26.  Neither society is, or can be, completely free of their respective forms of conservatism - bureaucracy in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, autocracy in the case of the Monarcho-Parliamentary State, for the reality of sin and crime remains such that one can only forgive the one and punish the other.  Transcending and/or rejecting them would be an entirely different ball game!

27.  And yet one can see how important sin is to the Catholic Church as a means of countering what would otherwise be a criminal bias in respect of bureaucratically hegemonic females in which physical work took heathenistic precedence over physical play, as pro-notself behaviour over anti-self behaviour, and the church-oriented subversion of bureaucracy had to face the reality of state freedom in which not play but work was the physical mean, a mean which still obtains in relation to the bureaucratic state and precisely as one characterized by lower-middleclass and working-class values.

28.  Therefore without sin, which indirectly stems from the graceful mean of theocracy 'On High' as an overall controlling and guiding element in the bureaucratic-theocratic equation, the likelihood of a context like bureaucracy reverting to a sin-denying criminally hegemonic context typified by physical work would be all the greater, and before long one would have an unashamedly secular form of republican bureaucracy which was to 'the world' what its unashamedly autocratic counterpart in authoritarian monarchy had been - and in some societies still was - to 'the netherworld', so to speak, of despotic tradition - an unequivocally female hegemonic reality which reduced everything to the somatic parameters of physical work, whether in respect (autocratically) of slavery or (bureaucratically) of manual labour.

29.  The Catholic Church at least guarantees that physical work takes a back-seat, intermittently, to physical play and its hope, by the 'faithful', of graceful redemption in and through psychical play, which is especially the preserve of theocracy but, most especially, of what I call Social Theocracy, the theocracy that would liberate from bureaucracy in the name of 'world overcoming' and 'otherworldly coming', the sort of 'coming' one would associate with Messianic redemption and thus the prospect, no matter how seemingly remote it may be at present, of 'Kingdom Come'.

30.  One can see, without undue difficulty, that the bureaucratic-theocratic axis, rising diagonally from sin to grace, opens out to the prospect of a freer and altogether more genuine theocracy in respect of 'Kingdom Come' and an effective end to the bureaucratic 'world'.  A progression from the lower to the higher is not without logical appeal and credibility, and those who are lower have more to gain from hope in the higher than ever they do from complacency in and resignation to what is sinfully low.

31.  The descending diagonal of autocracy-democracy, however, presents us with a contrary dilemma, for that which is higher pertains to what is in back of the axis as its starting point and the lower is simply the democratic alternative to such an autocratic height, even if that height has to be paradoxically associated, in somewhat lower-class vein, with physical work rather than psychical work as far as those who are exploited by an autocratic elite are concerned. 

32.  Contrary to bureaucracy-theocracy, which could be said to progress from the one to the other, the autocratic-democratic axis suggests a regression from the higher to the lower, and were that regression to continue to its lowest point, a point below parliamentary democracy and even liberal republicanism, it would result in the unattractive and somewhat problematic dead-end of Social Democracy, however one chooses to define this nadir of autocratic-democratic regression.

33.  Clearly, such a situation would be intolerable to all but a comparatively small number of persons who revelled in the resurrection of autocracy in suitably modified terms at democracy's expense, and were determined to criminalize the People in order to be able to punish them as though in revenge for the punishments which the People, under the umbrella of parliamentary democracy, had heaped upon the autocratic whilst an autocratic-democratic axis prevailed.

34.  Yet there is something about such an axis which is the reverse of the bureaucratic-theocratic one; for in spite of the desire to see some kind of progress in democracy at the expense of autocracy one can't help but feel that, logically considered, autocracy fundamentally 'calls the shots' and is responsible for conditioning democracy towards a punishing paradox as though to put a break on its own criminal proclivities.  For left to itself the democratic context would signify a male hegemony over females characterized by relative grace, whereas due to the conditioning influence of autocracy 'On High', diagonally back up the said axis, it is the (antifeminine) female criteria of punishment which typify the democratic response to the innate criminality of autocracy. 

35.  Therefore, contrary to what was said above, in parallel to the bureaucratic-theocratic axis, the autocratic-democratic axis would seem to signify a context in which just as grace needs sin in order to counter the relative criminality of bureaucratically hegemonic females, so crime needs punishment in order to counter the relative gracefulness of democratically hegemonic males, and that, far from being led by democracy, it is actually autocracy which, in (diabolic) female vein, rules democracy in a Monarcho-Parliamentary society, a society characterized by the falling diagonal of autocracy-democracy.

36.  Hence autocracy would be applying a break to democracy and anchoring it to a punishing retort to crime, since what has emerged at autocracy's expense has not risen progressively towards a higher position, but fallen regressively from a higher position towards a lower one, a position that, were it to fall further, could end-up turning upon itself and punishing its own alleged crime as the tables were ideologically turned upon the People.

37.  Therefore democracy is held back from Social Democracy by a constitutional autocracy which is responsible, in no small degree, for maintaining the punishing nature of democracy at its own expense rather than encouraging democracy to regress towards punishing itself on trumped-up charges of criminality which were never characteristic of democracy or of anything democratic in the first place.

38.  But if autocracy still effectively 'calls the shots' for democracy's parliamentary sake, then it is difficult, to the point of impossible, to regard democracy as an ideal and as worthy an outcome to the historical process, as worthy a goal, as theocracy, since punishment must rank rather poorly compared to grace as a lasting ideal, an ideal which is not merely negatively ranged against something else, but positively conceived as an end in itself.

39.  To be sure, one could have a republican democracy typified, in relative fashion, by grace in the absence of autocratic conditioning factors which maintained a punishing paradox in relation to its own fundamental criminality.  But such a republican democracy would only be sustainable on a less than Social Democratic basis if it was constrained by some other factor, like the Catholic Church, from entering into a regressive spiral of self-destruction, and that in turn would modify the terms on which such a state existed, making it rather less relatively graceful than, say, pseudo-punishing in relation to the sinfulness of a hegemonic clerical bureaucracy which functioned as a safeguard against the Social Democratic degeneration of democracy towards a punishing nadir.

40.  For democracy stems, in the main, from autocracy, specifically from the sort of free autocracy that rebelled against bureaucratic church control in the Middle Ages, and it is difficult to dissociate democracy from the punishment of crime in consequence, and even harder to square it, in state hegemonic terms, with the sort of church hegemonic traditions which characterize a bureaucratic-theocratic axial orientation, so that any move towards Social Democracy in the face of such traditions would sooner or later rebound on the peoples or countries concerned, as has happened in a number of former communist states.

41.  For the free autocratic-democratic state hegemonic realities of countries like Britain, and in particular England, are almost unique to a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) culture and not at all commensurate with Western civilization in general, least of all where the Roman Catholic Church still holds sway.  Therefore the adoption of such an axis by countries which, for one reason or another, have come under the influence of Britain could - and has - proved extremely problematic, especially when, as has been more usually the case, only the Social Democratic offshoot of it has been developed, and then with consequences which those more familiar with the autocratic-democratic axis have been careful all along to preclude, and precisely by preventing Social Democracy from coming to pass in the first place!

42.  Yet even in relation to the less unsavoury manifestations of Social Democracy that are alleged to exist and, indeed, to typify the Continent by those in Britain anxious not to tread the path of further European integration, it is apparent that any form of Social Democracy can be used as an excuse by English reactionaries to distance themselves, and by implication Britain, from the centro-complexifying tendencies currently at large in the European Union.

43.  Yet is the Continent really as Social Democratic as some in Britain, mainly Conservatives, would have people believe?  One can understand the qualms which the term 'Social Democracy' evokes in many British minds, notwithstanding the British failure and subsequent reluctance to establish Social Democracy within the parliamentary framework.  But frankly there is a lot of difference between those parts of the Continent which come under Social Democratic influence in view of their Protestant republican standing and those parts, doubtless far more prevalent in number, which are still governed or conditioned by criteria owing more, in French or Latin vein, to the Roman Catholic Church and to an avoidance of Social Democracy in all but peripheral or diplomatic terms.

44.  Frankly, it is hard to square the European Union with countries like Germany which, though clearly influential, are themselves not entirely Social Democratic but often conditioned by criteria owing more to the Roman Catholic Church in all but the heartlands of Protestantism where, as in North Germany, Social Democracy would doubtless be more relevant, if within a broadly pluralistic framework commensurate with democracy as a whole.

45.  No, much as one can understand why there will be those in Britain who will use any excuse to distance themselves from Europe and the prospect of greater European integration, we cannot credit them with much justification in relation to Europe as a whole, the greater part of which is typified not by Social Democracy but by the influence of the Roman Catholic Church on politics, whether openly or covertly, and the reluctance which many Britons naturally feel, in their Protestant sympathies and loyalties, to be drawn into closer association with what to them has always been a foreign threat to native culture, to the sort of autocratic-democratic culture which stems, in large part, from the twin influences of first Henry VIII and then Oliver Cromwell in respect of autocratic and democratic independence of church hegemonic control, and which led Britain, bit by bit, to withdraw from European rationalism into a worldview governed by empirical objectivity, a worldview rooted, female-wise, in fact rather than centred, male-wise, in truth.

46.  Therefore Britain, under English state-hegemonic control, will continue to back away from Europe and to oppose or at the very least slow the process of greater European integration in the interests of its own political traditions which, as we have seen, are not simply democratic but of a democratic order which is ruled and controlled, in no small degree, by freely autocratic criteria stemming from 'above' which are deeply intertwined, in constitutional vein, with parliament and a democratic process which is not merely anti-social democratic but, more to the point, at axial variance with the bureaucratic-theocratic traditions more typifying not only the greater part of the European Continent but Britain's nearest neighbour, the Republic of Ireland.

47.  Anti-Social Democratic sentiment is merely a ruse, ill-founded in relation to the Continent generally, which British conservatives use to oppose greater integration with a civilization which, in contrast to Britain, is and has long been more bureaucratic-theocratic in axial character, and thus never entirely independent - communist aberrations aside - of the subjective influence of the Roman Catholic Church.

48.  They may speak in the name of the British people, but what they are actually defending is a system in which the Many punish the Few through their elected representatives and the sorts of bills or prospective if not proscriptive parliamentary legislation which the non-elected representatives of the monarchy to parliament may well find problematic or downright unacceptable, but in which the Few still hold sway as the 'ideal', a perverse ideal, it may be, of somatic freedom of wilful impression, but an ideal of sorts which renders autocracy institutionally unassailable from democratic opposition, whether Social Democratic or otherwise.

49.  And institutionally unassailable too, it must be said, from theocratic or, rather, bureaucratic opposition, from the bureaucratic alternative to autocratic freedom of impression which, while nominally free in its own sphere of impressive influence, is paradoxically bound to the overarching theocratic freedom of expression which seeks to forgive sin in the interests of grace, even when the resulting grace leaves something to be desired from what I, as a self-proclaimed Messiah, would call a Social Theocratic standpoint.

50.  In contrary fashion, the democratic parliament is bound to the constitutional monarchy, as oath-sworn subjects of the reigning monarch, and not in a position to act independently of the monarchy, independently, that is, in respect of republican or social democratic tendencies and intentions which fly in the face of constitutional approval, not least in respect of the House of Lords, which, as hinted above, is the non-elected body representing the monarch to parliament, just as parliament represents the People to the monarchy in the guise of their elected representatives in the House of Commons - Lords and Commons being, despite obfuscations adduced by partisan parliamentarians of a pompous disposition, class opposites, and even antagonists, somewhat along the lines of nobles and plebeians.