Op. 99
APOTHEOSIS OF THE GNOSIS
Aphoristic Philosophy
Copyright © 2013 John
O'Loughlin
____________
CONTENTS
Aphs. 1–127
____________
1. We
live in the present, in the here-and-now, but the past exists for us in memory
and the future in imagination. All are
of time - past, present, and future - but that which is timeless is beyond the
temporal and therefore eternal.
2. The eternal is identifiable with the soul, with essence,
which is beyond both the ego, as a qualitative entity associated with the self,
and the will and the spirit of what, in relation to the not-self, are apparent
and quantitative entities.
3. The
eternal is therefore of metaphysics, which is beyond physics and, on the other
side of the gender fence from anything male and subjective, both metachemistry and chemistry, which have intimate
associations with fire and water rather than, like physics and metaphysics,
with vegetation (earth) and air.
4. It
could be argued that while the present is the manifestation of time closest to the
ego, the past is closest to the will, the future to the spirit, and the
timelessness of eternity, as intimated above, alone commensurate with the soul,
which is to be found not in the temporal aspect of the self, viz. the brain
stem, but in the eternal aspect of the self, viz. the spinal cord, and
therefore transcends ego as joy transcends truth or Heaven transcends God.
5. But
the present and the eternal are both of the self in their different ways, the
past and the future being closer, in relation to memory and imagination, to the
not-self wherein both the will and the spirit have their respective homes,
albeit not as dominating elements where males who are sensibly free are
concerned, but as subordinate elements to the ego and the soul, the former of
which may achieve its redemption in the latter, as time in eternity, by
exploiting the relevant modes of not-self from a metaphysical standpoint.
6. Whereas
the self is predominantly psychic and therefore of psyche, the not-self is
predominantly somatic and therefore of soma, so that we may distinguish between
the two contexts, both of which are divisible in any given element, in terms of
the ethereal and the corporeal, mind and matter, mental and bodily, with the
former divisible between ego and soul, form and contentment, quality and
essence, molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles, taking and being (though in sensuality these are
subject to subversion), but the latter divisible between will and spirit, power
and glory, appearance and quantity, elemental particles and molecular
particles, doing and giving (though in sensibility these are subject to
inversion).
7. What
applies on a 3:1 absolute basis of most wavicles/least
particles in metaphysics, which is protonic, also
applies on the 2˝:1˝ relative basis of more (compared to most) wavicles/less (compared to least) particles in neutronic physics, where we can distinguish man and the
earth from God and Heaven, whether in terms of psyche or soma, Man the Father
and Earth the Holy Soul, in psyche, from God the Father and Heaven the Holy
Soul or, in soma, the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit of the Earth from the Son
of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven.
8. With
females, on the other hand, we cannot speak primarily of physics or
metaphysics, protonic or neutronic
subatoms, but only of chemistry or metachemistry, electronic or photonic subatoms,
more (compared to most) particles/less (compared to least) wavicles
in the 2˝:1˝ relative context of the one or most particles/least wavicles in the 3:1 absolute context of the other, and with
them psyche does not precede and predominate over soma as, in metaphorical
terms, father over son but, on the contrary, soma precedes and predominates
over psyche, as mother over daughter, and therefore we can distinguish woman and
purgatory from the Devil and Hell, whether in terms of soma or psyche, as Woman
the Mother and Purgatory the Clear Spirit, in soma, from Devil the Mother and
Hell the Clear Spirit or, in psyche, as the Daughter of Woman and the Clear
Soul of Purgatory from the Daughter of the Devil and the Clear Soul of Hell.
9. Therefore
criteria applicable to males are not applicable to females, or vice
versa, given the negative/positive distinctions in soma/psyche between the
genders. The self may take precedence
over the not-self with males but, with females, it is the not-self which takes
precedence over self, soma over psyche, and therefore will and spirit over ego
and soul, power and glory over form and contentment, appearance and quantity
over quality and essence, elemental particles and molecular particles over
molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles,
doing and giving over taking and being.
10. Consequently
females are rather more partial to time in terms of past and future, will and
spirit, memory and imagination, than to time in terms of the present in the
consciousness of ego or to timeless eternity in terms of the Beyond in the subconsciousness of soul.
They are partial to time in terms of the unconsciousness or, rather,
unnaturalness (in soma) of will and the superconsciousness
or, rather, supernaturalness (in soma) of spirit,
past and future, which have more reference to power and glory, fire and water,
than to form and contentment, vegetation and air, at least with regard to their
per se manifestations in
each Element.
11. But
this is only if females are hegemonically free in
sensuality in terms of soma, with a corresponding directly bound psyche, and
not subordinately bound in sensibility in terms of soma, with a corresponding
indirectly free psyche.
12. For
if females are hegemonically free in sensuality in
terms of soma, then males will be subordinately bound in sensuality in terms of
psyche and be secondarily free in soma, contrary to their gender actuality of
psyche preceding and predominating over soma.
13. But
if males are hegemonically free in sensibility in
terms of psyche, then females will be subordinately bound in sensibility in
terms of soma and be secondarily free in psyche, contrary to their gender
actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche.
14. Life
is ever a gender tug-of-war between somatic freedom of females in sensuality
and its indirect corollary of the psychic binding of males and, conversely,
psychic freedom of males in sensibility and its indirect corollary of the
somatic binding of females. If power and
glory are hegemonic, then form and contentment, duly subverted by free soma,
will get a raw deal. But if form and
contentment are hegemonic, it will be power and glory that will be transmuted
towards a deferential acknowledgement of free psyche, rendering all that is of
will and spirit, duly inverted by free psyche, subordinate to the control of
ego and soul.
15. Such
is the framework of the ideal society, of a society centred in the ideals of
ego and/or soul rather than based in the brute realities of will and/or spirit,
power and/or glory, to the detriment of form and/or contentment.
16. Whereas
the somatically free types of society will be dominated by time, not least in
relation to the past (tradition) and the future (expectation), the psychically
free types of society will be characterized either by the mastery of time in
and through the present, which comes from knowledge, or by the redemption of
time, not least in relation to eternity (timeless bliss), for which truth is
the egoistic precondition.
17. There
are therefore two types of time-affirming societies, the metachemically
objective and the chemically objective, the past and the future, and contrasted
to these are two types of time-rejecting societies, the physically subjective
and the metaphysically subjective, the present and the timeless, the latter of
which is not about a moment in time or a different approach to now, but beyond
time in the timelessness of eternity.
18. Given
a gender divide between the time-dominated societies of the past and the future
and the time-spurning societies of the present and the Beyond, it is no small
wonder if society presents us with corresponding distinctions between autocracy
and aristocracy in relation to the metachemical mode
of somatic freedom and psychic binding, between bureaucracy and meritocracy in
relation to the chemical mode of somatic freedom and psychic binding, and, in
subjective contrast to each of these objective realities, between democracy and
plutocracy in relation to the physical mode of psychic freedom and somatic
binding, not to mention between theocracy and technocracy in relation to the
metaphysical mode of psychic freedom and somatic binding.
19. Therefore
one can contrast a high somatic freedom in autocracy with a low psychic freedom
in democracy, leaving for the moment their bound corollaries aside, as between
the past and the present, will and ego, power and form, elemental particles and
molecular wavicles, but a low somatic freedom in
bureaucracy with a high psychic freedom in theocracy, leaving for the moment
their bound corollaries aside, as between the future and the Beyond, spirit and
soul, glory and contentment, molecular particles and elemental wavicles.
20. Thus
a contrast between two forms of the State, the autocratic and the democratic,
memory and knowledge, and two forms of the Church, the bureaucratic and the
theocratic, imagination and truth. One
could speak, in this respect, of a descending axis from autocracy to democracy,
the metachemical Few in the noumenal
objectivity of competitive individualism to the physical Many in the phenomenal
subjectivity of co-operative collectivism, and of an ascending axis from
bureaucracy to theocracy, the chemical Many in the phenomenal objectivity of
competitive collectivism to the metaphysical Few in the noumenal
subjectivity of co-operative individualism, so that as things descend from the
autocratic Netherworld to the democratic World, so they may be inferred to
ascend from the bureaucratic World to the theocratic Otherworld, the 'world'
not of the Devil and Hell but of God and Heaven, not of 'Kingdom Gone' but of
'Kingdom Come' - the worldly positions those of the phenomenal Many, the overworldly positions those of the noumenal
Few, whether for better (otherworldly theocratic) or worse (netherworldly
autocratic).
21. So
much for alternative and usually competing types of freedom! There is also, as noted, alternative types of
binding, as from the aristocratic corollary of autocracy to the plutocratic
corollary of democracy on the descending axis of the State, not to mention from
the meritocratic corollary of bureaucracy to the
technocratic corollary of theocracy on the ascending axis of the Church which,
unlike the State, lives in hope of the resurrection of religion in 'Kingdom
Come', and thus of its theocratic redemption in and through the Second Coming
or some equivalent Messianic destiny likely to correspond with the notion of
such a divine 'Kingdom'.
22. But
this of course only applies to 'Mother Church', to the Church that is
fundamentally bureaucratic and thus nonconformist, not to those forms of
religion which in their fundamentalist or humanist associations with autocracy
and democracy are more closely bound to one mode or other of the State and less
partial, in consequence, to the imaginative projection of spirit in expectation
of Messianic deliverance in some brighter future long associated with 'Kingdom
Come'.
23. Where
will and/or ego obtain, by contrast, there can be only a looking back to the
past via a memory partial to tradition or a focusing on the present in overly
conscious concern with knowledge and the management or curtailment, if needs
be, of will, neither of which are greatly conducive to the expectation of soul
and thus an end to the world in terms of otherworldly criteria. Rather will the democratic State, and its
religious affiliate, be primarily concerned with conserving the worldly gains
of democracy at the expense of autocracy which, rooted in the Devil, is
something to fear from a democratic point of view.
24. For
if man becomes the measure of all things, as he does with egocentric form,
there can be no place for God, for godliness in theocracy, and therefore no
willingness to subsume ego into soul to such an extent that it becomes eclipsed
by soul and rendered subordinate before a heavenly end to life, as before
eternity and timeless bliss.
25. But
if God or, rather, Heaven (for we should not confound metaphysics with physics
in respect of an egocentric fulcrum) is allowed to be the end of all things, as
it is with psychocentric contentment, there can be no
place for man, for manliness in democracy, and therefore no willingness to
subsume soul into ego to such an extent that, duly corrupted, it becomes eclipsed by ego and
rendered subordinate before a knowledgeable - and necessarily false - end to life, as before temporality and
present time.
26. Obviously,
Heaven can only be made the true end of life if society is of such a character
that an ascent from bureaucracy to theocracy is more typical of it than a
descent from autocracy to democracy, even when the theocracy and the democracy
are less than completely free of bureaucratic and autocratic subversion or
vitiation and are therefore characterized by worldly relativity in ecclesiastic
or parliamentary vein.
27. The
possibility of a free, or People's, democracy is no less the case for a more
sensibly-oriented type of physical society than the possibility of a free, or
People's, theocracy for its metaphysical counterpart, but such freedoms have to
be won, they will not be handed to one on a plate by the autocratic and/or
bureaucratic powers-that-be, and the former tends, in its elemental uniqueness,
to be exclusive of the latter, insofar as democratic freedom presupposes an
autocratic tradition and theocratic freedom a bureaucratic one - autocracy as
something against which a struggle has to be waged, bureaucracy more open, in
imagination, to the possibility of theocratic redemption come 'judgement',
provided godliness can be adequately proved!
28. Therefore
they spring, these alternative types of freedom, from different types of
society, and at the risk of over-simplifying or over-generalizing one could
maintain that while the autocratic-democratic axis is more characteristic of
Britain and, especially of England, the bureaucratic-theocratic axis is more
significant of Ireland, so that there is a sort of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic
distinction between the two types of society and their respective traditions, a
distinction which can be broadened to include Anglo-Saxons and Celts generally,
not least in the British Isles as a whole.
29. For the British Isles has long been the scene of a struggle,
traditionally characterized by Anglo-Saxon opposition to and even domination of
Celts, between the lowland mentality of democracy and the highland mentality of
theocracy, as between physics and metaphysics, form and contentment, ego and
soul, taking and being. Therefore it is
only within the so-called Celtic fringe, and especially in relation to Catholic
Ireland, that one could reasonably expect freedom struggles or ambitions to
take a theocratic rather than simply democratic turn, and for those of us who
identify with metaphysics more than physics in highland and even upper-class
male vein, then democracy could never be regarded as anything more than a means
to a higher end.
30. Democracy
to the metaphysical likes of us is not, I repeat not, an end-in-itself,
as it evidently is to those who primarily relate to physical values in
effectively lowland or lower-class male vein, but simply something to exploit
in the interests of a higher and purer theocracy than has existed in the past,
should the Movement for Social Theocracy or Social Transcendentalism, as you
please, succeed in convincing the electorates of relatively free democracies,
like the one which exists in the Irish Republic, that a vote for religious
sovereignty would be in their best interests, since the only way in which they
could gain the right to theocratic freedom from bureaucratic constraint and/or
subversion, and thereby move beyond worldly relativity to an otherworldly
absolutism commensurate with 'Kingdom Come'.
31. It would
also confirm, this paradoxical utilization of the democratic process, that they
were not inveterately or representatively a democratic people but rather a
people with the potential for a purer theocracy - in a word for theocratic
freedom - at the expense of such democratic freedom as they had inherited,
compliments of their struggle against English imperialism. For if they are not properly democratic,
since intrinsically more theocratic, then they will surely accept the
paradoxical utilization of democracy to a theocratic end such that would
deliver them from the bureaucratic subversion of religion by 'Mother Church'
and allow them to embrace theocratic freedom in 'Kingdom Come' - freedom, not
least, from both autocratic and democratic subversions of religion as well,
such that further bedevil the endeavour to extricate transcendentalism from the
clutches of nonconformism by complicating the overall
picture in relation to fundamentalism and humanism - the former arguably less
politically subversive than scientifically subversive, and the latter plainly
economically subversive of what should - and could - be a religious purism that
permitted joy to unfold as the holy reward for unfettered truth.
32. Therefore
much as one might like every people to come democratically to Social Theocracy,
only some peoples would be capable, at this point in time, of actually doing
so, and they would have to have had a Church-based tradition such that would
permit them to climb, via democratic paradox, from the bureaucratic subversion
of theocracy to theocratic freedom and thus to metaphysical salvation, wherein
God and Heaven are the cardinal elements and the redemption of the former in
the latter, as of truth in joy, is the principal raison d'ętre - one having reference to that
which, in its soulful essence, lies beyond time in the eternity of timeless
bliss.
33. A
people, on the other hand, with a powerful autocratic tradition, with an
entrenched aristocracy, cannot achieve theocratic liberation; for their
struggle, to the extent that there may be one, is against autocracy and
presupposes an extension of democracy at autocracy's expense. They have to pit the here-and-now of temporal
time against the weight of tradition which bears down upon them and would
impede further knowledgeable progress - and therefore democratic freedom - in defence of its
power-based interests. They are a people
with a colourful past, not a people who yearn, in imagination, for a more
contented future, but a people who, if they are not careful, will revel in
tradition even at the expense of the achievements of the present and the
knowledge which made it possible.
34. Therefore
such a people have to question their own motives in respect of democracy, which
is their principal ideal in terms of enhanced freedom from somatic control of
an autocratic nature. But if they are
not democratically free to the extent of a republican democracy in which
psychic freedom can have its physical (as opposed to metaphysical) way, then
their freedom will be somewhat compromised by autocratic criteria and subject
to worldly qualification, which obviously leaves something to be desired from a
democratic standpoint, even with a knowledge that what logically follows in
terms of Social Democracy is less otherworldly than post-worldly to an extent
which, if too totalitarian, can prove even more of an obstacle to theocratic
liberation than a worldly democracy, bearing in mind its repudiation of 'God
building' and more or less blue-collar orientation towards hard-line physics in
overly Marxist vein.
35. Obviously,
no society which goes so far down the road of democratic totalitarianism is in
a position to opt for religious sovereignty, and therefore their theocratic
redemption is well-nigh inconceivable ... all the more so as they endeavour,
from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint, to stamp-out religious traditions as though
religion were a closed issue, never to be resurrected in a new or superior
guise.
36. Therefore
democratic pluralism is crucial to any prospect of religious sovereignty, for
one has to be able to appeal to the electorate to vote for such theocratic
freedom in the first place, and this is only conceivable in the absence of a
controlling totalitarianism such that would preclude any challenge to its rule
from an alternative Movement the avowed aim of which was the effective supersession of State and Church alike by the Centre in the
event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and the green light for
the development of 'Kingdom Come', as customarily outlined by me in terms of a
triadic Beyond and administrative aside - the former identifiable with Social
Transcendentalism and the latter, rather more political in view of its various
supportive responsibilities, with Social Theocracy, the ideological face of the
Movement for Social Transcendentalism, and thus the supersession
of conventional religion and its various subversions of theocracy.
37. But
again, in such a pluralistic democracy, one looks for evidence of a
bureaucratic-theocratic axis, and even where this may exist in respect of an
unrepresentative minority, if the overall axis is autocratic-democratic then it
is hard to see much prospect, short of a number of significant changes in
society, for a successful outcome to any paradoxical election, assuming such a
judgmental experiment could be brought to pass in the first place!
38. No,
such an election, which embraced the possibility of a vote for religious
sovereignty and the likelihood of a majority mandate, could only be expected to
take place and to succeed in societies which, while nominally democratic, were
basically bureaucratic and more disposed, through imagination, to theocratic
liberation in consequence of an age-old longing for Messianic intervention in
the interests of 'Kingdom Come', something difficult if not impossible to
conceive of in those societies whose sense of freedom, owing more to the State
than to the Church, is overwhelmingly democratic and therefore merely physical
in character.
39. Thus
not only Ireland but, hopefully, Scotland, the Isle of Man, and Wales could
come, in the ripeness of time, to an accommodation with Social Theocracy, not
least in respect of the possibility of a united Ireland achieved on the basis
of a Gaelic federation, germane to 'Kingdom Come', between the respective
countries, especially Ireland and Scotland, and the transcendence, in
consequence, of the British/Irish dichotomy which, under English domination,
has ruled and divided the Celts, Gaels, Highlanders, or whatever else you would
like to call those whose true loyalty, especially when properly male, is not to
man but to God, as to theocracy.
40. One
of the worst consequences of the division of the Celts along British/Irish
lines is that the former, when Scotch or Welsh, find it harder to come to terms
with their Celtic traditions and ancestry in view of the extents to which they
have been turned, through English imperial influence, from a
bureaucratic-theocratic axis under Catholicism to an autocratic-democratic axis
under Protestantism, with a consequence that they find their Celtic identities
compromised in respect of state-stemming fundamentalist and humanist
subversions of transcendentalism, as of theocracy, more typical of England and
the English than of anything representatively Celtic as such, and are more
inclined to side with England against the Irish when push-comes-to-shove in the
struggle for or against Celtic values and aspirations.
41. Thus
do they often behave like Anglo-Saxons, contrary to their Celtic ancestry; for
the only Celts who are broadly identifiable with the bureaucratic-theocratic
axis of a nonconformist subversion of transcendentalism through 'Mother Church'
are the Catholic Irish, who remain a case apart from the autocratic-democratic
axis typifying British and, in particular, English civilization.
42. Yet
even these compromised Scotsmen and Welshmen, not to mention their Ulster
counterparts, are more often than not Celts and therefore persons who, in the
highland traditions of their ancestry, should be more willing to identify with
theocratic liberation from bureaucratic constraint than democratic liberation
from autocratic constraint, and thus with a mode of male liberation in
sensibility owing more to the Church than to the State, more to metaphysics
than to physics, more to highland values than to lowland values, more to soul
than to ego, and therefore more to God than to man.
43. Alas!
their fate under English domination ill-qualifies them
for an overly theocratic freedom in 'Kingdom Come', such as would be accorded
to Catholics who had opted for religious sovereignty. But they cannot and should not be excluded,
as Protestants, from the prospect of salvation in the triadic Beyond to which I
have dedicated a not-inconsiderable proportion of my mature philosophy, even
if, in the light of their respective denominational affiliations, it would have
to take a less than properly or fully transcendentalist guise ... as in the
case of the salvation of Anglicans to the middle tier of the Beyond in question
and the salvation of Puritans and/or Presbyterians to its bottom tier, as
described in a variety of earlier texts.
44. But
where those properly affiliated, as Catholics, to the bureaucratic-theocratic
axis are concerned, then of course their highness in respect of theocratic
freedom is more than justified and is even confirmed, in cultural terms, by the
prevalence of sports such as Gaelic Football in Ireland which sharply contrasts
with the democratic lowness, as it were, of Association Football as the English
sport par excellence, a game
which, though incontestably subjective in its maleness, does not permit of any
points over the bar like its air-affirming Gaelic counterpart, and therefore
stands as ample testimony to the extent to which, unlike Ireland, Britain as a
whole, but England in particular, is characterized by a want of theocratic
idealism and a more or less inveterate bent for democratic freedom in respect
of the autocratic-democratic axis, the upper end of which, stretching back to
feudal times, is more characterized by Rugby, in objectively female vein, and
thus to a deference to fire which, like air, is also above the bar but in
markedly contrary terms!
45. Thus
the sensible contrast between Gaelic Football as an expression of an as-yet
incomplete degree of theocratic freedom from clerical subversion and
Association Football as the expression of an incomplete or, rather, limited
degree of democratic freedom within a parliamentary system, only goes to
confirm the distinction between Celtic highness and Anglo-Saxon lowness,
metaphysics and physics, religion and, for what of a better term, economics,
God/Heaven and man/the earth.
46. To say, on the evidence of this and other such cultural
differences, that the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon races were equal would, to say the
least, be somewhat disingenuous, if not downright ridiculous! The Celts, particularly to judge by
contemporary cultural circumstances in their Irish manifestation, are a higher
race than the English, many if not most of whom are
Anglo-Saxon, and therefore by no means equal or equivalent.
47. Of
course, one hears a lot these days, not least in multiracial England vis-ŕ-vis
blacks and coloureds, about racial equality and equality of opportunity, but it
is only a fool who would confound equality of opportunity or of rights in
certain fields, irrespective of race, with racial equality as such, as though
all races were equal, or exactly the same!
There are more differences in this world than those between Celts and
Anglo-Saxons, and even there the cultural differences are such that one could
not reasonably fail to notice or take heed of them, especially in light of the
more sharply polarized distinctions between Catholic Ireland and Protestant
England, as between contrary senses of freedom and their corresponding ideals.
48. The
only reason why the British Isles, in geographical terms an archipelago which
deserves a unitary culture and identity, is split between Ireland and Britain
(notwithstanding the more simple geographical matter of the Irish Sea), as
between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the one
hand and the Republic of Ireland on the other, is because of the religious
divide between Protestantism and Catholicism, which is superimposed upon,
though not exactly synonymous with, a racial division between Anglo-Saxons and
Celts such that attains to its most marked polarization in respect of England
and the Republic of Ireland.
49. Ireland
may not be entirely Celtic, any more than England is entirely Anglo-Saxon, but
nevertheless such a racial division, coming to a head in the cultural
differentiations alluded to above, cleaves the British Isles in two, making
them the focus of two different world struggles, the theocratic and the
democratic, with the one yet to be delivered, in Social Theocracy, from
bureaucratic constraints and the other falling well short, through its
autocratic traditions, of Social Democracy.
50. On a wider basis, this distinction between theocracy and
democracy is reflected in the world at large, with the West largely symptomatic
of democracy and the East of theocracy, irrespective of how short of
freedom. Therefore there is a sense in
which Ireland, Catholic Ireland, is something of an Eastern-like exception in
the West, sandwiched in between the Anglo-Saxon powers of Britain and America
which are in the vanguard of democracy, if not necessarily of complete
democratic liberation from autocracy, then certainly of the right to democratic
freedom in relative, or worldly, terms.
51. To the Republic of Ireland, however, this has long been
something of a problem, and even a source of disquiet! For although Ireland shares many of the
values and customs of Britain and America, not least through ancestral ties, it
is still, in its heart-of-hearts, a case apart which fears for its own
theocratic life in the toing-and-froing of the
democratic currents which swirl all around it from its more powerful
neighbours. It is even conveniently
overlooked by
52. Thus
Ireland is often brushed under the carpet by its bigger and more inveterately
democratic neighbours, not least Britain, as and when it suits them to cosy up
to one another at the expense of some perceived enemy of democracy.
53. For
were it not for British imperialism, Ireland would not still be divided, as it
has been for many a long year, between the predominantly Catholic 'South' and
the predominantly Protestant 'North', the Republic and the six counties of
Ulster which constitute the oddly-contrived statelet
of Northern Ireland within the UK. Such
an inconvenience for the Irish, which is one of the worst humiliations that can
be inflicted upon a people, suits neither tradition; for Ireland is a small
enough country without having to endure a largely arbitrary division of its
territorial mass in the interests of Ulster Protestants.
54. And
even these latter folk, often dubbed loyalists, would have to admit that the
greater percentage of the province of Ulster was less than satisfactory from a
national point of view and that Irish unity, on terms they could agree to,
would ultimately make more sense, as it would to those in the Republic who want
to see a united Ireland if only because a partitioned one leaves something to
be desired.
55. My
views on how this could - and I believe should - be brought about have been
well-documented by now, so I shan't elaborate on them here, except to say that
only Social Theocracy can liberate the overwhelming majority of both traditions
from their Catholic/Protestant schismatic antagonism and bring them, via a
majority mandate for religious sovereignty, into the pluralistic framework of
'Kingdom Come' or, at any rate, of that which, in the event of Scotland and
other Celtic countries opting for such a sovereignty, would approximate to a
Gaelic federation of Irish and British Gaels and thus reunite the Celts of
these islands on the basis of theocratic liberation not only from bureaucratic
subversion of religion through 'Mother Church', but also from such autocratic
and democratic subversions of it as, more germane to Protestantism, typifies
the broader experiences of Scotch and Welsh Protestants under the aegis of
British state control, and this contrary, I have argued, to their Celtic interests
and ancestral predilections.
56. Continuing
devolution for Scotland and Wales is the way for both countries to gradually
come to an accommodation with the prospect of a return to the heights of
theocratic freedom in relation to a Gaelic federation, existing within the
wider European framework, of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and possibly the Isle of
Man - something which, to my mind, has long pointed in the direction of
'Kingdom Come' and thus of a godly resolve of the freedom issue which, on a wider
European and even global basis, cannot but be in the vanguard of evolutionary
progress in a shrinking world, a world which deserves better than to be divided
between East and West, theocracy and democracy, and to be held back from global
unity by divisions which only the paradoxical exploitation of democracy to a
theocratic end, contrary to its worship by the West, can remove.
57. For ultimately global unity is inconceivable on other than
religious terms, but such terms must be genuinely progressive and symptomatic
of liberation not only from bureaucratic but, in the wider context, from
autocratic and democratic subversion and even control.
58. I am
confident that the world can come to global unity in the utmost theocratic universality,
even if other factors have to be taken into account and progress will be slow
and at times difficult. But I am equally
confident that there is no other basis for such unity than what has been
suggested, and that the sooner the lowlanders of the West accept that
globalization implies a deference to the highlanders of the East, as to
religious values generally, and that democracy should not be regarded as an end
in itself but rather as a means to a higher end, the sooner will globalization
achieve an acceptable resolution which will enable peace and prosperity to
prevail on terms which presage the infinite perfection not of man but of his
successor in the gradual cyborgization of life that
will permit godly and heavenly criteria to flourish as never before, and to
achieve peaks of truth and joy such that put the past achievements of
theocracy, whether in relation to the Cosmos, to Nature, or to Mankind, in a
series of inferior lights.
59. For
the future, in this global experiment, belongs to Cyborgkind,
the Godkind that stretches beyond Mankind, as air
stretches beyond vegetation, and it can only be from the urban proletariat,
that post-humankind species of 'man', that the Cyborg
is developed and eventually emerges in a guise that we can scarcely conceive of
but which will take evolving life to its maximum degree of theocratic
resolution, a resolution set not on earth but in space, in special space
centres, and constituting the omega point of godly destiny, making all previous
manifestations of metaphysical sensibility dwindle to a comparative
insignificance.
60. That,
if it ever happens, is a long way off at present. But intimations of futurity, hopes for a
better future, of the coming of the 'Kingdom', are characteristic of a
bureaucratic mean in religion, which is not overly concerned, like autocracy,
with powerful tradition, nor, like democracy, with egotistic knowledge in
respect of the present and fear of the past, but spiritually yearns through
imagination for a timeless redemption of the ego in what would be the ultimate
theocracy, the theocracy-of-theocracies that has been identified, in these
notes, with Social Theocracy and its promise, in 'Kingdom Come', of a triadic
Beyond broadly identifiable with Social Transcendentalist practice and theory.
61. Therefore
the meritocratic servants of 'Mother Church', its
priests, are not so much - quasi-autocratic exceptions to the rule
notwithstanding - class enemies of the People in the sense of outwardly
opposing religious progress from an entrenched conservatism that resists all
possibility of meaningful change, as the basis for and guarantor of further
theocratic development as technocracy is expanded in the enhanced service of
theocratic praxis. They are there and
they are not, to be sure, of Social Theocracy, but they maintain a hope in the
prospect of 'Kingdom Come', and to that extent they are not reactionary but the
bedrock of subsequent progress, without whom there would be no 'Mother Church'
at all and therefore no bureaucratic-theocratic axis such that portends the
possibility of theocratic liberation.
62. Some
would argue that the feudal aristocracy, traditionally affiliated to autocracy,
are not the class enemies of the People when a people is of a persuasion which
is less theocratic than democratic, but such a people will often find
themselves struggling against feudal traditions in the interests of greater
democratic freedom; for there is nothing about the aristocracy as such that
encourages hope, in bureaucratic vein, in the Messianic redemption of society
through theocratic liberation but, rather, a certain pride and satisfaction in
the traditions of their class which, whilst understandable, is not concerned to
advance democracy at autocracy's expense and may consequently prove problematic
to those engaged in precisely that exercise.
63. Certainly
the People, as I have made clear in previous texts, are not just one thing or
another but both traditional and revolutionary, folk and proletariat, 'sheep'
and 'goats', and often, in worldly countries, they combine the two tendencies
to greater or lesser extents within the same person, so that a clear-cut divide
between folk and proletariat, conservative and radical, is not always
discernible. This of course varies, but
there are also minorities of various persuasions to be taken into account, and
for them someone germane to an alternative axis or tradition may well seem a
class enemy, even if racial or ethnic enemy would be a more fitting
description.
64. For
of course if you divide society, as I have, between a rising
bureaucratic-theocratic axis typifying or favouring Celts and a falling
autocratic-democratic axis favouring or typifying Anglo-Saxons, only those who
are of one's racial or ethnic group will seem reasonable and representative to
one, the others being a potential if not actual threat and disruptive influence
which it were better to guard against, as against one's traditional racial
enemy.
65. Such
thinking is not as fanciful as apologists for racial equality or, rather, for a
perverse concept of racial equality might like to believe, but is more than
modestly evidenced in the British Isles, where the divisions of Ireland and
Britain or Ireland from Britain, and vice versa, are reflected even in Northern
Ireland, and we can be sure that a certain Anglo-Saxon element is instrumental
there in preventing the unity of Celts from taking place in a way that would
not only unify Ireland, but ensure that the autocratic-democratic axis so
representative of Anglo-Saxon reality was replaced by a bureaucratic-theocratic
one more characteristic of the Celts, not least when Catholic.
66. However,
that is not my primary concern, nor even a part of the Social Theocratic
agenda; for I have said that theocratic liberation from bureaucratic constraints
or realities is of the essence of 'Kingdom Come', and that such a divine
'Kingdom' can only come to pass on the basis of a paradoxical election for
religious sovereignty which utilized the democratic process and thereby made it
possible for those who may formerly have considered democracy as a ne plus ultra to test their conscience in
respect of my work and vote accordingly, even if this means that many of those
who did indeed opt for religious sovereignty and the rights accruing to it,
including deliverance from Cosmos-based metachemical
subversions of metaphysics, had formerly been Protestants of Celtic extraction
and were now able to see the light and get themselves, and the majority of
their people, back on track from a racial and cultural point of view.
67. For
while democracy will be an end-in-itself to the average Anglo-Saxon, for the
Celt, by contrast, it should be viewed as a means to a higher end and therefore
as a vehicle to be paradoxically exploited, come 'judgement', in the interests
of theocratic liberation through religious sovereignty, something that changes
the terms of religion for Catholics and Protestants alike, doing away with the
old schismatic dichotomy between the two camps and enabling all to partake, at
different tier levels in our projected triadic Beyond, of Social
Transcendentalism, the way ahead for the reunification of Celtic and indeed
ultimately of all humanity, as things progress towards global resolution.
68. For
even if you are democratic rather than theocratic or, rather, given through
Protestantism to either an autocratic or a democratic subversion of theocracy,
there will still be a place for you within the administrative and triadic
pluralism of 'Kingdom Come', and some degree of if not exactly autocratic or
bureaucratic then, in sensible transvaluation,
anti-autocratic and anti-bureaucratic, not to mention modified democratic,
subversion of theocracy would still initially obtain under the lead of the
utmost theocratic purism, pending the gradual cyborgization
of life and emerging capacity for greater totalitarian uniformity, for enhanced
perfection as what remains of the initial plurality of factors is phased out
and/or amalgamated to the end of a godly/heavenly absolutism in the omega point
of evolutionary consummation.
69. Provided
one is not hard-line autocratic or democratic, refusing to countenance anything
stemming from the bureaucratic-theocratic axis, there will be a place for one
in 'Kingdom Come', in the context of religious sovereignty should the electorate
so vote.... Which, again, is only likely to happen in countries where the
majority are effectively more Church than State or, even in the latter
instance, more given to an autocratic and/or democratic subversion of theocracy
than to autocracy or democracy as such, and therefore more Celtic, dare I say,
than Anglo-Saxon, as in Northern Ireland.
70. No,
the racial dichotomy is significant, cannot be underestimated without attendant
perils, and those who strive to do so often have an ulterior agenda in mind,
like the transmutation of a given race through interbreeding with it from the
standpoints of races more given to a competing, if not conflicting, order of
civilization.
71. Doubtless
the approach to this matter in Ireland would differ from how it was approached
in, say, England; for in Ireland the breeding-out (if not in exceptional
circumstances kicking-out) of Anglo-Saxons is the only guarantee of an
ecclesiastic bias towards theocracy, whereas in England - Celts often being
Irish Catholics and Catholics Irish Celts - it would be harder if not
impossible to conceive of Celts being bred out by their Anglo-Saxon neighbours
but, rather, of the Anglo-Saxon race itself being under threat from a variety
of black and coloured peoples from its Empire who may well render England more
susceptible to theocracy in the generations to come.
72. Of
course, words can never do justice to the multiplicity of factors always at
work in any given context. But my observations
as an Irishman in England, an Irishman-in-exile from his native land through
having been brought to Britain as a very young boy, are such as to suggest that
the natural lustfulness of the Anglo-Saxon race is being tested in the racially
equalitarian society which now prevails in Britain and is likely to result in a
lot more half-breeds and mixed marriages than currently meets the eye.
73. Which,
from a theocratic standpoint, may not be a bad thing; though I wouldn't myself
wish to mate with a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) Englishwoman and father
children who might well end-up becoming more democratic than theocratic under
pressure of English culture, even if black or coloured Englishwomen were
superficially more attractive but still somewhat problematic from a Celtic
Irish point-of-view. In fact, I have
remained rigorously celibate through all my years of exile in England, not
having slept with a single woman of any colour, and I believe that this owes
something, though not everything, to my refusal to compromise with the
Anglo-Saxon race and sell-out to an autocratic-democratic axis at the expense
of my Catholic heritage for bureaucracy-theocracy.
74. I was
born a Catholic but, due to events beyond my control, was raised, from my tenth
year, as a Protestant following the death of my protective maternal Catholic
grandmother when I was ten, my mother having felt free to dispatch me to a
Children's Home in Carshalton Beeches, Surrey, and although I protested in
writing at the change of denomination which then confronted me, I knew that
nothing would extricate me from that situation and that I would have to put up
with a Protestant upbringing, come what may.
75. But
instead of turning me into a Protestant, a Baptist, it gradually turned me into
a rebel against what I took to be Christianity, and so I turned, via books by
Bertrand Russell, towards my own intellectual devices in the hope of finding a
viable substitute for Christianity. In
such fashion I was put on the road to becoming a philosopher, or truth-seeker,
in my own right.
76. Eventually,
as these and other such texts should confirm, I succeeded, and that is why
today, after several decades' philosophical struggle, I am a Social Theocrat
and not either a Catholic (though officially I guess I would still qualify
through things like my christening certificate) or a Protestant, but an
advocate of what I take to be an ultimate religion capable of superseding - and
on the basis of its truth entitled to transcend - Christianity, not to mention
every other so-called world religion which currently exists.
77. I
would not admit to being, in Irish sectarian fashion, a Christian, either
Catholic or Protestant, but that does not make me a Jew, a Judaist, still less
a Hindu or Buddhist or Moslem, or whatever.
I am, to repeat, a self-styled Social Transcendentalist, and that means
that I reject all worldly and netherworldly religions
in favour of this ultimate otherworldly religion which stretches, or would have
the capacity to stretch, beyond mankind, and therefore towards and into a
godlike ideality premised upon the extension of
synthetic artificiality, as especially germane to the urban proletariat, to
ever-more sensible levels of cyborgization capable of
doing more justice to truth and joy than anything godly/heavenly in the past,
even up to and including the transcendental meditation of Buddhists and
Buddhist-like cults.
78. Just
as Social Transcendentalism is beyond Christianity, meaning principally
Catholicism in one form or another, so it is beyond Buddhism, not to mention
Islam; for it is the ultimate theocracy, the freest of theocracies, and one
which is therefore intended to pave the way to global unity in the utmost
universality - a universality of metaphysical sensibility which would be as far
removed from anything cosmic as it is possible to imagine.
79. For
the cosmic is chiefly typified by the polyversal
subversion of universality in relation to Devil the Mother; the natural by the
impersonal subversion of universality in relation to Woman the Mother; and the
human by the personal subversion of universality in relation to Man the Father
(not to mention the Son of Man when soma displaces psyche, as it more often
does in the Son-centred fatality of Christianity). Only the universal, which ultimately requires
a cyborg precondition, is capable of universality in
relation to God the Father to an extent that is not compromised by human or
natural or cosmic factors, but is effectively per se and thus definitive.
80. And
God the Father, in sensibly metaphysical ego, exists to be redeemed by Heaven
the Holy Soul, in sensibly metaphysical soul, as truth by joy, which is
equivalent to the form of the brain stem being eclipsed, in a heaven of
timeless bliss, by the contentment of the spinal cord, the like of which would
not happen without recourse to the Son of God, in sensibly metaphysical will
or, rather, antiwill, and the Holy Spirit of Heaven,
in sensibly metaphysical spirit or, rather, antispirit,
the subjective antidoing and antigiving
of which panders, in respiratory fashion, to the recoil of taking from the
threat of self-annihilation on the wings of exhalation to the self more
profoundly in the being of soul, the true end of life for the metaphysically
aware, with specific reference to males of a noumenally
subjective and therefore effectively upper-class disposition.
81. This
in itself automatically puts one beyond worldly relativity and the more or less
amoral fudging of religion in terms of a reluctance to be gender specific and
gender conscious. There is nothing
liberal and androgynous about it, and what I alluded to above in connection
with a TM-like procedure, a genuinely religious devotion involving the lungs
and breath of transcendental meditation, would apply to an even greater extent
in relation to the synthetic artificiality of 'Kingdom Come', when other than
natural somatic factors would have to be developed to allow the self, the brain
stem and spinal cord, to achieve its maximum self-realization and soulful
redemption, and ultimately to be given the sort of indefinite support not
characteristic of the mortality of the flesh.
82. But
the worldly shy away from gender consciousness in respect of hegemonic male
criteria as they shy away from religion, castigating the former as male
chauvinism and the latter as fanaticism and superstition. Little do they realize the extents to which a
failure to uphold a male hegemonic context both in the interests of genuine
religion and as a consequence of genuine religion makes for the sorts of sensually-based
vicious/immoral negativities which plague modern life to such a
barbarous/philistine extent, making it almost inconceivable that anyone with
enough self-respect and religious sympathy to be sensitive to such a
predicament could possibly remain unaware of its baleful influences and
therefore impartial to its negative consequences.
83. Doubtless
my own experiences in England have conditioned me, over many years, to keep my
distance as much as possible from the sorts of people and contexts likely to
prevail upon one to abandon reason and sell-out to the Devil-worshipping and/or
woman-worshipping promiscuity of contemporary secularity, in which somatic
freedom under female hegemonies is more or less taken for granted, with the
psyche firmly placed under wraps.
84. To
some extent my ethnicity as an Irishman of Catholic descent has precluded me
from achieving the kind of worldly success that falls to the more superficial
and coarser minds; for it cannot be denied that anyone who writes from a genuinely
philosophical standpoint in favour of greater theocratic freedom will not be
representative of mainstream British writing but, rather, a sort of ethnic
outsider who is likely to have his work spurned by the more
democratically-minded editorial representatives of the civilization in
question, a civilization that, with liberated females and feminized males in
positions of editorial responsibility, has long fought shy of theocracy, and
thus of the possibility of truth and godliness, in defence of its own
autocratic-democratic axis and racial mean, one, as was noted above, more
typified by Anglo-Saxons than by Celts, in which freedom, to the extent that it
is countenanced, necessarily has to take a democratic turn in conjunction with
a plutocratic disposition.
85. Unfortunately,
despite my considerable talent for philosophy, as for truth and its general
ramifications, I have never been encouraged to write and/or pursue a literary
vocation in England, nor granted any sort of intellectual recognition whatsoever,
but been studiously ignored and rejected by the defenders, for the most part
female these days, of democratic values.
So I am in the quite unique position, for a radical self-taught
intellectual, of having completed a large literary oeuvre which, by any objectively fair
evaluation, would tower above most if not all philosophical writings to-date,
but which, because it is unrepresentative of British values, would simply be
perceived as an Irish-type subversive threat to the status quo and therefore as
something to reject from an Anglo-Saxon standpoint as, quite frankly,
irrelevant and potentially disruptive.
86. Thus
instead of living in the country of a people open to truth and the sensible
pursuit of higher values, one finds oneself being ethnically discriminated
against by a people that are closed to truth - even though they may proclaim
otherwise for the benefit of the international community and to salve what
remains of their consciences - and only interested in protecting or advancing
the sorts of lowland values which culminate in democratic freedom, albeit of a
relative and therefore strictly worldly order which pays attention, for the
most part rather cynically, to aristocratic tradition and the power-oriented
values of autocracy.
87. This
people do not care a fig for theocratic liberation, for they were never
theocratic enough in the first place, never subject to the bureaucratic
subversion of theocracy through 'Mother Church' but only - Catholic minorities
excepted - to the autocratic subversion of democracy through what they would
probably call 'Father State', though I would not hesitate to equate that with a
worse kind of 'Mother' than anything properly germane to the Roman Catholic
Church!
88. Be
that as it may, such autocratic subversion of false, or Anglican, theocracy through the Monarchy and such
democratic subversion of false, or Puritan, theocracy through the Parliament
ensured that the State remained both genuinely (if partially) autocratic, even
with a Constitutional Monarch, and genuinely (if partially) democratic, through
a free parliament, with scant place, in consequence, for any prospect of
genuine theocracy, never mind its subversion under the bureaucratic aegis of
'Mother Church'.
89. Therefore
anyone who preaches church freedom in Britain is as unrepresentative of the
English people in general as an advocate of state freedom would be of the
generality of Irish people in Catholic Ireland, where the bureaucratic
subversion of theocracy by the Catholic Church ensures that there is scant room
or call for the subversion of democracy by autocracy and no place, in
consequence, for anything resembling a genuine State, with state freedom of
either a somatic or, in the case of parliament, a psychic bias. On the contrary, the State will be
subordinate to the Church; for it is not a falling autocratic-democratic axis
that typifies the Celtic Irish people of the
90. Their
freedom concerns can only be theocratic, and it is because of their racial and
cultural superiority to the Anglo-Saxon, in this respect, that they require
independence from outside meddling of an English or British kind. For just as the English Establishment,
whether literary or otherwise, will reject theocratic subversion or, rather,
inversion of their democratic sensibilities from a Celtic standpoint, not least
when the Celt happens also to be Irish and therefore Catholic or, in my case,
professedly Social Theocratic, so the Irish Establishment should, in the
interests of cultural hygiene premised
upon a certain racial foundation, in their case Celtic, reject democratic
inversion of their theocratic sensibilities from an Anglo-Saxon standpoint, not
least when the Anglo-Saxon also happens to be English and therefore Protestant
or, in some cases, Social Democratic.
91. But
that they should reject the more freely theocratic work and advice of someone
who, through no fault of his own, was taken into English exile as a young boy,
would, even if he were not avowedly Celtic and of Catholic descent, be nothing
short of disgraceful and a mark of the most unreasoning stupidity! I do not say that they will rush into its
arms, since there are all sorts of fools and confusions at large these days
which entitle even the most curiously optimistic to be wary, but I would
certainly expect better from them than I have received at the hands of the British,
with a philosophy that in the exacting comprehensiveness of its thematic
structures is arguably second-to-none and still, at the time of writing,
completely unknown!
92. I
think the reasons for that have been sufficiently dealt with, though I could add
a certain want of commercial viability in view of the profounder scope of my
work, coupled to a disadvantaged background
which ill-qualified me as attractive prey for the publishing predators
to latch-on to the way they snap up persons with even comparatively shallow and
vulgar minds who, having had the benefit of settled homes and, thanks of
parental financing, gone to the 'right' schools or colleges, happened to secure
the sorts of high-profile jobs or positions in the media or elsewhere which
subsequently attract publishers anxious to cash-in on their fame or public
standing when they eventually turn to writing with the confidence, moreover,
that with all the money spent on their
education they have an almost 'divine right' to publication and recognition.
93. Frankly,
I can conceive of a literary canon taking shape for future generations which
has no reference to intrinsic excellence at all but, rather, follows from such
commercial viability and success as their authors managed to achieve during the
course of a rip-roaring literary career.
Perhaps some if not many of the 'greats' of the past were of a similar
ilk, not intrinsically great at all but simply well-set up gentlemen - and even
ladies - whose shallowness of mind was all the more attractive to publishers in
view of its association with a track-record of public notoriety or fame?
94. Frankly,
I don't wish to enter into such unsavoury realms of speculation! But I can conceive of instances of that sort
of thing which have since multiplied to an alarming extent, and will probably
carry-on multiplying if markets remain dogmatically free of moral scruples and
publishers are able to exploit their more gullible and vulgar authors in the
interests of a substantial profit.
95. But
that is really what these democratic types are all about; for democracy exists,
remember, in conjunction with plutocracy, and plutocrats are there to make
money, come what may, by whatever means are deemed most efficacious and on the
pragmatic basis of what sells must be best, irrespective of its probable want
of intrinsic value. In point of fact,
any intrinsic value a work - say, a literary work - may have is soon
compromised by the extrinsic value attaching to it as a commercial product, so
that its value to the businessman rests primarily on how well it sells rather
than what it is in itself.
96. So
many units sold is the mark of success from a capitalist standpoint, and
therefore it stands to reason that only works which are likely to sell well in
the first place will be published, not least in terms of fiction, with
particular reference to novels, which are the form of literature par excellence most according with a
democratic/plutocratic mean, the voluminously physical literature of a
democratic age or society which is commercially best-served, it would appear,
in a standard book-like format.
97. When
Christ said, or is reputed to have said, that it was easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the 'Kingdom of
Heaven' he was only confirming what every wise or holy man knows to be the case
- that economic wealth and religious health are incompatible, as incompatible
as, say, democratic freedom and theocratic freedom, or fiction and truth, or
literature and philosophy, or man and God, or books and ... discs.
98. When
your god is economics, or rather the wealth accruing to a plutocratic
disposition within the context of democratic freedom, then there can be no room
for God as such, but only the subversion of God, in time-honoured Western vein,
by man, so that fiction is passed of as truth or, failing that, only a rather
essayistic and therefore 'bovaryized' approach to philosophy is countenanced as
philosophy, and genuine philosophy, which can only be aphoristic in respect of
the noumenal heights, is either regarded as being
beyond the Western pale or not credited with any existence or reality at all
(like certain Irishmen in Britain of a profounder stamp)!
99. But
of course that is only from a phenomenally physical - one might almost say a Lockeian
- standpoint, not in relation to metaphysics, and so whilst it is possible for
genuine philosophy to exist and to achieve something approximating to truth in
a higher sense than mere knowledge would allow, it is not possible for it to
exist in relation to the sorts of God-excluding societies which make man the
measure of all things and ensure that anything that poses for or passes as
truth is given a physical presentation and not allowed or encouraged to be true
to itself in properly metaphysical terms.
100. Thus
what is published in book form as truth is, in reality, most unlikely to be
metaphysically true, but simply some hyped knowledge or even ignorance designed
to pass muster as truth for a civilization which, in its democratic instincts,
makes it its business to reject actual truth and exclude it as something either
fancifully irrelevant or potentially subversive to its own integrity, which is
far better served, in fundamentally female fashion, by fact and the hyping of
fact as truth in typically empirical vein.
101. Thus
true truth, which is above and beyond knowledge and really quite contrary to
fact, especially in its metachemical manifestation,
cannot be encouraged within the parameters of a democratic society, and no
self-respecting purveyor of truth, a genuine philosopher, could possibly wish
it to be subsumed into or compromised by a system which makes a god out of
economics and allows man to play God, to the exclusion of what really is or
would be God, such that follows from a bureaucratic premise in 'Mother Church'
which allows not only for a theocratic outcome but, ultimately, for theocratic
freedom from bureaucratic subversion and an alternative, in Social Theocracy,
to such democratic freedom as everywhere - and not only in Social Democracy -
opposes God-building from the lowly, albeit inflated, standpoint of man.
102. For
man is physically low even when he hypes himself as God and plays God for the
sake of seeming to be doing justice to religion and the full-gamut of human
possibility, and hard-line democratic types are effectively lowlifes in their
incapacity to conceive of a theocratic alternative to their own sense of
freedom, but rather to ensure that everything, even a democratically-twisted
approach to theocracy, is subsumed within the physical parameters of their own
limitations and rendered accountable to them.
103. For
they will not have it said that there is a higher way which is above them! They defy such a higher way; for it is not
part of their agenda, unlike the extension of democracy at autocracy's
expense. They are simply a different
racial ideal, a different people, a different worldview, which will have no
other worldview than their own, not only in relation to themselves but,
wherever possible, at the expense of other peoples as well, irrespective of
whether the latter may not wish to partake of the democratic freedom which to
the apologists of democracy for its own sake is the only kind of freedom and
therefore inevitable destiny of the human race, as of the entire planet.
104. Perish
the thought! And yet the experience of
people like the Catholic Irish under British imperial domination in the past
and to a diminished extent in the present, both in Britain and Northern
Ireland, is such as to confirm that their racial adversaries really do believe
that democracy is the only freedom and that those who cleave to theocracy are
simply superstitious anachronisms.
Little do they realize, these democratic bigots, to what extent their
anti-Catholic history, stemming in large part from Henry VIII, has conditioned
them to believe that there is only one path to freedom and that they are the
ones who are treading it, even if not to a radical, or Social Democratic,
extent.
105. But a
falling autocratic-democratic axis of metachemical
free soma to physical free psyche is one thing, a rising
bureaucratic-theocratic axis of chemical free soma to metaphysical free psyche
quite another, and never the twain shall meet!
Theocrats can be nominally democratic, as in the Republic of Ireland,
and democrats nominally theocratic, as in England, but the immense gulf between
the metaphysical freedom of theocracy and the physical freedom of democracy,
between Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ideals persists and can only, in the nature of
these things, continue to persist until the world is brought, democratically,
to a theocratic head in global universality and everything pertaining to man
duly submits to the lead of God, not least in terms of the gradual supersession of human rights by divine rights as religious
sovereignty replaces political sovereignty in the judgmental process of
bringing the world, bit by bit, country by country, to 'Kingdom Come', and thus
to the overcoming of worldly shortcomings in the name of otherworldly values,
of which truth and joy are the chief.
106. But
you do not get truth and joy in the context of physics, of democratic freedom,
but only knowledge and pleasure; neither do you get it in the context of
chemistry, of bureaucratic freedom, but only weakness and humility; still less
do you get it in the context of metachemistry, of
autocratic freedom, but only ugliness and hatred.
107. Obviously,
neither ugliness and hatred nor weakness and humility are desirable from the
male standpoint of psychic freedom, but only either knowledge and pleasure in
physics, or truth and joy in metaphysics, the former appertaining to democratic
freedom, to the molecular-wavicle 'general good' of a
co-operatively collectivistic psychically free context, the latter to
theocratic freedom, to the elemental-wavicle
'particular good' of a co-operatively individualistic psychically free context,
so that it is either in respect of the democratic Many at the expense of the
autocratic Few in State-oriented vein, as in mature democracies, or in respect,
from a Church-oriented standpoint, of the theocratic Few at the expense of the
bureaucratic Many, as in mature theocracies.
108. Both
types of freedom are 'good', but they are not equally 'good'. The theocratic, being metaphysical, is
higher, for it is designed to further the subjectively individual 'good' of the
godly Few in terms of a unitary absolutism rather than to pander, in democratic
vein, to the subjectively collective 'good' of the manly Many, an ungodly Many,
to be sure, but not the only ungodly Many!
109. However
that may be, the 'general good' of the ungodly can never be attractive to the
godly; for it excludes all that is true and joyful and metaphysically superior
from existing, thereby ensuring that society never ventures far from the earth
in its mundane concerns with the here-and-now in egocentrically physical
vein. Such a society may be relatively
fair or equal in relation to itself (though not of course to those perceived as
a subversive threat from an alternative ideological standpoint), but it will
never transcend its own democratic limitations and achieve anything eternal,
anything meant to last, to prevail as testimony to the unitary well-being of
the godly Few.
110. They
have reduced life to a relativistic mediocrity, these well-meaning democrats,
not, to be sure, directly at the expense of the theocratic, who have still to
come into their own, but primarily at the expense, within their own cultural
complex, of the autocratic; yet such a mediocrity, in contrast to the metachemical negativity of the autocratic, at least has the
virtue of positivity, if only in respect of knowledge
and pleasure.
111. Thus
they represent an ideal, but it is the lesser of the two ideals possible to
evolving life as it either descends from the 'particular bad' of the ungodly,
or devilish, Few to the 'general good' of the ungodly, or manly, Many, as from
autocratic somatic freedom to democratic psychic freedom, elemental-particle
competitive individualism to molecular-wavicle co-operative
collectivism, or, in diagonal contrast, ascends from the 'general bad' of the
ungodly, or womanly, Many to the 'particular good' of the godly Few, as from
bureaucratic somatic freedom to theocratic psychic freedom, molecular-particle
competitive collectivism to elemental-wavicle
co-operative individualism.
112. If we
attempt a generalization where these four main alternatives are concerned
(excluding for the moment the more complex gender hegemonic and subordinate relationships
which have hitherto characterized my mature philosophy), we shall find that the
'particular bad' of autocratic freedom coupled, in bound psyche, to
aristocratic binding can be characterized in terms of crime and evil, whereas
the 'general good' of democratic freedom coupled, in bound soma, to plutocratic
binding would have to be characterized in terms of punishment and modesty,
which is what happens when a metachemically hegemonic
female reality is opposed from a sensibly physical standpoint and duly turned
around.
113. By
contrast, the 'general bad' of bureaucratic freedom coupled, in bound psyche,
to meritocratic binding can be characterized in terms
of sin and folly, whereas the 'particular good' of theocratic freedom coupled,
in bound soma, to technocratic binding would have to be characterized in terms
of grace and wisdom, which is what happens when a chemically hegemonic female
reality is opposed from a sensibly metaphysical standpoint and duly turned
around.
114. Therefore
the crime and evil of the autocratic/aristocratic sensuality has to be
contrasted with the punishment and modesty of the democratic/plutocratic
sensibility which, although nominally embracing a hegemonic male sensibility in
the guise of the relative grace and wisdom of knowledge and pleasure, is
paradoxically subject to the devolution or, rather, counter-devolution of
female values in punishing and modest vein, so that the emphasis tends to fall
not on knowledge and pleasure, despite the rhetoric, but on strength and pride,
or at least it would in the absence of a more complete democratic freedom which
shifted things, in evolutionary vein, back up to knowledge and pleasure in
effectively Social Democratic terms.
115. Contrariwise
the sin and folly of the bureaucratic/meritocratic
sensuality has to be contrasted with the grace and wisdom of the
theocratic/technocratic sensibility which, although nominally embracing a
hegemonic male sensibility in the guise of the absolute grace and wisdom of
truth and joy, is paradoxically subject to the counter-devolution of female
values in punishing and modest vein, so that the emphasis tends to fall not on
truth and joy, despite the rhetoric, but on beauty and love, or at least it
would in the absence of a more complete theocratic freedom which shifted
things, in evolutionary vein, back up to truth and joy in effectively Social
Theocratic terms.
116. Therefore
the relativity of the worldly positions of a compromise between autocracy and
democracy on the one hand and bureaucracy and theocracy on the other hand does
not permit of full male hegemonic virtues in terms of either knowledge and
pleasure in the former or truth and joy in the latter, but tends to substitute
for the outright dominance of negative female values in sensuality the covert
dominance of positive female values or, rather, antivalues
in sensibility, with counter-devolutionary consequences as described above.
117. For although physical sensibility might suggest that
knowledge and pleasure were hegemonic over strength and pride, in actuality it
tends to be strength and pride which call the shots in the absence of a more
complete democratic freedom which is not compromised, in worldly vein, by
autocratic traditions rooted in a female hegemony. So long, on the other hand, as those
traditions are still extant, a nominal male hegemony in knowledge and pleasure
will be vulnerable to the covert dominance of strength and pride, and these
female antivalues, rooted in soma, will tend, as
often as not, to be confounded with knowledge and pleasure, as antiwoman/antipurgatory with man/the earth.
118. Likewise,
although metaphysical sensibility might suggest that truth and joy were
hegemonic over beauty and love, in actuality it tends to be beauty and love
which call the shots in the absence of a more complete theocratic freedom which
is not compromised, in worldly vein, by bureaucratic traditions rooted in a
female hegemony. So long, on the other
hand, as those traditions are still extant, a nominal male hegemony in truth
and joy will be vulnerable to the covert dominance of beauty and love, and
these female antivalues, rooted in soma, will tend,
as often as not, to be confounded with truth and joy, as the Antidevil/Antihell with God/Heaven.
119. Of
course I have purposely simplified the above accounts in order to give a
general impression or explanation of what tends to happen in the absence of
either Social Democratic or Social Theocratic alternatives to the worldly
relativities alluded to in the text.
Males are not and cannot be properly hegemonic when the sensual
traditions, rooted somatically in female hegemonies, have not been
uprooted. For what existed as a norm in
the past persists, no matter how transvaluated, into
the present, and males will continue to bow to disguised female hegemonies in
which strength and pride are mistaken for knowledge and pleasure or beauty and
love for truth and joy, or, more pragmatically, in which strength and pride are
regarded as manly virtues and beauty and love as godly ones, contrary to the actual
cases.
120. Therefore
if this paradox is to be defeated and both knowledge and pleasure and, more
importantly from a metaphysical perspective, truth and joy emerge into properly
hegemonic positions where they are equated with manly/earthly or godly/heavenly
virtues of free psyche, you have to engineer a system where either Social
Democratic or Social Theocratic criteria are paramount, and in the interests of
future global unity in ethnic universality it makes more sense to create such a
system on the basis of Social Theocracy, which is not merely post-worldly in
hard-line democratic vein but otherworldly in what could be called hard-line
theocratic vein, so that it is the metaphysical rather than the physical which
ultimately wins out and brings the globe to a universal resolution in
God/Heaven, gradually refining life towards a co-operatively individualistic
peak which transcends the co-operative collectivism of 'the Many' in what, for
'the Few', would be the true unity of a Oneness Supreme, an Absolute Perfection.
121. Such
a resolution to life in the absolute perfection of a Oneness Supreme, more
congenial, I wager, to Celts than to Anglo-Saxons, means that democracy is
regarded not as an end-in-itself, in lowland vein, but as a means to a higher
end - in short, as something to be exploited, from a bureaucratic-theocratic
point of view, in the interests of enhanced theocracy, and an end to the
subversion of God and Heaven by the Antidevil and Antihell, as of truth and joy by beauty and love, so that,
for the first time in the religious history of the West, things become subject
to properly male hegemonic control and the female elements, not least in
respect of beauty and love in whatever psychic/somatic permutations, are
subordinated to the pursuit, for metaphysical males, of truth and joy, which
are alone to be identified with God and Heaven.
122. And
not, as may formerly have been the case in some cultures, in relation to the
least evolved manifestations of metaphysical sensibility in the Cosmos, nor to
the less (relative to least) evolved manifestations of metaphysical sensibility
in Nature, nor even - across the worshipful/devotional divide, to the more
(relative to most) evolved manifestations of metaphysical sensibility in
Humankind, in Mankind, where they take the form of transcendental meditation,
but, for the dehumanized post-humankind 'humanity' of the effectively atheistic
urban proletariat, the most evolved and therefore per se manifestations of metaphysical sensibility
in relation to the progressive cyborgization of life
to ever-greater heights of godly/heavenly absolute perfection.
123. For
it is with the gradual cyborgization of
post-humankind that the terms of life can be changed not only in respect of the
subversion of male values in traditions, no matter how professedly democratic
or theocratic, rooted in female hegemonies but in respect, no less importantly,
of the transmutation, in analytic to synthetic vein, of binarism
into monism and of relativity into absolutism, as a more totalitarian
perfection is engineered out of the pluralistic imperfections with which Social
Theocracy, if granted its majority mandate, was initially saddled.
124. And
all, be it not forgotten, to an enhanced godly/heavenly end, an end in which
all that is not metaphysically sensible, whether antimetachemically
antidevilish/antihellish in the administrative aside
or antichemically antiwomanly/antipurgatorial
or physically manly/earthly in the lower tiers of our projected triadic Beyond
is reduced to a minimum, if not entirely superseded, eventually, by what is
sensible on the utmost metaphysical terms.
125. And
what is metaphysically sensible on such terms is not what does or gives
or takes, primarily, but what subordinates doing as antidoing
and giving as antigiving to its raison d'ętre of the redemption of taking in
being, of truth in joy, of metaphysical form in metaphysical contentment, of
absolute grace in absolute holiness, of a moment of time in timeless eternity,
of the brain stem in the spinal cord, of ego in soul, of quality in essence, of
molecular wavicles in elemental wavicles,
of consciousness in subconsciousness - in short, of
God in Heaven.
126. There
can be no higher or better destiny than that, and that is the destiny which
awaits the urban proletariat if they choose to heed my words and vote, when the
opportunity presents itself, for religious sovereignty and an end, in
consequence, to the worldly relativity which, falling well short of windy-city
cosmopolitanism, would hold them back from God and Heaven.
127. Democratic
freedom, provided it is not too absolutist, can be a fine thing, even though,
in practice, it tends to result in the substitution of an inner darkness for an
outer light; but the theocratic freedom that could emerge into inner light at
the expense of both the outer darkness of bureaucratic freedom and the
inner-darkness subversion of theocracy via the paradoxical exploitation of relative
democratic freedom by those who democratically opt for religious sovereignty
will be a good deal finer - so fine, indeed, as to permit of mankind's
overcoming and of the emergence, in its wake, of Godkind
as the sole beneficiaries of evolutionary progress towards the omega point of
heaven in space, where the universal transcendence of time in timeless bliss
will achieve its sublime apotheosis from out the divine gnosis of godly
resolve!
LONDON 2003 (Revised
2012)
