Freedom From vis-à-vis Freedom For. Freedom from religious and/or political tyranny, which is the freedom par excellence of Parliamentarianism/Puritanism, and hence in England of New-Testament-oriented Puritanism from the clutches of Old-Testament-oriented Anglicanism, is potentially a dangerous trend if a certain respect for what it is in revolt against does not continue, as in Britain, to prevail and to constrain, in some degree, the relative freedom from Monarchic/Anglican tyranny of the Parliamentarians/Puritans from turning into an absolute freedom from tyranny of those who would not merely oppose state-sponsored religious tyranny but oppose religion itself in the interests of (scientific) freedom from religion. For it is just one more degenerative step from that which demands to be free from religious oppression at the hands of Monarchic/Anglican tyrants of an Old Testament persuasion to that which insists on being free from all religion, whether of the Old or the New Testaments, in the interests of a scientific license to take humanism one stage further down the road that leads to Bolshevism and to an atheistic denial even of Christ. One can see, from a British perspective, just how important the retention, constitutionally, of Monarchism/Anglicanism was – and in some sense continues to be – in precluding the freedom from religious tyranny of Parliamentarianism/Puritanism from turning, as though by a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde transformation, into a freedom from religion per se, even without a significant number of extra-parliamentary unbelievers to contend with who, in the nature of these things, tend to be in the unofficial vanguard of atheistic degeneration and social democratic humanism. But, of course, all that is by way of the fatality, potential or otherwise, of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society and, hence, of an axial integrity stretching from the northwest to the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass that we have continuously used to illustrate the distinctions between, for instance, British and Irish society, the latter of which would traditionally have adhered to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in keeping with a phenomenal/noumenal antithesis between the southwest and northeast points of the said compass. Doubtless that is still to some extent the case, else we would not have a dichotomy between, for instance, hurling and Gaelic football that axially contrasts with the British dichotomy between rugby and association football. Consequently, in the Irish case, no such freedom from religious persecution or tyrannical overlordship ever presented itself as an indigenous predilection but, rather, in relation to the Protestant character of British imperialism, since adherence to Roman Catholicism guarantees, for the Irish, a degree of religious freedom per se, which accordingly has less to do with freedom from (tyranny) than freedom for self-realization through grace, albeit more in terms of verbal absolution for penitential contrition than in relation to the practice of transcendental meditation, or anything of the kind. It is in a sense not the free from so much as the free for of Nietzschean paradox that characterizes the generality of Irish catholics, insofar as grace is vouchsafed to the confessee via a priest acting as intermediary between the penitent and the almost uniquely Catholic concept of a post-resurrectional Saviour ‘On High’ who is the sole embodiment of metaphysical transcendentalism or, at any rate, idealism, as germane to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass. To be sure, the so-called Father of a Christian extrapolation from Jehovah still exists, falsely, at the northwest point of the axial compass, as does the Old Testament, but rather more as an aside to the chief focal-point of religious devotion and faith than as a principal figurehead in Judaic-to-Anglican fashion, wherein not church-hegemonic but state-hegemonic and therefore church-subordinate criteria have long been the political and religious norms, to the detriment not only of Catholics, not least in England, but of those who, as Puritans, have chosen the path of freedom from religious tyranny or, rather, who had the path of freedom from axially mapped out for them by the nature of British society following the Reformation and the Anglican dethronement, schismatically, of Roman Catholicism, and were therefore not in a position to endorse the freedom for religious self-realization that requires, at the Christian level of mankind, adherence to the northeast point of the axial compass in what is, to repeat, a uniquely Catholic commitment to grace via penitential contrition with the intercession of a priest acting as a direct link between the confessee and the concept of a post-resurrectional Christ ‘On High’ who embodies all that is of metaphysics and therefore of the context of grace and wisdom, a provisional context pending the Second Coming and the return, in a manner of speaking, of Christ, or the messianic destiny, to the world in the interests of its final overcoming and redemptive resurrection to ‘Kingdom Come’ following what I have described as a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in countries, like Eire, which should still be capable, in their fundamentally church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial integrity, of responding to the call for redemption in relation to the freedom for of self-realization, and this in spite of or, perhaps, because of the extent to which they have been turned from the path, the axial integrity, of Catholic tradition by newfangled pressures of a somatically free nature emanating from the northwest point of the axial compass and are now sufficiently quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate in relation to those pressures as to require the redemptive intervention of messianic criteria in order to bring them back into line with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria on a radically new basis that owes less to Catholic tradition than to Social Theocratic revolution and, hence, to the democratically-mandated institution of a new church and a new state which, as the Centre, will not be just another church or state, in puritan/parliamentary fashion, but a church to end all churches and a state to end all states, twin aspects of the Centre which I have hitherto described as Social Transcendentalist and Social Theocratic, and maintain to be commensurate with the requirements of ‘Kingdom Come’.