A TRUE EXTREMISM

Leader's transcendentalism is really more the antithesis of ruler's royalism than its antithetical equivalent, which would have to pertain, by contrast, to the same spectrum, namely the autocratic one. Yes, Comrade 5, the nearest one gets to an antithetical equivalent of ruler's royalism is with a military dictatorship, where sovereignty is vested in the reigning general or colonel or even, occasionally, officers of inferior rank, and a situation may arise whereby the masses serve an elite ... in a kind of submission to Nietzschean criteria. That's right, Comrade 10. Nietzsche's philosophy was partly conceived against the backdrop, as it were, of a military dictatorship, namely Bismarck's, and consequently tends to uphold a kind of neo-royalist position of aristocratic radicalism, with the masses conceived as but means to the nurture and development of the higher men, be they Supermen or whatever.

I agree, Comrade 23, there is much more than the influence of a military dictatorship to Nietzsche's philosophy. But, even so, that cannot be discounted! Anyway, an antithetical equivalent to ruler's royalism will tend to place the interests of a ruling elite above those of everybody else, just as the interests of the king and his nobles took precedence over the populace in the age of feudal autocracy. Monarchs rule in their own interests.... Well, the antithesis to a ruler is a leader, as pertinent to a fascist or a centrist society, and he exists on the third, or theocratic, spectrum, the spectrum centred on the Holy Ghost rather than, like the autocratic one, on the Father. He leads the people in their spiritual interests.

No, Comrade 4, he doesn't serve or represent the people, like a people's representative on the spectrum in-between autocratic and theocratic extremes, which pertains to democracy, and hence to representative's parliamentarianism. He serves only Truth, and this requires that he leads the people from the Centre. They do not exist for his own aggrandizement or material enrichment, as in a royalist or neo-royalist society. On the contrary, they exist to be improved, and this is the antithesis of royalist autocracy - an antithesis only being possible between the first and third spectra, as between the Father and the Holy Spirit. As for Christ, He pertains, in His humanism, to the democratic spectrum, the tail-end of which signifies a more absolute people's sovereignty in the guise of Communism, the ideology of the Antichrist. By contrast, the continuation of the true part of the theocratic spectrum from Roman Catholicism and Fascism leads to the Second Coming, and thus to the ideology of the True World Messiah, as appertaining to Social Transcendentalism.

Yes, Comrade 27, such an extreme ideological position entails an anti-tribal perspective, since there is no contiguity between the first and third spectra, and tribalists - be they Celts, Bantus, Nagas, Bedouin, Gypsies, or whatever - pertain to the first.

Yes, Comrade 92. Tribalists, nationalists, and transcendentalists. No connection between the first and the third, and so, wherever the third emerges, tribalists are beneath the pale. Only a theocratic society can be truly closed in relation to what is beneath the pale. A communist society has no anti-tribal policy because Communism is only extreme in relation to the moderate part of the second spectrum, an extreme middle-of-the-road ideology rather than an extreme closed-society perspective, since its allegiance to the democratic spectrum implies contiguity with the bottom one, if from an extreme point of view.

You're right, Comrade 63, a communist society is more closed at the top, with regard to evolutionary progress towards the post-human millennium - Lenin's 'No God-building, comrades!' comes to mind here - than at the bottom, whereas Fascism and its ideological successor, Social Transcendentalism, is closed at the bottom, to first and second spectra influences, but virtually infinitely open at the top ... with a perspective stretching, via the post-human millennium, all the way to Heaven. Communism is closed to aspirations towards the Holy Spirit, being but the furthest reach of democratic humanism. It opens out to democracy and capitalism, if on a negative basis, as an ideological opposition to democratic precedent in the world at large - Communism against Protestantism (Marxism against Calvinism). It liquidates bourgeois exploiters, but not tribalists.

That's right, Comrade 14, it culminates in a dead-end of proletarian atheism, an extension of the Protestant heresy of Christian relativity, a more extreme relativity, you might say. Whereas we Social Transcendentalists are opposed, like our fascist precursors, to everything relative, be it Protestant or Communist. And opposed, moreover, to absolutism on the autocratic spectrum, not to mention to earlier absolutist manifestations of our own. It would be ironical for Social Transcendentalism to come to power solely through democratic means when it's a theocratic ideology and therefore not directly connected with the democratic process. In fact, a veritable contradiction in terms!

Yes, Comrade 28, Mussolini's ascension to the dictatorial leadership of the Italian people was more theocratic than Hitler's rise to power over the Germans, Hitler being obliged to partly rely on democratic methods - a not-altogether surprising fact, given the Protestant, democratic integrity of most North Germans! Had he been seeking power in a more ideologically homogeneous state, like Italy, he might not have had to compromise with the democratic process to anything like the same extent. His earlier, failed putsch in Bavaria was certainly not as illogical or irrelevant as might at first appear, bearing in mind the Catholic theocratic integrity of the South. Nazism was essentially a South German movement in any case, and Hitler a Catholic of Austrian descent.

No, Comrade 41, the traditional Provisional Sinn Fein attitude of a ballot paper in one hand and an armalite in the other strikes me as having been significant of a compromise with the majority democratic population of Northern Ireland. The Social Transcendentalist attitude in the South of Ireland would have to be more representatively theocratic, in my opinion. After all, how can the people vote to transfer political sovereignty to a Social Transcendentalist leader when the voting process is all about electing representatives to serve on their behalf? Is it likely that democratically-minded people would vote for the removal of their sovereignty?

Ah, as you say, Comrade 35! But those who are genuinely democratic would wish to retain sovereignty for themselves. Only a people who were essentially theocratic would be prepared to use the democratic system to further theocratic interests, and thus transcend democracy! Well, none of you need me to remind you of the ethnic essence of the majority population of Southern Ireland. Perhaps, after all, the paradoxical will come to pass and, thanks to considerable Church backing and pressure, theocracy will replace democracy from within rather than without ... via a putsch or violent revolution. Ideally one would prefer not to have to compromise with the democratic process, but in a state where there are over 100,000 guaranteed democrats, not to mention a number of Catholic dupes of the British system as well.... Or, alternatively, in a state which is overwhelmingly theocratic ...

Yes, maybe you're right, Comrade 16! As long as we know what's best for the majority population of Eire, the minority can go to hell. Or most probably will be driven there in deference to Last Judgement criteria! Yes, for he who corresponds to a Second Coming, the leader of Social Transcendentalism, does not intend to save hard-line democrats, but to damn them. He knows his own, and they are forever theocratic. Saved!