THE MYTH OF EQUALITY
Aphoristic Philosophy
Copyright © 2001-10 John O'Loughlin
_____________
1
To
conceive, if rather poetically, of blue-eyed whites as the flower of the human race,
green-eyed whites as its stalk, and brown-eyed whites as the roots of this
Caucasian plant, as germane, by and large, to Europe, and northern Europe in
particular.
Brown-eyed
coloureds, whether Black or Asian, could be described, in like vein, as the
soil of the human race, while those with almond eyes might well be its fire
and/or sun.
On the
other hand, persons with grey eyes could well qualify for an analogy with the
sea and thus, in effect, with water.
Be that as
it may, to speak of racial equality with regard to persons of similar eye
coloration is one thing; to speak of it with regard to persons of dissimilar
colours seems to me to fly in the face of reality and overlook the obvious -
namely, that eye coloration is an indication of racial inequality, not the only
one, by any means, but a significant and vital indication nevertheless!
People of
mixed race - even within the broad spectrum of colours found in the white race
- often have mixed eye coloration, like greenish blue or bluish green, and so
on, while those who are most racially pure tend to reflect this in the
unadulterated or uniform coloration of their eyes.
Generally
it is right and proper that people of blue and even green eyes, as of
combinations of each, should rise to the top of society and have positions of
responsibility commensurate with their racial natures.
A world
dominated by brown-eyed people would not be particularly high-minded but, on
the contrary, too earthy and mundane for anything of truly cultural or
religious significance to emerge.
The
Germans, together with the Irish and Scandinavians, are amongst the most
blue-eyed peoples in
The Third
Reich is only fully explicable on the basis of a blue-eyed racial highness,
largely germane to Germany and kindred lands, which felt itself under threat
from both internal and external races of a largely, if not exclusively,
brown-eyed constitution and duly 'broke out' of the siege mentality under which
it had existed, to wreak havoc on the races in question.
The Third
Reich was not imperialism in the classic Western or even Eastern models of
countries like France, England, Spain, and Russia, but, rather, a reaction of
racial highness to the perceived threat posed by racially lower countries and
peoples to its racial and national interests.
For blue-eyed
races will not normally go out of their way to involve themselves
imperialistically with brown-eyed races farther afield,
but prefer, as in the case of
Nothing is
more important to a higher race than the protection of its gene pool and racial
characteristics from the threat of pollution and vitiation at the hands of
racially lower peoples.
There is
nothing higher on this planet, nor has there ever been, than the blue- and even
green-eyed peoples who constitute what I elsewhere described as the flower of
humanity, and from which the highest achievements in civilization and culture,
but especially culture, tend to flow.
The world
is well populated with brown-eyed peoples, but those regions which have
produced blue and green eyes are not so prevalent, nor even as populous
overall, and deserve such protection and encouragement as they can get, to
ensure that higher racial material is not snuffed out by the general pattern of
things, but can flourish and spread its enlightenment to kindred peoples in the
interests of cultural progress.
2
Of course
culture and race are two different things, even if two sides of the same
abstract, or noumenal, coin - a coin
on which the heads side, as it were, will always be characterized by culture
and the tails side by race.
But race
and culture nonetheless complement and even confirm each other, and no higher
culture can be achieved except on the basis of a racial predisposition in the
peoples concerned. In this respect,
culture is quite unlike civilization, which requires not a racial but a
generative precondition or basis, and applies, in any case, to the concrete
realm of the phenomenal, with particular regard to the planes of volume and
mass.
The planes
of time and space, on the other hand, are precisely those on which culture and
race have their principal thrones, and one can distinguish space from time on
the basis of culture from race, duly dividing each between beauty and truth,
and truth and beauty, as between clear and holy manifestations of culture and
unholy and unclear manifestations of race.
The student
familiar with my texts will know - or should know - that the antipodes of a
given spectrum or, rather, plane tend to be mutually exclusive, and that
movement from race to culture or from culture to race, as from sensuality to
sensibility, tends to be in the diagonal bisecting of such contiguous planes as
pertain, as here, either to space and time or, down below, to volume and mass.
Since one can
rise or fall diagonally, as from time to space or from space to time, it
follows that a diagonal rise from the one to the other will be commensurate
with progress from race to culture, while a diagonal fall from the one to the
other will be commensurate, by contrast, with a regression from culture to
race. For not only are race and culture
of time and space, but they are of it in diametrically antithetical ways, as
between beauty and truth in the case of space, and truth and beauty in the case
of time.
The
distinction between beauty and truth is of course germane to a gender-based
dichotomy between appearance and essence, will and soul, with the former female
and the latter male, since noumenal, or upper-class,
females are rooted in will and noumenal, or
upper-class, males, by contrast, centred in soul, as, in elemental terms,
between fire and air, metachemistry and metaphysics.
Culture is
no more exclusively metaphysical than space, while race is no more exclusively metachemical than time.
Beautiful culture is simply the female manifestation of culture and is
therefore metachemical, whereas true culture is its
male manifestation, and therefore metaphysical. True race, on the other hand, is simply the
male manifestation of race and is therefore metaphysical, whereas beautiful
race is its female manifestation, which happens to be metachemical.
Hence noumenal males (divine) can only rise, in keeping with
their subjective bias for truth, or essence, from time to space, as from true
race to true culture, while noumenal females
(diabolic) have no option but to fall, in keeping with their objective bias for
beauty, or appearance, from space to time, as from beautiful culture to
beautiful race.
To rise
from time to space is to progress from metaphysical sensuality to metaphysical
sensibility, as, in organic terms, from the ears to the lungs, and is
effectively to be saved from racial truth to cultural truth. To fall, on the other hand, from space to
time is to regress from metachemical sensuality to metachemical sensibility, as, in organic terms, from the
eyes to the heart, and is effectively to be damned from cultural beauty to
racial beauty.
Hence the
salvation of noumenal males, or gods, from time to
space presupposes the damnation of noumenal females,
or devils, from space to time. Those who
were 'last' in true race become 'first' in true culture, while those who were
'first' in beautiful culture become 'last' in beautiful race. From being a plane below females in racial
truth, males rise diagonally to being a plane above them in cultural
truth. Conversely, from being a plane
above males in cultural beauty, females fall diagonally to being a plane below
them in racial beauty.
Having
dealt briefly with space and time, culture and race, let us now turn to volume
and mass, civilization and generation, their lower-class, or phenomenal,
counterparts.
Since one
can rise or fall diagonally, as from mass to volume or from volume to mass, it
follows that a diagonal rise from the one to the other will be commensurate
with progress from generation to civilization, while a diagonal fall from the
one to the other will be commensurate, by contrast, with a regression from
civilization to generation. For not only
are generation and civilization of mass and volume, but they are of it in
diametrically antithetical ways, as between strength and knowledge in the case
of volume, and knowledge and strength in the case of mass.
The
distinction between strength and knowledge is, of course, germane to a
gender-based dichotomy between quantity and quality, spirit and ego, with the
former female and the latter male, since phenomenal, or lower-class, females
are rooted in spirit and phenomenal, or lower-class, males, by contrast,
centred in ego, as, in elemental terms, between water and vegetation (earth),
chemistry and physics.
Civilization
is no more exclusively physical than volume, while generation is no more
exclusively chemical than mass. Strong civilization is simply the female manifestation of
civilization and is therefore chemical, whereas knowledgeable civilization is
its male manifestation, and therefore physical. Knowledgeable generation, on the other hand,
is simply the male manifestation of generation and is therefore physical,
whereas strong generation is its female manifestation, which happens to be
chemical.
Hence
phenomenal males (masculine) can only rise, in keeping with their subjective
bias for knowledge, or quality, from mass to volume, as from knowledgeable
generation to knowledgeable civilization, while phenomenal females (feminine)
have no option but to fall, in keeping with their objective bias for strength,
or quantity, from volume to mass, as from strong civilization to strong
generation.
To rise
from mass to volume is to progress from physical sensuality to physical
sensibility, as, in organic terms, from the phallus to the brain, and is
effectively to be saved from generative knowledge to civilized knowledge. To fall, on the other hand, from volume to
mass is to regress from chemical sensuality to chemical sensibility, as, in
organic terms, from the tongue to the womb, and is effectively to be damned
from civilized strength to generative strength.
Hence the
salvation of phenomenal males, or men, from mass to volume presupposes the
damnation of phenomenal females, or women, from volume to mass. Those who were 'last' in knowledgeable
generation become 'first' in knowledgeable civilization, while those who were
'first' in strong civilization become 'last' in strong generation. From being a plane below females in
generative knowledge, males rise diagonally to being a plane above them in
civilized knowledge. Conversely, from
being a plane above males in civilized strength, females fall diagonally to
being a plane below them in generative strength.
3
To rise
diagonally, as a male, from folly to wisdom, unholiness
to holiness, unrighteousness to righteousness, physical and/or metaphysical
sensuality to physical and/or metaphysical sensibility, sin to grace, whether
on the relative terms of phenomenal subjectivity, as germane to mass-volume, or
on the absolute terms of noumenal subjectivity, as
germane to time-space, thereby being saved from generative knowledge to
civilized knowledge and/or from racial truth to cultural truth.
To fall
diagonally, as a female, from evil to good, clearness to unclearness,
righteousness to unrighteousness, chemical and/or metachemical
sensuality to chemical and/or metachemical
sensibility, crime to punishment, whether on the relative terms of phenomenal
objectivity, as germane to volume-mass, or on the absolute terms of noumenal objectivity, as germane to space-time, thereby
being damned from civilized strength to generative strength and/or from
cultural beauty to racial beauty.
That which
rises diagonally in salvation does so from the curse of under-plane
subservience of a secondary order of freedom (from self) to a primary order of
freedom (in not-self), whereas that which falls diagonally in damnation does so
from the blessing of over-plane hegemony to under-plane subservience of a
secondary order of binding (in not-self) to a primary order of binding (to
self).
Thus that
which, on the male side of the gender divide, had been secondarily free in
sensuality becomes primarily bound in sensibility, while that which, on the
female side of the said divide, had been primarily free in sensuality becomes
secondarily bound in sensibility.
For the
female is ever a creature in which not-self takes precedence over self, the
organs of, in particular, chemistry and metachemistry
over the spinal column and brain stem, whereas the male, by contrast, is ever a
creature in which self takes precedence over not-self, the spinal column and
brain stem over the organs of, in particular, physics and metaphysics.
This is
because while the female is rooted, through objectivity, in a vacuum, the male
is centred, through subjectivity, in a plenum.
Or, to reverse this, one could say that it is precisely the fact of the
female's being rooted in a vacuum which makes for objectivity, or a tendency to
diverge (sensuality) and/or converge (sensibility) in straight-line fashion,
while it is equally the fact of the male's being centred in a plenum which
makes for subjectivity, or a tendency to diverge (sensuality) and/or converge
(sensibility) in curved-line fashion.
Hence
freedom associated with a vacuum is always primary, while freedom associated
with a plenum remains secondary; the one having especial connections with the
not-self and the other with the self.
Contrariwise,
binding associated with a plenum is always primary, while binding associated
with a vacuum remains secondary; the one having especial connections with the
self and the other with the not-self.
Thus the
female form of freedom is ever primary and the male form merely secondary, while,
conversely, the male form of binding is ever primary and the female form merely
secondary.
Females
achieve perfection in primary freedom, which is immoral in its sensuality,
whereas males only achieve perfection in primary binding, which is moral in its
sensibility. The one appertains to the
righteousness of clearness, which is ever evil; the other to the righteousness
of holiness, which is ever wise.
Secondarily to each of these, the unrighteousness of unholiness
is ever foolish, and the unrighteousness of unclearness ... ever good.
Good,
therefore, can only be secondary to evil for a female, whether in the relative
context of volume-mass or in the absolute context of space-time. For evil is a manifestation of civilized
and/or cultural clearness, and is accordingly blessed with direct freedom (for
the not-self), whereas good(ness) is a manifestation
of generative and/or racial unclearness, and is accordingly afflicted with
indirect binding (of the not-self).
Conversely,
folly can only be secondary to wisdom for a male, whether in the relative
context of mass-volume or in the absolute context of time-space. For folly is a
manifestation of generative and/or racial unholiness,
and is accordingly cursed with secondary freedom (from the self), whereas
wisdom is a manifestation of civilized and/or cultural holiness, and is
accordingly sanctified by primary binding (to the self).
Stable
civilization and culture complexes do not ordinarily oscillate too perceptibly
between alpha and omega, sensuality and sensibility, but tend, notwithstanding
minor and incidental oscillations, to uphold civilization or culture on a given
gender-biased platform, be it female, and sensual, or male, and sensible.
Hence the
prevalence of civilized and/or cultured righteousness in relation to clearness
tends to preclude the contrary prevalence of civilized and/or cultured
righteousness in relation to holiness.
Either the female has her way at the expense, by and large, of the male,
as in the West traditionally, or the male has his way at the expense, by and
large, of the female, as in the East traditionally. Regional exceptions to the rule
notwithstanding, stable civilizations and cultures are either
clear or holy, not both at once or, rather, by turns.
The
existence of cultural clearness, or beauty, in the West has long tended to
preclude the contrary existence, certainly on anything like an official or
institutional level, of cultural holiness, or truth; for the West, like much of
the East, particularly the Middle East, is rooted in both Graeco-Roman
and Judaic traditions, and therefore upholds the Biblical concept of a cosmic
First Mover (Jehovah), as germane to the Old Testament.
Ironically,
the New Testament parallel to this is not the Father, but the Risen Virgin,
whereby one is more concerned with organic supremacy, and hence eyes over ears,
than with inorganic primacy, and hence stellar over solar bodies in the
Cosmos. Be that as it may, cultural
beauty still precludes the official coming to pass of cultural truth, and
ensures that such truth as does exist or is affirmed remains 'beyond the pale'
of theocratic or theological requirement.
For the
believer in and devotee of cultural truth, which tends to manifest in the
practice, intermittent or otherwise, of transcendental meditation, has no time
for theocracy, theology, theosophy, or any other religious tradition rooted in
theism. He is atheist, or against
theism, to the extent that what he upholds is alien to a world in which
cultural criteria are rooted in theocracy, with its organic beauty (Risen
Virgin) or inorganic ugliness (Jehovah), and in righteous clearness via either
the eyes or the stellar plane. For him
God or, rather, godliness is not theistic but deistic, not external but internal,
not rooted in the Cosmos but centred in the self, and, in any case, not metachemical, like 'first movers' tend to be, but
metaphysical, and therefore germane to air rather than to fire. He is the Western outsider par
excellence, for this doctrine of atheism vis-à-vis cosmic and even universal
(organic) theism has long been known and upheld in the East, even if only by a noumenal elite.
Not
altogether surprisingly, the nations which are most characteristic of the West
tend, like
Both
countries are typified by righteous clearness, in which female criteria are
hegemonic over male criteria, as symbolically confirmed by the association of
Britannia, 'ruler of the waves', with parliamentary Britain, and the Statue of
Liberty, whether or not dubbed 'Liberty Belle', with America, which, though
republican, tends to be more cultural than civilized in the extent to which
freedom is equated with fire rather than water, as with regard to the
camera-besotted media of film and the press rather than the voice-besotted media
of radio and theatre.
Be that as
it may, one could believe that freedom of speech was more characteristic of
civilized Britain, and freedom of image, or the camera-besotted press, more
characteristic of cultural America, but, whatever the case, neither country
would strike one as championing the male forms of civilization and culture to
any great extent, which is why they are bastions of secular freedom and the
reign, in consequence, of females.
But if the
West is largely characterized by freedom, and the East by binding, whether or
not on ecclesiastical terms, is there not something almost geographically and
even geopolitically inevitable about this, which makes it difficult, if not
impossible, to imagine a time when either universal freedom or universal
binding will obtain in the world.
For if the
West is the opposite of the East, then different they will always remain, even
if the influence of the one on the other is inescapable, whether in favour of
the West, as at present, or in favour of the East, should that ever
transpire. Certainly one cannot
reasonably conceive of a world in which only freedom or only binding obtain,
because neither term nor reality would make much sense if divorced from the
other.
Freedom
without binding, or vice versa, is as implausible a concept as left without
right, or day without night, or female without male. It is unlikely, barring global catastrophe,
that the world will ever be any one thing to the total exclusion of its opposite. All that is likely to happen, in the event of
increased globalization, is that the West will become less free and the East
less bound; for the West cannot cease to be the West any more than the East can
cease being itself. The division between
East and West predisposes one to an acceptance of a gender struggle between
binding and freedom, male and female life principles; for sensibility and
sensuality would seem fated to continue the battle of life as long as life
itself continues in recognizably human form.
4
One hears much
talk of Western godlessness from, not least, Eastern religious fanatics of one
persuasion or another, but one has to be careful how one interprets the term
'God', and thus what one understands by religion. If one means 'God as Creator', in the sense of
some cosmic First Mover credited by certain ancient texts, including the
so-called Christian Bible, with the creation of the world and all or most of
the creatures in it, then one is adhering to a very basic and, to my mind,
primitive concept of God which, whether or not it has ceased to apply to the
West, is only credible, it seems to me, in relation to a naturalistic and
largely rural background.
It may be
that the West is comparatively Godless in terms of adherence to such a
primitive and basic notion of God as the term 'Creator' evokes, but if that
were so - and there are conflicting opinions here - is that any great
misfortune or shortcoming when considered not only in relation to Christian
traditions of Christ-worship (wherein, even with distinctions between the Old
Testament 'Creator', or Jehovah, and the New Testament 'Creator', or the
Father, the Son is effectively a salvation from if not the eternal, then
certainly a temporal manifestation of the Father and effective cynosure, in
Christ, of worship), but, notwithstanding such traditions, to the sorts of
environmental or climatic conditions in which such basic notions of God
normally flourish.
When one
lives closer to Nature in rural or mountainous lands it stands to reason that
some acknowledgement of either Nature or that which is deemed responsible for
Nature, like a variety of cosmic bodies, will be officially upheld and widely
practised through conventional or traditional religious rites, even if less in
terms of Nature-worship than of some sublimated extrapolation from Nature
and/or the Cosmos which may or may not be given anthropomorphic associations.
But what of
those countries or peoples which have moved beyond such primitive conditions
and now command vast reserves of industrial, technological, scientific, and
other know-how, having acquired a much more urban orientation in which man-made
rather than nature-made things abound - can they be expected to relate to
naturalistic concepts of God, and if not, what is wrong with their more humanistic
and socialistic concerns?
For it
seems that the more developed countries and peoples become, the more they
abandon primitivistic religion in the interests of a
sort of humanistic focus in which things made by man take precedence over
whatever might have been fashioned by Nature or some outside force operating on
Nature from the Cosmos. They are no
longer surrounded by Nature to any appreciable extent, but have a uniquely
humanized world to live in and develop.
Small wonder if traditional concepts of God or religion fall by the
roadside!
But
humanism, even Christian humanism, is hardly the end of the road, nor is its
secular counterpart, which takes a variety of socialistic forms. For urban civilization provides a bridge, it
seems to me, from the Nature-bound past to a much more interiorized and even
genuinely religious future, a future in which godliness is truly within, as one
emerges from the 'black hole', as it were, of industrial development into a
light which owes little or nothing to the Sun, still less to the Cosmos, but
much if not everything to the soul and its capacity for inner light, as
revealed through a variety of meditative devotions and chemical stimulants, not
to mention intellectual and spiritual studies conducted via the use of personal
computers and such like.
Of what
relevance is the 'Garden without' to a person who has gone within and whose
whole lifestyle is aided and abetted by environmental and technological
transformations in society which, while rooted in sensuality, intimate of a
sensible alternative and deeper resolution.
For city life contrasts with Nature, nature-in-the-raw, as an
environment in which more sensibility is possible by dint of the interior
parallel to sensibility which living or being indoors much of the time
inevitably provides.
Doubtless
the West, and northern Europe in particular, owes not a little of its urban and
technological sophistication to weather conditions which, in their various inclemencies, conduce towards an indoor lifestyle -
something which could hardly be said of much of north Africa and the Middle
East, to take but two regional examples.
People do not ordinarily get as much chance to lounge around in the
sunshine in northern Europe as they do in some places farther afield, and over the centuries a mentality has developed,
in conjunction with Christianity, which places more emphasis on living indoors
than outdoors, so that most indigenous Europeans more or less take their
sedentary lifestyles under roofs and between walls for granted, only venturing
out when they have to or as the leisurely exception to a general rule.
But how
inextricably tied to sensibility this is, and how it contrasts with those
countries and peoples which, for climatic as well as environmental reasons,
were never given quite as much incentive to develop a civilized and urban
alternative to Nature but, even with certain inclemencies,
revelled in the outdoors and in the sensuality that hot climates entail. Even now the African or Arab or coloured
person in general in Western cities is more likely to linger longer outdoors on
a fine day than his European counterpart.
And if he is not more sensible, he is certainly more sensual, and thus
closer to nature, as they say, than those of us for whom city life and city
lifestyles are the time-honoured norm.
Of course,
the city is not only a vehicle for furthering sensibility in the extent to
which indoor lifestyles proliferate; it can and does contain much sensuality,
though arguably much less sensuality than rural areas or than those countries
in which the sun is so much more prevalent.
Sensuality is the basis of life for even the most sensible of persons,
and few if any of us would be able to tolerate life without at least some daily
contact with the scaled-down nature of, for instance, parks, gardens, indoor
plants, pets, roadside trees, and so on.
But this scaled-down and often transmuted nature is not to be confused
with nature-in-the-raw, or Nature with a capital N, and no-one in his right,
sensible mind would ever wish to return to a context closer to Nature in that
rural or primitive sense. For he would
ultimately risk returning to a primitive concept of God and mode of religion, a
mode rooted in the notion of cosmic Creator and requiring worshipful
subservience of a degree likely to evoke unpleasant political connotations with
authoritarian monarchy!
No, the
city at least prevents any such retrogressive step for those who are properly
germane to it, and to that extent it is a guarantor of freedom from theocratic
or other authoritarianisms and vehicle for enhanced sensibility, to the extent
that people respond to the indoor summons on a positive note, scorning contact
with the great outdoors on all but a tangential, or city-conditioned, basis.
But there
is more than one kind of sensibility, and the city often tends to reflect this
in the different types of architectural style which different usages and
orientations dictate, ranging from the metachemically
square to the metaphysically round via the chemically rectangular and the
physically elliptical, as from noumenal objectivity
to noumenal subjectivity via phenomenal objectivity
and phenomenal subjectivity. Cities can
be more one thing than another, and so they often tend to be, yet are also
capable of being transmuted not only in terms of enhanced interiorization,
but of one type of architectural parallel to sensibility at the expense of or
in preference to another, depending on the nature of the city and even of the
people who happen to inhabit it.
Cities are not
fixed but infinitely transmutable in their development, and widespread
disillusionment with one type of architectural bias does not invalidate the
possibility of another but, rather, portends the likelihood of further change
attendant upon a variety of ideological and functional preconditions. Ultimately, we get the city we deserve!
But
whatever city we live in, the distinction between raw nature and urban
civilization is indubitably one between sensuality and sensibility, the outer
and the inner, and to that extent the development of any higher culture, be it
Christian or post-Christian, is premised upon a civilized precondition, without
which lifestyles will remain heathenistically given
to the 'great outdoors'. And so, by a
correlative token, will religion and thus the concept of God.
5
I like to
think that the American rush to urbanize and industrialize and generally
develop technology as quickly and efficiently as possible owes not a little to
the Christian ancestry which most Americans inherited from the Old World and
which made them especially determined, in consequence, not to be dwarfed and
dominated by Nature but to set about rivalling it as vigorously as possible, in
the interests of a sensible retort to the sensuality which even now is so much
more prevalent in that vast continent than in Europe generally, and Western
Europe in particular.
Thus the
Americans, especially those of European descent, were bequeathed a Christian
conscience which sought the rapid and sophisticated transformation of a
continent still beset by nature-in-the-raw to a degree which had long before
ceased to characterize much of Western Europe.
Even with its violence and sensuality, latter-day
If America
now leads the world it is not because it has or ever returned to nature but, on
the contrary, because, right from the start, it made war on Nature and brought
civilization to a continent that had known only barbarism. This, incidentally, is generally true of
imperialism and colonialism everywhere.
Freedom in
the democratic and economic sense is incompatible with being too close to
Nature, since naturalism correlates with primitivity
not only in religious terms but also in political and economic terms. The struggle against Nature is effectively a
struggle for civilization and the possibility, in consequence, of enhanced
sensibility as confirmed by cultural sophistication attendant upon an indoor
lifestyle.
To be free
from religious or other tyranny is a mark of any higher civilization, since the
tyrant constrains his subjects to sensuality, and thus prevents their sensible
redemption or transmutation. He (though
especially She) is something to be worshipped, and in all worshipful
subservience there is a loss of self-respect and absence, in greater or lesser
degree, of the possibility of holiness, which, as a male reality, is intimately,
indeed inextricably, associated with closeness to self, meaning, needless to
say, the brain stem and spinal column of what passes, in general parlance, for
the central nervous system.
But
holiness is only one side of a dual-sided sensible equation. The other is unclearness, and this is as much
a female reality, whether in phenomenal or noumenal,
lower- or upper-class, terms, as holiness is male, given the extent to which
females are creatures primarily of the not-self, especially with regard to the
objective organs of metachemical and chemical
sensuality and sensibility, and only secondarily of the self, unlike their male
counterparts.
There can
be no holiness for males, in short, without a corresponding degree of
unclearness for females, who are as much damned from the evil righteousness of
clearness as sensible males are saved from the foolish unrighteousness of unholiness which, in sensuality, defers, in fairly
worshipful vein, to clearness, pretty much as a religious primitive, trapped in
racial unholiness, to some cosmic and/or stellar
manifestation of cultural clearness.
Cultural
clearness, which is upheld in the Jehovahesque Old
Testament, is the principal enemy of and obstacle to the possibility of
cultural holiness, which is beyond the civilized level of Christ and thus
beyond - and above - prayerful devotion in what transpires to being a
meditative praxis at once the epitome and guarantor of religious sanctity. He who prays rather than meditates knows
nothing of genuine religion, and hence cultural holiness. He lives the half-wisdom, in Christ, of
civilized holiness, as germane to vegetative sensibility, the sensibility of
physical rebirth, and is but a lower-class shortfall from the airy sensibility,
the sensibility of metaphysical rebirth, in which transcendental meditation has
its divine throne. The man or, rather,
effective god who meditates through consciousness of his breathing is beyond
the scope of Biblical delusion and Creator-rooted religious primitivity. He scorns such a thing as unworthy of true
enlightenment! For, to him, only the
inner light has any claim on metaphysical holiness, the outer light, no matter
how clear, being metachemically antithetical to the
righteousness which is wise and of God in any ultimate sense, ultimate, that is
to say, in relation to the supreme beingfulness of a
sensible manifestation of organic supremacy having reference to metaphysical
rebirth.
Thus the
true Son, the Son of God who is metaphysically rather than physically sensible,
who is indeed godly rather than manly in his upper-class male sensibility,
counsels against not only the Father of metaphysical sensuality, Who is a
secondary Father compared to the manly Father of physical sensuality and
fulcrum of vegetative sin (in the phallus), but against both positive (Risen
Virgin) and negative (Jehovah) manifestations of metachemical
sensuality, since neither the organic nor the inorganic mode of cultural
clearness can admit of the possibility or do anything to advance cultural holiness,
least of all in relation to organic supremacy, which requires, on the contrary,
the complete and utter repudiation of all cultural clearness and thus righteous
evil, the immoral righteousness of sensual 'First Movers' who, in their noumenal objectivity, are really Devils, not Gods.
Freedom
from worshipful subservience, and even enslavement, to cosmic and/or universal
'First Movers' in the cultural clearness of metachemical
sensuality is one thing; binding to cosmic or, better, universal (organic) 'Last
Movers' (or, better, 'Last Groovers') in the cultural holiness of metaphysical
sensibility is quite another, and for this to come properly to pass as ultimate
salvation for those males who would be 'up to it' and entitled to a sensibly
transcendental destiny, those who relate to metachemical
sensuality must be brought low, or damned, to metachemical
sensibility in an unclear deference to holiness, as metaphysically-biased males
climb from the unrighteousness of metaphysical sensuality in the Father to the
righteousness of metaphysical sensibility in the Son, as and when they
democratically opt for salvation from racial unholiness
to cultural holiness through the Second Coming, and officially pass beyond
aural sins to respiratory graces.
For freedom
is assuredly not the end of the evolutionary or even devolutionary road but,
rather, a half-way house between other-worship and self-binding, between the primitivity of false religion and the sublimity
of true religion, and the sooner those who now have and revel in freedom,
whether political or otherwise, realize this, the sooner will the possibility
of salvation and/or damnation (according to gender) from sins and/or crimes of
the world come to pass, and holy and/or unclear binding become the sensible
solution, in 'Kingdom Come', to the dilemmas of contemporary secular freedom
which, despite their social benefits, are always vulnerable to the ungodly
seductions of tyrannical falsehoods, as well as to their own rhetorical
aggrandizements.
6
Returning
from general concepts of culture and civilization to more particular concepts,
it is demonstrably the case that race and culture are no less part-and-parcel
of the same coin, in this case noumenal, than
generation and civilization are part-and-parcel of a phenomenal coin, which is
to say, of a coin having associations, in lower-class vein, with the planes of
mass and volume rather than with the planes of time and space, their
upper-class counterparts.
Race and
culture, whether sensual and immoral or sensible and moral, are only genuinely
possible in relation to the noumenal planes of space
and time, and accordingly presuppose an upper-class bias in which, not strength
and knowledge, but beauty and truth are the antithetical or antipathetic
rivals.
Generation
and civilization, on the other hand, are only genuinely possible in relation to
the phenomenal planes of volume and mass, and
accordingly presuppose a lower-class bias in which, not beauty and truth, but
strength and knowledge are the antithetical or antipathetic rivals.
Peoples who
are extensively 'mongrelized', or of mixed racial antecedents, do not normally
uphold race and culture to any appreciable extent but, placing a taboo on
racism, racial consciousness, desires for racial purity, and so on, reject such
realities in the interests of generation and civilization, to which they more
readily and even logically subscribe.
Thus they are not generally known or recognized as a 'culture people'
but, on the contrary, as a 'civilized people', for whom culture is much less
genuinely apparent or even essential.
For culture
can be apparent or essential, evil or wise, beautiful or truthful, and
adherence to the one, as we have argued, tends to marginalize, if not exclude,
the other. Such is also so, of course,
of civilization, which can be quantitative or qualitative, evil or wise, strong
or knowledgeable, and, again, adherence to the one tends to marginalize if not
exclude the other.
Evidence
shows that while the British are, by and large, a generative/civilized people,
the Irish, by contrast, are largely a racial/cultural people, and that both
peoples mostly tend to identify, in this day and age, with the sensual
manifestations of race/culture on the one hand, and of generation/civilization
on the other hand, so that freedom rather than binding is the more prevalent
'cultural' norm in each 'civilization'.
I have
identified this tendency, in the past, with triangular realities for each
people, the British largely given to an inverted triangle in which strong civilization,
duly divisible between dispassionate and passionate manifestations, tends to
prevail over knowledgeable generation, like volumetric volume over massive
mass, or, in political terms, Tories and Labourites over Liberals, and the
Irish, by contrast, largely given to a pyramidal triangle in which beautiful
culture, aided and abetted by an economic manifestation of beautiful race,
tends to prevail over true race, pretty much like spatial space and repetitive
time over sequential time, or, in religious terms, the Risen Virgin and the
Sacred Heart of the Risen Christ over the Father ... in what strikes this
writer as a sort of Catholic decadence that not only flies in the face of the
phenomenal sensibility (brain over womb) of Catholic tradition, but testifies
to a noumenal parallel, in space and time, to the
Protestant reality of Puritans/Dissenters over Anglicans in the mass/volume phenomenality, as it were, of a society more characterized
by tongue over phallus than by eyes over ears, and thus by heathenistic
than by paganistic criteria of sensual alignment.
Be that as
it may, the Irish/British dichotomy is very much, at this point in time, one in
which sensual manifestations of culture and race compete with sensual
manifestations of civilization and generation, as freedom has its day on both noumenal and phenomenal levels of evil and folly.
I offer to
both peoples the prospect and indeed possibility, on a Messianic basis, the
basis of a paradoxical election for religious sovereignty, of deliverance from
sensuality to sensibility, and thus of salvation and/or damnation, according to
gender, from the triangular realities of the present to the hierarchic
structures of a 'Kingdom' in which a sensible manifestation of racial beauty,
posterior to that of the so-called Risen Christ (in reality a sort of secondary
Mother) will serve sensible manifestations not only of cultural truth but,
lower down the triadic hierarchy, of civilized knowledge and generative
strength, as mass, volume, and space take their eternal place beyond time in
the unfolding of a non-triangular alternative to the heathenistic
and even paganistic realities and structures of the
secular present.
For if, as
a noumenal male, you rise diagonally from sensual
time to sensible space, as from racial truth to cultural truth, you must fall
diagonally, as a noumenal female, from sensual space
to sensible time, as from cultural beauty to racial beauty, thereby achieving
contrary - and moral - orders of culture and race to what obtains in the paganistic present.
And if as,
a phenomenal male, you rise diagonally from sensual mass to sensible volume, as
from generative knowledge to civilized knowledge, you must fall diagonally, as
a phenomenal female, from sensual volume to sensible mass, as from civilized
strength to generative strength, thereby achieving contrary - and moral -
orders of civilization and generation to what obtains in the heathenistic present.
Thus if noumenal males rise, in absolute salvation, from ears to
lungs, noumenal females must fall, in absolute
damnation, from eyes to heart, the one gender rising from racial truth to
cultural truth, and the other gender falling from cultural beauty to racial
beauty.
And if
phenomenal males rise, in relative salvation, from phallus to brain, phenomenal
females must fall, in relative damnation, from tongue to womb, the one gender
rising from generative knowledge to civilized knowledge, and the other gender
falling from civilized strength to generative strength.
Either way,
salvation is from the folly of unholy unrighteousness to the wisdom of holy
righteousness, whereas damnation is from the evil of clear righteousness to the
goodness of unclear unrighteousness, in which morality obtains as a sensible
alternative - and retort - to sensual immorality.
However,
females, whether noumenal or phenomenal, upper-class
or lower-class, will not remain resigned to the unrighteousness of sensible
unclearness for long, if there is insufficient wisdom in place to maintain them
in goodness as the female counterpart to male morality. They will return, soon enough, to the
righteousness of sensual clearness and drag males back and down to the
immorality of a foolish deference to evil.
This
inevitably happens when moral endeavours strive to create or maintain a society
built around sensibility, but with insufficient incentives for females to
remain attached to a sensible bias; for moral endeavours are usually
male-driven and only to the advantage, ultimately, of males.
You can
officially uphold morality as a sensible civilized and/or cultural ideal, but
you cannot expect people - least of all females - to rigorously adhere to it as
though Christianity or equivalent 'reborn' religious dispensations could be
adhered to twenty-four hours a day seven days a week right through every
year. They can't, and any attempt to
force the issue or create unreasonable expectations is doomed to failure. It plays into the hands of religious
fanaticism, and that is a sure formula for the unleashing of hell, usually,
though not invariably, in the guise of a scientific backlash, of which war is
the most prevalent manifestation.
Despite the
rhetoric, there are, unfortunately, no 'holy wars'; all wars are if not grossly
unholy, then certainly grossly clear, in which folly and evil, though
especially evil, become the order of the day.
Fortunately, we have recently begun to treat certain acts of war or
actions carried out under the umbrella of war as criminal and subject to
indictment. We have yet to criminalize
war itself, though I am cautiously optimistic that that day, too, will
eventually come, even if it has to wait until the 'Kingdom' to which I alluded
above.
7
The sort of
people who subscribe to the concept of 'holy wars' are often partial to a concept
of God which owes more than a little to scientific principles and realities,
not least of all in relation to the Cosmos and any religious extrapolations
thereof. In other words, so much does metachemical culture and race figure in the minds of peoples
habituated to primitive concepts of God and religious practices, that they
unwittingly find themselves hyping the martial and omnipotent significance of
God in consequence of the dubiously divine criteria which apply to 'First
Movers' and 'Creator Gods' anyway, much as though their religious delusions
played into the hands not only of a scientific subversion of religion but the
subversion of the concept 'God' by the Devil, so that many of the qualities
attributed to this primitive deity or, rather, theity
... are in reality less divine than diabolic, given the metachemical
bias of both sensual and sensible manifestations of noumenal
objectivity.
This 'first
mover' God, whether stellar or Venusian, sensually metachemical or sensibly so, is all too capable of being
harnessed, whether metaphorically or otherwise, to a scientific disposition and
to acts that owe less to godliness than to devilishness, and all because any
concept of God rooted in the Cosmos and having associations with Creation is
vulnerable to diabolic subversion in power-centred rhetoric.
The very
term 'Almighty' applied to God indicates just how far from understanding, let
alone practising, genuine godliness the devotees of such a primitive God really
are; for, in reality, any more genuinely religious concept of God is
inseparable not only from metaphysics, but from a context in which, due to
metaphysical reality, power is the least of the factors which contribute to the
total equation of divine procedure.
For above
power in any correct realization of godliness must come glory, form, and, most
characteristically of all, contentment, this latter being the very raison
d'être of the process whereby, through transcendental meditation, a primary
God, identifiable with the ego of metaphysical sensibility, utilizes a
secondary God, identifiable with the will of such a context, in order to glide
out via the 'wings' of a secondary order of Heaven, identifiable with the
spirit of such a context, to the inevitability, in self-preservation, of recoil
to a primary order of Heaven, identifiable with the soul of such a context, the
goal and redemption of the primary God.
Thus, in a
certain specifically metaphysical sense, and more in relation to sensibility
(wisdom) than to sensuality (folly), a wise manifestation of God-the-Son
utilizes a wise manifestation of God-the-Father in order to ride-out upon a
holy manifestation of Heaven-the-Spirit before recoiling to self, in
self-preservation, through a holy manifestation of Heaven-the-Soul, the
ultimate raison d'être of the meditative process in question, and thus
of the most genuinely religious context.
Inner
metaphysical self into inner metaphysical not-self (the lungs) leads the inner
metaphysical self to identify with the spiritual emanation from that not-self
(the breath) up until that point where it must recoil, in self-preservation, to
self more profoundly, which is precisely its soulful manifestation as revealed
through the most sublimated joy of which the self is capable, and which enables
that which had been primarily of God to enter a primary Heaven before
returning, again and again, to its egocentric fulcrum in the Son, as it were,
and plunging anew into the secondary godliness of the inner metaphysical
not-self which, being of the will, is germane to the Father in the context in
question.
But that
'Father', or secondary God, is of the nature, in metaphysics, of a fourth-rate
order of power, the power of the lungs to breathe, and thus guarantor not only
of a first-rate order of contentment for the heavenly self, the inner
metaphysical soul, whose contentment is joyful, but complement to a third-rate
order of spirit in the breath and associate of a second-rate order of ego in
the inner metaphysical self, or that aspect of the brain - more specifically
the brain stem and spinal column - which, bypassing the brain in general, is
consciously committed to the entire process of transcendental meditation, as
centred in the lungs.
How far one
is here from primitive and fundamentally false notions of God as 'cosmic
Creator', 'First Mover in the Cosmos', 'Almighty', and other such terms that
owe more to metachemistry, and hence fire, than ever
they do to metaphysics, and hence air, as well as more to science than to
religion! It seems that mankind, to use
that term in its broadest possible sense, begins by investing its religious
capacity in science, and only gradually extricates it, if at all, from such a
rudimentary affiliation to one in which not even politics and economics can
claim ultimate jurisdiction over religion but only religion itself, by which
time it is almost as though one had grown beyond religion, in its various
theocratic guises, to that which atheistically repudiates all such traditions
in the interests of its deistic insights and self-awareness as the ultimate
wisdom and guarantor of soulful consummation.
For,
ultimately, what we are talking about is the life of the soul, not just of any
old soul, be it fourth-rate and loving (metachemical),
third-rate and proud (chemical), or second-rate and pleasurable (physical), but
that soul which, as the essence of life, can only come to light, so to speak,
in association with the essential element, the element which is neither
apparent, quantitative, nor qualitative but essential in its hiddenness and withdrawness from
the naked eye. I am alluding, of course,
to air, and air it is which, corresponding to the subnatural,
permits that which is most genuinely soulful, and hence subconscious, to be,
and not simply to be foolishly, as is invariably the case with the
airwaves-utilizing sensuality of aural metaphysics but, in salvation from such
folly, to be wisely, as the fruit of the metaphysics of respiratory
sensibility, as it were, in which transcendental meditation has its holy
throne, and thus the lungs rather than the ears.
For being
is the nature or, rather, psyche of heaven (subconscious), and for this
ultimate being to come to pass there must be the requisite, or
metaphysical, modes of doing, giving, and taking, as of will, spirit, and ego,
or power, glory, and form, in order to make possible to the soul its ultimate
contentment in the Being-of-Beings, the joyful being of the Holy Soul, so to
speak, of Heaven.
Therefore
just as we can speak of 'holy being' in the soul of the inner metaphysical self,
so we can speak of 'wise taking' in the ego of that same self, with 'wise
doing' in the will of the inner metaphysical not-self (lungs) and 'holy giving'
in the spirit of that same not-self (breath) complementing the self as
secondary orders of God and Heaven to primary orders of God and Heaven, the
former of which are there, in the context of transcendental meditation, to
serve the latter or, more specifically, to enable the ego of inner metaphysics
to achieve redemption for itself in the resurrection of self from ego to soul,
God-the-Wise-Son to Heaven-the-Holy-Soul, and thus achieve its joyful beatitude
in the Being-of-Beings, the Heaven-of-Heavens, and consummation of all
religious striving.
8
Obviously the
Being-of-Beings to which I refer above is not for everyone, but only those
males who would be capable of metaphysical sensibility to any appreciable
extent, and who are therefore already pretty metaphysical in their upper-class
disposition, through noumenal subjectivity, for a
godly bias, even if more in relation, at this point in time, to the foolish
godliness of aural sensuality than to the wise godliness of respiratory
sensibility, which is the salvation of the Metaphysical from sin to grace, as
from the Eternal Father, a secondary order of the Father, to the Eternal Son, a
primary order of the Son, which, as inner metaphysical ego, has its own
complementary order of father, as described above.
What makes
both the Father and the Son of the sensual/sensible metaphysical dichotomy in
question Eternal is their affiliation to the noumenal
planes of time (Father) and space (Son), so that they may be said to contrast,
in this respect, with the temporal orders of the Father and the Son as germane
to the phenomenal planes of mass (Father) and volume (Son), neither of whom
have any bearing on godliness, but only manliness, as befitting their
phenomenal natures in relation to the vegetativeness,
so to speak, of physics.
Thus the
Father and the Son of the sensual/sensible physical dichotomy between, as it
were, the phallus and the brain are the temporal manifestations of sin and
grace, with the former very much germane to a primary manifestation of the
Father and the latter no-less germane to a secondary manifestation of the Son,
neither of whom exist in relation to Heaven but solely to earth, so that we can
differentiate between unholy and holy modes of both earthly spirit and soul as
we distinguish physical sensuality from physical sensibility, with complementary
subdivisions between foolish manifestations of both the Son and the Father on
the one hand, and wise manifestations of both the Son and the Father on the
other hand, each pairing of which has reference solely to man, not to God.
Thus there
is no godliness where physics is concerned, neither in the ego-realm of the Son
nor in the will-realm of the Father, and no heavenliness either, since what
exists in relation to mass and volume, phallus and brain, does so in connection
with the earth.
But the
temporal Father, the vegetative context of the phallus, is very much the per se
manifestation of the Father and thus of sin, while the temporal Son, the
vegetative context of the brain, is merely a secondary manifestation of the
Son, and hence of grace.
This Son,
corresponding to the First Coming (Christ) saves from sin (to grace), but only
relatively, in relation to the vegetative sensibility of prayer, and thus
exists as second-fiddle, so to speak, to the temporal Father, whose carnal
sinfulness is ever the fulcrum of the phenomenal context (physics) in
question. Only through the Eternal
Father, the noumenal Father having more relationship,
in organic supremacy, to the ears than to the phallus, are Christian - and
specifically Catholic - males brought closer to metaphysics. But then, paradoxically, in relation to a
secondary order of the Father from whom it is necessary to be saved, if one
wishes to achieve - unlike with Christ - a primary order of the Son, and thus
the possibility of a fulcrum in grace through transcendental meditation.
Obviously
one can only be saved, in this way, through the Second Coming, and hence
through the exponent of 'Kingdom Come', which is conceived by the Son in
question as lying beyond Christendom in a new order of society that would
require a majority mandate for what its exponent calls religious sovereignty,
and presumably via a paradoxical kind of general election in which it was
agreed that, should such a mandate be forthcoming, then the electorate
concerned would not only have rights in relation to what has been called a
triadic Beyond, open to Protestants as well as Catholics, but be delivered from
their political sovereignty and concomitants as from 'crimes and/or sins of the
world' to the Beyond in question.
For you
cannot be religiously sovereign and still have secular sovereignty in terms of
political rights and duties, since they exist in relation to the world of
secular values in which both crime and sin are the sensual norms, as confirmed
by the triangular structures to which a majority of latter-day Catholics and
Protestants now relate in their respective ways.
To be saved
from sin to grace you need also to damn (females) from crime to punishment, and
in achieving deliverance from each manifestation of freedom on both noumenal (Catholic) and phenomenal (Protestant) terms you
are effectively opting for sensibility at the expense of sensuality, and thus
for what has been called the triadic Beyond, in which punishment and grace
would co-exist as the sensible alternatives, in goodness and wisdom, to the
crimes and sins, evils and follies, of the sensual - and secular - present.
Thus
because political sovereignty is intimately associated with the secular
realities of a sensual bias and the objective hegemony (of females), it must be
disowned, democratically and officially, when and if the time comes for the
'chosen peoples' (as outlined in previous texts) to have an option on religious
sovereignty, and thus paradoxically use the democratic process to vote for what
alone guarantees deliverance, whether in evolutionary or devolutionary terms,
from the criminal and sinful realities of the present.
It would be
like trading one sovereignty for another, and should the paradoxical come to
pass, and people actually vote in sufficient numbers to guarantee a majority
mandate for religious sovereignty and the rights appertaining to it in relation
to the various types of sensibility, then 'judgement' would be done and the
'end of the world' would accordingly transpire ... as the triadic Beyond and
administrative aside thereof was duly brought to pass in the form of 'Kingdom
Come', that new and structurally ultimate order of society in which sensible
manifestations of mass, volume, and space would be served from the most
sensibly devolved manifestation of time, and new modes of both the phenomenal
and the noumenal Sons as well as both the phenomenal and noumenal
(administrative aside) Mothers accordingly ensued in the wake of the official
abandonment, by the relevant peoples, of the Fathers and Daughters of the
sinful and criminal present.
Now to have
any chance of being saved and/or damned (according to gender) from the sensual
present to a more (though not exclusively or fanatically) sensible future, one
must be in a position whereby such deliverance (for better or worse) is
possible, which is to say, not only politically sovereign and in a position to
use that sovereignty, should the paradoxical election which I have equated with
'Judgement' subsequently transpire, but not hamstrung from rising or falling
diagonally through either of the phenomenal (mass and volume) or noumenal (time and space) planes, according to both gender
and denominational entitlement.
In previous
texts I have specified the probability of and desirability for Irish Catholics
and Protestants to opt for the deliverance in question, and also included their
Scots and even Welsh counterparts, since it occurred to me that the formation
of a new union, as between the Celtic or Gaelic countries, was not only
desirable from the standpoint of religion and the bringing to pass of 'Kingdom
Come', but also desirable from the standpoint of politics and the possibility
of Irish unity and an end to the divisive and destructive frictions of the
schismatic present. For a new union,
premised upon a federation of the Gaels, would surely allow a majority of
Unionists and Nationalists to 'save face' on the basis of a compromise between
the two traditions that would not otherwise be possible, thereby catering, in
the long run, to the interests of all.
I do not
wish to drag this text down to political exegesis or philosophy, since there
has been enough discussion of this subject in previous texts, and I wish, here,
to concentrate on eligibility for deliverance of Catholics and Protestants to
the triadic Beyond. Obviously,
Anglicans, to name but one category of Protestant, cannot progress to this
Beyond if they are constrained, as in England, by the Monarch as acting head of
the Church and in no position, in consequence, to desert the inverted triangle
of so-called Protestant solidarity, of which their place is at the foot, so to
speak, of the triangle in question, and opt for deliverance, in salvation, from
phallus to brain, thereby rising diagonally from mass to volume, as from
massive sensuality to voluminous sensibility, in effectively pro-Catholic vein,
with the corollary of Nonconformists having to fall diagonally from volume to
mass, as from volumetric volume to massed mass, the tongue to the womb, in
pro-Marian vein.
The fact of
Anglicans being pegged to the foot of the inverted triangle of British
civilization in this way through the reigning monarch who, despite being
temporal head of the Established Church in England, has a sensibly
fundamentalist position, as it were, behind and above this triangle due to an
association with the Blood Royal and hence, by implication, the heart,
obviously ensures that nothing subversive of the structure in question can
arise, since there is nowhere for Anglicans to go when they are not in a
position to be saved from phallus to brain, as from sensual physics to sensible
physics, and effectively become Roman Catholic on a Christic
basis, the sort of basis that requires a Marian corollary in the womb, and thus
would necessitate the damnation of Nonconformists from sensual chemistry to
sensible chemistry, tongue to womb, in due devolutionary fashion.
This is not
going to happen in England, least of all in the foreseeable future, which is another
reason why, quite apart from cultural and racial reasons, I have confined my
initial expectations for 'Kingdom Come' to Ireland, Scotland, and even
Wales. For Anglicans (or for that matter
any non-Catholic denomination which yet upholds a vegetative bias through the
figure of Christ on the Cross) must be sufficiently independent of monarchic
allegiance to be able to vote, if they so choose, for religious sovereignty,
and thus movement from physical sensuality to physical sensibility, which is
the phenomenal form of salvation in what would pertain to the middle tier of
the triadic Beyond, and thus to a mode of relative wisdom that would line-up
under the absolute wisdom, in noumenal subjectivity,
of metaphysical sensibility, as applicable to the generality of saved Catholics
(but was accordingly different from the Catholic tradition in Christic prayer) and over the relative goodness, in
phenomenal objectivity, of the generality of damned Nonconformists (whose
position and status would likewise differ from that of Marian tradition),
thereby confirming a middle-tier status germane to phenomenal subjectivity.
Be that as
it may, there can be no salvation of Anglicans (or vegetative equivalents) and
damnation of Nonconformists (or watery equivalents), and hence, when Catholics
and others have also been taken into account, no triadic Beyond, without
sufficient independence of Anglicans from monarchic allegiance, and therefore
England is not, and at this point in time could not, figure in the Messianic
blueprint for 'Kingdom Come', but only the aforementioned Gaelic countries,
with especial emphasis, in relation to Northern Ireland, on Ireland and
Scotland.
Having
dealt with the triadic Beyond more fully in certain previous texts, I shall not
further elaborate on it here, except to remind the reader that each tier should
be subdivided three ways, not only to allow for a gender distinction between
chemical females and physical and/or metaphysical males but, as the latter
option would indicate, between intellectual and emotional approaches within the
overall Social Transcendentalist ideological context (as described in previous
texts) to either nonconformism, humanism, or
transcendentalism, depending on the tier, as applicable to a distinction
between ego and soul as the male complement to female spirit and, as far as the
metachemical bias of the administrative aside was
concerned, to female will.
9
A society
given to the institutional protection and advancement of sensibility across the
elemental spectrum, so to speak, of both eternal and temporal options in the
above Messianic fashion would be one in which the wise righteousness of
cultural holiness took precedence not only over the good unrighteousness of
racial unclearness, like a noumenal Son over a noumenal Mother, but also over the wise righteousness of
civilized holiness and the good unrighteousness of generative unclearness,
corresponding to a phenomenal Son and a phenomenal Mother, this last-mentioned
context, effectively that of the womb, no less the per se
manifestation of the Mother than the first-mentioned context, effectively that
of the lungs, is the per se manifestation of the Son, and thus of that
which offers a graceful fulcrum in transcendental meditation.
Such a
society is beyond anything rooted in the evil righteousness of cultural
clearness and the foolish unrighteousness of racial unholiness,
corresponding to noumenal manifestations of the
Daughter and the Father, not to mention anything rooted in the evil
righteousness of civilized clearness and the foolish unrighteousness of
generative unholiness, as germane to phenomenal
manifestations of the Daughter and the Father, the last-mentioned context,
effectively that of the phallus, being no less the per se
manifestation of the Father than the first-mentioned context, effectively that
of the eyes, is the per se manifestation of the Daughter, and thus of
that which offers a criminal fulcrum in fundamentalist contemplation.
Thus
metaphysical salvation from racial unholiness to
cultural holiness, as from a secondary Father to a primary Son, presupposes metachemical damnation from cultural clearness to racial
unclearness, as from a primary Daughter to a secondary Mother, while physical
salvation from generative unholiness to civilized
holiness, as from a primary Father to a secondary Son, presupposes chemical damnation from civilized
clearness to generative unclearness, as from a secondary Daughter to a primary
Mother.
Goodness
will not stay long under wisdom, whether noumenal or
phenomenal, absolute or relative, unless wisdom is sufficiently bound in self
to oblige goodness to follow suit, albeit in relation to constraints upon the
objectivity of metachemical and/or chemical not-self
rather than in relation to enhanced subjectivity of metaphysical and/or
physical self, as germane to what is properly male in both divine and masculine
contexts.
Therefore
unless there is a genuine resolve for wisdom, or the righteousness of cultural and/or
civilized holiness, the likelihood of females being pegged to the good
unrighteousness of racial and/or generative unclearness for very long is pretty
slim, bearing in mind their preference for the evil righteousness of cultural
and/or civilized clearness in the sensual hegemonies of metachemistry
and chemistry - the one over metaphysics and the other over physics.
Like it or
not, evil and folly 'will out' and have their day even in the best of
societies, for we cannot be exclusively sensible, nor, fanatical exceptions to
the rule notwithstanding, should we try to be so. Sensuality is everywhere the bedrock of
sensibility, and therefore something that has to be allowed for and accepted
even after you have officially set-up the institutional guarantors of
sensibility and made morality your official ideal.
Therefore
even 'Kingdom Come', should it democratically come to pass, will have to allow
for and accept not merely the likelihood but the inevitability of backsliding
from the ideal, or various sensible ideals, to a more sensual basis, since one
cannot fly in the face of reality without paying a heavy price.
But one can
certainly set about encouraging sensibility and making it harder for sensuality
to prevail to anything like the same extent as in so-called open or free
societies. Doubtless one of the most
efficacious ways of doing so, especially where females are concerned, would be
to encourage the voluntary consumption, within the religious structures of our
projected triadic Beyond, of certain drugs whose influence was known to be
likely to constrain objectivity and effectively bottle-up the sorts of freedoms
accruing to a creature for whom not-self is primary and self secondary, so that
females became more respectful of male subjectivity and any enhancement of it
in relation both to intellectual and emotional, cognitive and meditative,
endeavours on the part of males.
I have gone
into this and kindred subjects before, so will not tire either myself or the
reader with additional suggestions at this juncture, but I do not doubt that if
a moral lead and mean is to persist in the otherworldly context of 'Kingdom
Come', it will require more than good will on behalf of those taking part,
since the reality of female moral intransigence and even opposition to
prolonged sensibility will remain a potent factor to be reckoned with, long
after any hypothetical resolve to institute a sensible new order had borne
tangible fruit.
Therefore
while one must hold out at least some hope of a better world to come, as
premised upon a moral resolve to uphold cultural and civilized holiness over
racial and generative unclearness, one cannot expect any dramatic change in the
overall ratio of sensual to sensible factors in the foreseeable future, least
of all while human beings still exist as human beings rather than in some
hypothetical cyborg-to-post-human transmutation
offering scope for enhanced sensibility, not to mention while cosmic energies
are still unchallenged by, for instance, what in certain earlier texts I was
apt to call 'blocking devices', or large filtering shields that could be set in
space specifically with a view to reducing the kinds of incoming energies or
rays or whatever that tend to condition humanity along lines owing more to the
freedoms of sensuality than to the bindings of sensibility, not to mention more
to the negativity of inorganic primacy than to the positivity
of organic supremacy.
Certainly,
progressive and radical steps could be taken to, if you like, subtly change the
terms of life. But they would take time,
much time, and are only likely to materialize, if at all, within an
otherworldly context like 'Kingdom Come', whereby a definite omega-oriented,
and hence sensible, resolve had become the official and therefore institutional
norm.
So-called
'open societies', on the other hand, tend to be all-too-open to the Cosmos and
to both religious decadence and space exploration conceived within the broadly
objective parameters of an ongoing external curiosity. They are also given to freedom in a way which
tends to place the emphasis on sensuality rather than sensibility, and to
uphold, in consequence, culture and civilization on the female terms of
righteous clearness, to which, willy-nilly, the unrighteous follies of racial
and generative unholiness are obliged to bow, as to a
blessed hegemony of not-self freedom of action for females over the cursed
self-abasement of males.
Thus has it
long been in the West and not only the West but much of the East, including the
Middle East, as well, and thus will it continue to be until such time, if ever,
as 'Kingdom Come' begins to make democratically-achieved headway into the
secular - if not effectively paganistic and/or heathenistic - status quo, to the lasting advantage of
those who, as males, would profit considerably from being saved from the curse
of their under-plane freedom from self to an over-plane binding to self in
which not evil but wise modes of culture and civilization prevailed for ever
more - indeed, for all Eternity, in response to the will of He who proclaims
himself Second Coming, and hence Son-of-Sons or God-of-Gods.
For there is no wise God-the-Son except in
relation to transcendental meditation, and therefore no holy Heaven-the-Soul
achieved by God-the-Son on the back, as it were, of both the wise
God-the-Father and the holy Heaven-the-Spirit, as germane to the will of the
lungs to breathe and the out-breath itself within the inner metaphysical
context of respiratory sensibility. Only
thus does supreme being achieve a heavenly resolution
in the most consummate joy.
10
If it is
true that in general terms things proceed, on the male side of life, from sin
to grace, as from the Father to the Son, whether in terms of time-space
metaphysics or, down below, of mass-volume physics, it must also be the case
that, relative to each of these options, they proceed from a relevant
manifestation of Nature to a complementary manifestation of Psyche, as from
sensuality to sensibility, since sensibility owes more to psyche than to
nature, without, however, excluding the latter.
But as well
as this general progression from, say, the subnatural
to the subconscious (metaphysics) or from the natural to the conscious
(physics), there must also be a dichotomy in each context between Nature and Psyche,
sin and grace, since we need not doubt that the relationship between the Will
and the Spirit on the one hand, and between the Ego and the Soul on the other
hand, owes not a little to the subatomic distinctions which we have already
noted (in certain earlier texts) between elemental particles and molecular
particles in relation to will and spirit, power and glory, and between
molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles
in relation to ego and soul, form and content(ment),
in whichever Element, be it metachemical and arguably
divisible between photons and photinos, chemical and
arguably divisible between electrons and electrinos,
physical and likely to be divisible between neutrons and neutrinos, or
metaphysical and probably divisible between protons and protinos,
or something to that effect.
Therefore
it seems logical to link both the Will and the Spirit, whether in the context
of sensuality or sensibility, with the sinfulness of Nature, in the male case
either natural or subnatural, physical or metaphysical,
and both the Ego and the Soul, whether in relation once again to folly and unholiness (sensuality) or to wisdom and holiness
(sensibility), with the grace of Psyche, in the male case either conscious or
subconscious, physical or metaphysical, and this in overall keeping with the
subatomic distinction between particles and wavicles,
as alluded to above.
In so doing
we shall be led to draw a distinction between a maxi-sinfulness, as it were, of
the Will and the Spirit in either the natural or the subnatural
manifestations of sensual Nature, and a mini-gracefulness, so to speak, of the
Ego and the Soul in either the conscious or the subconscious manifestations of
sensual Psyche, while, contrariwise, drawing a parallel distinction between the
mini-sinfulness of the Will and the Spirit in either the natural or the subnatural manifestations of sensible Nature, and the
maxi-gracefulness of the Ego and the Soul in either the conscious or the
subconscious manifestations of sensible Psyche.
Thus, in
sensual metaphysics, we can distinguish the maxi-sinfulness of
God-the-Foolish-Father and Heaven-the-Unholy-Spirit from the mini-gracefulness
of God-the-Foolish-Son and Heaven-the-Unholy-Soul, whilst, in sensible
metaphysics, which is the salvation of the godly, we should be able to
distinguish the mini-sinfulness of God-the-Wise-Father and
Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit from the maxi-gracefulness of God-the-Wise-Son and
Heaven-the-Holy-Soul.
Likewise,
in sensual physics, we can distinguish the maxi-sinfulness of Man-the-Foolish-Father
and Earth-the-Unholy-Spirit from the mini-gracefulness of Man-the-Foolish-Son
and Earth-the-Unholy-Soul, whilst, in sensible physics, which is the salvation
of the manly, we should be able to distinguish the mini-sinfulness of
Man-the-Wise-Father and Earth-the-Holy-Spirit from the maxi-gracefulness of
Man-the-Wise-Son and Earth-the-Holy-Soul.
Therefore
grace and holiness are no more strictly commensurate than sin and unholiness. Holiness
is no less a sensible complement to wisdom than unholiness a sensual complement to folly. The fact is that, in physics and metaphysics,
both the Will and the Spirit are germane to Nature, and therefore sinful,
whereas both the Ego and the Soul, by contrast, are germane to Psyche, and
therefore graceful.
The Spirit
here, whether unholy or holy, sensual or sensible, is no less sinful than the
Will: it is simply sinful in a different way, with regard to natural and/or subnatural quantities as opposed to appearances, as
relevant to either physical or metaphysical manifestations of molecular
particles and elemental particles respectively.
The Ego
here, whether foolish or wise, sensual or sensible, is no less graceful than
the Soul: it is simply graceful in a different way, with regard to conscious
and/or subconscious qualities as opposed to essences, as relevant to either
physical or metaphysical manifestations of molecular wavicles
and elemental wavicles respectively.
But, of
course, there will be more sinfulness in sensuality than in sensibility and,
conversely, more gracefulness in sensibility than in sensuality, which is why I
have distinguished 'maxi' from 'mini' manifestations of each, while still
accepting that the massive mass of
sensual physics will be the one with, due to its natural Nature, the principal
manifestation of sinfulness for males, while the spaced space of sensible
metaphysics will be that in which, due to its subconscious Psyche, the
principal manifestation of grace is to be found.
But, either
way, sin will always attach to the physical and metaphysical
not-selves, whether in will or spirit, and grace to the physical and
metaphysical selves, whether in ego or soul.
Both the phallus and the brain, not to mention their spiritual
corollaries in sperm and thought, are sinful contexts, as are the ears and the
lungs, not to mention their spiritual corollaries in airwaves and breath. Only the
self, whether physical or metaphysical, given primarily to consciousness or
primarily to subconsciousness, is worthy of being
equated with grace, irrespective of whether in relative (phenomenal) or
absolute (noumenal) terms, and such grace is
inseparable from the forgiveness of sin.
11
What is
strictly male, and therefore subjective and secondary (to females), appertains
to the natural and subnatural aspects, in vegetation
and air, of Nature, and to the conscious and subconscious aspects, in ego and
soul, of Psyche.
What is
strictly female, and therefore objective and primary (in relation to males),
appertains to the unnatural and supernatural aspects, in fire and water, of
Nature, and to the unconscious and superconscious
aspects, in soul and ego or, rather, in modified soul (id) and ego (superego),
of Psyche.
Males have
a much more developed ego and soul in relation to Psyche than females, who
rarely rise above third- and fourth-rate orders of each (see earlier texts),
but females have a much more developed or, at any rate, prominent will and
spirit in relation to Nature than males who, by contrast, rarely rise above
third- and fourth-rate orders of each (as already explained in certain earlier
texts).
Consequently
the genders approach life from contrary standpoints, and to evaluate the one
gender according to criteria (once understood) applicable to the other ... is
to fall into one of the greatest, and most prevalent, of errors, and an error,
alas, of which contemporary Western society is far from innocent!
One cannot
even evaluate females in terms of sin and grace, folly and unholiness
or wisdom and holiness in each case, since such subjective attributes apply
principally to males and only secondarily, if at all, to females. No, evaluation of females has to be conducted
in terms of crime and punishment, evil and clearness or goodness and
unclearness, with the latter pair very much the sensible alternative to the
former.
Just so,
one does not speak of Father and Son, still less of Heaven and Earth, in
relation to females but, more properly, of Daughter and Mother, Hell and
Purgatory in respect not of the subjective elements of vegetation and air,
physics and metaphysics, but of the objective elements of fire and water, metachemistry and chemistry, which, like females, stem from
and appertain to a vacuum as opposed to a plenum.
Being
objective, females do not rise diagonally between the sensuality and
sensibility of noumenal or phenomenal planes, but
fall diagonally in what amounts, for them, to a devolutionary regression from
sensuality to sensibility, space to time and/or volume to mass. Hence they fall, in such fashion, from the
Daughter to the Mother, as from crime to punishment.
But just as
there is both sin and grace in the male dichotomy between not-self and self,
Nature and Psyche, so there is a comparable distinction between crime and
punishment where females are concerned, since the objective not-self is ever
criminal and the objective self, whether phenomenal or noumenal,
ever punishing (of the criminality in question).
However,
one can note a distinction, once again, between a maxi-criminality in the
sensual not-self and a mini-punishingness in the
sensual self, as between a mini-criminality in the sensible not-self and a
maxi-punishingness in the sensible self.
In so
doing, we will be led to draw a distinction between a maxi-criminality, as it
were, of the Will and the Spirit in either the unnatural or the supernatural
manifestations of sensual Nature, and a mini-punishingness,
so to speak, of or, better, by the Soul and the Ego or, more correctly, by the
Id and the Superego in either the unconscious or the superconscious
manifestations of sensual Psyche, while, contrariwise, drawing a parallel
distinction between a mini-criminality of the Will and the Spirit in either the
unnatural or the supernatural manifestations of sensible Nature, and a maxi-punishingness by the Id and the Superego in either the
unconscious or the superconscious manifestations of
sensible Psyche.
Thus, in
sensual metachemistry, we can distinguish the
maxi-criminality of Devil-the-Evil-Daughter and Hell-the-Clear-Spirit from the
mini-punishingness of Devil-the-Evil-Mother and
Hell-the-Clear-Id, whilst, in sensible metachemistry,
which is the damnation of the devilish, we should be able to distinguish the
mini-criminality of Devil-the-Good-Daughter and Hell-the-Unclear-Spirit from
the maxi-punishingness of Devil-the-Good-Mother and
Hell-the-Unclear-Id.
Likewise,
in sensual chemistry, we can distinguish the maxi-criminality of
Woman-the-Evil-Daughter and Purgatory-the-Clear-Spirit from the mini-punishingness of Woman-the-Evil-Mother and
Purgatory-the-Clear-Superego, whilst, in sensible chemistry, which is the
damnation of the womanly, we should be able to distinguish the mini-criminality
of Woman-the-Good-Daughter and Purgatory-the-Unclear-Spirit from the maxi-punishingness of Woman-the-Good-Mother and Purgatory-the-Unclear-Superego.
Therefore
punishment and unclearness are no more strictly commensurate than criminality
and clearness. Unclearness is no less a
sensible complement to punishment than clearness a
sensual complement to criminality. The
fact is that, in metachemistry and chemistry, both
the Will and the Spirit are germane to Nature, and therefore criminal, whereas
both the Id, as instinctually modified Soul, and the Superego, as spiritually
modified Ego, are germane to Psyche, and therefore punishing.
The Spirit
here, whether clear or unclear, sensual or sensible, is no less criminal than
the Will: it is simply criminal in a different way, with regard to unnatural
and/or supernatural quantities as opposed to appearances, as relevant to either
metachemical or chemical manifestations of molecular
particles and elemental particles respectively.
The Ego
(Superego) here, whether evil or good, sensual or sensible, is no less
punishing than the Soul (Id): it is simply punishing in a different way, with regard
to unconscious and/or superconscious qualities as
opposed to essences, as relevant to either metachemical
or chemical manifestations of molecular wavicles and
elemental wavicles respectively.
But, of
course, there will be more criminality in sensuality than in sensibility and,
conversely, more punishment in sensibility than in sensuality, which is why I
have distinguished 'maxi' from 'mini' manifestations of each, while still
accepting that the spatial space of
sensual metachemistry will be the one with, due to
its unnatural Nature, the principal manifestation of criminality for females,
while the massed mass of sensible chemistry will be that in which, due to its superconscious Psyche, the principal manifestation of
punishment is to be found.
But, either
way, crime will always attach to the metachemical and
chemical not-selves, whether in will or spirit, and punishment to the metachemical and chemical selves, whether in id (instinctualized soul) or superego (spiritualized ego). Both the eyes and the heart, not to mention
their spiritual corollaries in sight-light and blood, are criminal contexts, as
are the tongue and the womb, not to mention their spiritual corollaries in
saliva and amniotic fluid. Only the
self, whether metachemical or chemical, given
primarily to unconsciousness or primarily to superconsciousness,
is worthy of being equated with punishment, irrespective of whether in absolute
(noumenal) or relative (phenomenal) terms, and this,
as we have seen, is inseparable from crime.
12
One thing
we can be sure about is that males and females are not equal, or equivalent,
creatures but organic opposites on both noumenal
(diabolic and divine) and phenomenal (feminine and masculine) planes, since
females stem from or operate in relation to a vacuum, the objectivity of which
necessarily precludes genuine ego and soul, while males stem from or operate in
relation to a plenum, the subjectivity of which renders will and spirit
transmutably subordinate to ego and soul.
Hence while
the one gender is selflessly objective and inclined to subordinate self to
not-self, or Psyche to Nature, in respect of metachemistry
and chemistry, or the objective elements par excellence, the other
gender is selfishly subjective and inclined to subordinate not-self to self,
Nature to Psyche, in respect of physics and metaphysics, or the subjective
elements par excellence.
The
objective predominance of the Will and the Spirit with females means that, in
both metachemistry and chemistry, Nature tends to
condition Psyche, making less for Soul and Ego than for their metachemical or chemical modifications in terms of Id and
Superego, the one at once more instinctual and the other more spiritual.
Contrariwise,
the subjective predominance of the Ego and the Soul with males means that, in
both physics and metaphysics, Psyche tends to condition Nature, making less for
Will and Spirit than for their physical and metaphysical modifications in terms
of Mind and Subspirit, the one at once less
instinctual and the other less spiritual.
It could be
said that, transmuted exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, females only
achieve a real sense of Ego and Soul in relation to males, and that these
become aspects of their male makeup, while males likewise only achieve a real
sense of Will and Spirit in relation to females, which then become aspects of
their female makeup.
However
that may be, it is incontrovertibly the case that females relate primarily to
the Will and the Spirit in those unnatural and supernatural contexts which approximate
to metachemical and chemical Nature and only
secondarily to the Soul and the Ego, duly modified as Id and Superego, in those
unconscious and superconscious contexts which
approximate to metachemical and chemical Psyche, so
that they are forever driven to subordinate self to not-self in due objective
fashion.
Likewise,
it is incontrovertibly the case that males relate primarily to the Ego and the
Soul in those natural and subnatural contexts which
approximate to physical and metaphysical Nature and only secondarily to the
Will and the Spirit, duly modified as Mind and Subspirit,
in those conscious and subconscious contexts which approximate to physical and
metaphysical Psyche, so that they are forever driven to subordinate not-self to
self in due subjective fashion.
Clearly, a
society which treats males and females alike, as the same, is going to be in
for a lot of disillusionment and confusion!
For criteria conceived as relevant by the one gender will largely prove irrelevant
to and even undermining of the other gender, and either an androgynous muddle
or the disguised tyranny of one gender over the other will ensue, with
unsavoury consequences!
Even the
attempt to reduce mankind to one class flies in the face of reality and
backfires on those foolish or ignorant enough to espouse and even, in certain
tragic circumstances, to further a class-partisan point of view. No more than criteria applicable to one
gender will suffice for both genders, can criteria applicable to one class
suffice for both classes, whether noumenal or
phenomenal, upper (in time and space) or lower (in volume and mass). For the reduction of society to one class,
say the lower class, is likely to deprive mankind of beauty and truth in the
interests of strength and knowledge, whether or not these are then hyped out of
all proportion to their true worth, while the reduction of society to one
gender, say the female gender, can deprive mankind of a moral lead, and thus
the possibility of holiness on both civilized and, especially, cultural terms.
In reality,
the division of mankind between two genders and two classes ensures that the
full gamut of elemental reality is accounted for and that not only generation
and civilization but, of higher significance still, race and culture are
granted due recognition whether in sensuality or, preferably, in sensibility,
where, as I have attempted to demonstrate, civilization and culture would be
wise, and generation and race good, and therefore germane to a morally-oriented
society in which truth and knowledge were characterized by holiness, and race
and generation by unclearness, as females deferred to males in acknowledgement
of a greater binding than that to which they were subject (in due operation of
a damned good predicament and moral paradox) - the binding, in other words, of
a saved wise elevation in which self-enhancement was the sensible - and
righteous - order of the day.
For only
through wisdom can those who are capable of genuine ego in civilized knowledge
and genuine soul in cultural truth constrain those who are incapable of both
manliness and godliness to the goodness of generative strength in the superego
and of racial beauty in the id.
The absence
of such constraints is - and always will be - testimony to a wont of true
wisdom; for things will revert to a context in which Nature has the better of
Psyche and evil and folly accordingly freely prevail under the secular, not to
mention paganistic or heathenistic,
banners of sensual culture/race and/or civilization/generation, with the clear
righteous dominating the unholy unrighteous from the blessed advantage-point of
objective freedom.
Such is, in
effect, the nature of modern reality, and if there is to be any prospect of a
less evil and foolish and even more good and wise outcome to historical
development, then judgement will need to be done and those who are now
effectively blessed or cursed with sensual freedom be saved or damned,
according to gender (both literal and denominational, in response to a majority
mandate for religious sovereignty), to the sensible bindings of a triadic
Beyond and administrative aside in 'Kingdom Come'.
For there
is no other way forward, and no other way, ultimately, in which the sanctity of
the individual, but the male individual above all, can be both protected and
maintained in the face of those collectivistic or socialistic moral aberrations
which stem from a wont of both ego and, especially, soul, in due female vein,
and banner forth the false doctrines of cultural, racial, social, and sexual
equality under the scientific and political audacities of secular freedom, to
the detriment of all that is wise and holy, as well as to the detriment, in
female terms, of all that is good and unclear.
Only when
the myth of equality has been consigned to the rubbish heap of history will the
inequalitarian truth of 'Kingdom Come' actually stand
a chance of coming to pass, to the lasting advantage of mankind, and not only
of mankind with a masculine emphasis, as embodied in the concept of a sinful
fulcrum, but, in a more comprehensive manner of speaking, of womankind, devilkind, and especially godkind,
with the possibility of corresponding 'afterlife' experiences according with
the nature or, rather, psychic nature of the various types of gender and/or
class-based self, from metachemical and chemical to
physical and metaphysical, beautiful and strong to knowledgeable and true, with
the inevitable psychic corollaries of love, pride, pleasure, and joy.
LONDON 2001 (Revised 2002-08)