neo-autocratic factors, duly transmuted, illuminate the inner darkness of the masses with a sort of outer light that is ever dictatorial in character, and thus germane to a People's autocracy.

92.  Fortunately, most democratic societies, more partial in any case to non-manual or mental (clerical) work, are determined to prevent such a paradoxical situation from ever coming to pass, and there are now many instances of countries which have retreated from their various  interpretations of Social Democracy to a liberal mean, thereby joining those societies which have maintained a pluralist bias in the face of communistic temptation or opposition, and which accordingly conceive of freedom primarily in liberal democratic terms.

93.  But in a state hegemonic context they are quite naturally going to struggle with the concept of theocratic freedom, and therefore tend to underestimate or discard it as largely irrelevant - a quite understandable if somewhat regrettable position in view of the extent to which an autocratic-democratic axis, regressively descending from the objective Few to the subjective Many, disqualifies one, or any such society, from taking the bureaucratic-theocratic alternative, which progressively ascends from the objective Many to the subjective Few, all that seriously.

94.  And yet that is precisely what one has to do if one is to have any prospect of Social Theocracy, the otherworldly counterpart to Social Democracy, and thus be in with a chance of deliverance from worldly sin to otherworldly grace on a more or less permanent and representative basis commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', so that theocracy is liberated from an effective subservience to bureaucracy and becomes the self-oriented mean, a mean which is only possible if something more genuinely transcendentalist is exchanged for the world-deferring pseudo-transcendentalism of verbal absolution for penitential contrition, and exchanged not simply on a humankind basis of transcendental meditation, as though in conversion to Buddhism, but with a cyborg-oriented intent that brings synthetic artificiality to bear on self-cultivation in what would be the most appropriate redemption of the urban proletariat as and when they opted to democratically embrace religious sovereignty and duly gravitated from their post-modern, post-human(ist) status in what must be a correlatively post-worldly mode of synthetic artificiality to one commensurate with the eternal cyborg of 'Kingdom Come', in which transcendentalism would be freed from the remaining clutches of humanism, not to mention human beings, and be permitted to develop to its logical extent in relation to global universality.

95.  For one cannot envisage Social Theocracy replacing liberal theocracy, the theocracy of, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, except in respect of global civilization and thus the transcendence of both West and East in the interests of a universality that was not merely more (relative to most) evolved in relation to the transcendental meditation of Buddhist humankind, still less pseudo in relation to the humanized transcendentalism or, more correctly, transcendentalized humanism of Christianity (for humanized transcendentalism is precisely the Buddhist mean), but most evolved in relation to the cyborgization of what remained of mankind in terms of the post-human(ist) urban proletariat, who are of course a global phenomenon in their windy-city cosmopolitanism.

96.  The only thing, therefore, that guarantees that the West can no longer sit on a Christian fence and the East on a Buddhist one, if not something lesser than or even contrary to Buddhism, is the ongoing development of globalization and the prospect, in consequence, of higher values obtaining for people of Western descent than would otherwise be possible, even if many of them would still be fated to accept a less than fully transcendentalist mode of Social Theocracy in view of the hierarchical predestination of some to the top tier of our projected triadic Beyond and others to the middle and bottom tiers, according to denominational entitlement (as described in previous texts).

97.  But if there would be many in the West who would mount higher in relation to Social Theocracy than had been their ancestral case in relation to Roman Catholicism (quite apart from the transformations to which persons of Anglican and Puritan descent would be subjected), there would also be many in the East who, within the framework of global civilization, of ethnic universality, would if not mount higher then either proceed further along, with respect to synthetically artificial transmutations of transcendentalism, or cross over, if they were not already sensible, from alpha to omega, as from cosmos- and/or nature-based Creatorism to the ultimate creations that would permit religion to peak in universal  independence not only of man but of nature and the Cosmos as things became ever-more cyborg-orientated in the interests of granting to the self, the brain stem and spinal cord, its maximum protection and longevity, to ensuring, in other words, that the self was truly in eternity and not merely subject to the mortality of the flesh as before, as of old, with an afterlife of somewhat truncated or restricted duration the only logical concomitant of the natural decay and decomposition of the flesh.

98.  But, of course, such cyborgization of the urban proletariat would take time, money, and considerable expertise, and only be possible on a gradual basis such that was unable to prevent people from dying if even still subject, in 'Kingdom Come', to enhanced levels or degrees of synthetic artificiality.  Therefore until cyborgization became truly universal, premised upon a global transformation of society in general, steps would have to be taken to ensure that the dead, or those who continued to die (which in theory might include everyone), were given the next best thing to indefinite duration in a cyborg eternity - namely, space centre mortuaries or vaults wherein their 'natural' afterlife experience would be granted every encouragement to be as transcendentalist, and therefore soul-affirming, as possible, and precisely because it would take place, on the back of a more meditative disposition in society as a whole, at a gravity-defying transcendent remove from the Earth such that compared more than favourably with the mundane worldliness of earthly burial - always likely to result in a Christian or, rather, Christic shortfall from heavenly afterlife experience anyway - and contrasted most markedly with the afterlife-denying cremation of corpses which these days more than ever is the norm for a godless society, or a society which, even when it proclaims belief in God, or what it conservatively prefers or chooses to regard as God, behaves to the contrary under female hegemonic criteria and treats people as though they were all equal under what would in fact be the Devil, which is to say, to life as characterized, in particular, by a metachemically somatic interpretation of freedom that left no room for free psyche and the possibility, in consequence, of afterlife experience whether visionary or non-visionary, of a physical or a metaphysical order.

99.  The last thing a sensibly-oriented free society would want, on the other hand, would be to have afterlife experience, even when 'natural', or proceeding as a matter of inner necessity independently of synthetic stimulation, first rudely interrupted and then barbarously terminated by raging flame during the incineration of the corpse, which is only the mortal, or bodily, aspect of a dead person.  For while that is not necessarily what would happen in the case of females, especially those who had been most somatically free in life and therefore least likely to experience any afterlife at all, the prospects of even 'heathenistic' males, habituated to living under a female shadow, escaping some intense discomfiture of self, of illuminated brain stem and/or spinal cord, in consequence of their gender actuality being the converse of females can only be pretty slim, and consequently it would not be a wise man or a wise society that opted for cremation when other options were possible or in the process of being developed.

100.   But the development of a transcendentalist alternative to the humanism of Christian burial presupposes a more genuinely transcendentalist dimension in religion, as in society as a whole, and that of course presupposes the sort of omega-oriented Truth that only globalization can enable society to embrace at the expense, in general terms, of both Western burial and Eastern crematorial traditions alike, so that, with Social Theocratic guidance, society could progress towards an enhanced respect for the Afterlife which owed more to transcendentalism than to humanism without the pitfalls or paradoxically self-destructive tendencies so often characterizing the East, not least in respect of funeral pyres and an undue respect, bordering on the most fatal fundamentalism, for the Cosmos as a predominantly fiery context.