THE MORAL UNDESIRABILITY OF STATE FREEDOM

1. We have seen that, in general terms, somatic freedom and psychic freedom are incompatible, and that the one only flourishes at the expense of the other, requiring a subordinate order of soma or psyche, as the case may be, which appertains to the opposite gender. Likewise state freedom, which is compatible with free soma, is decidedly not compatible with the free psyche of church freedom, and therefore neither can exist freely except in relation to the binding of the other, whether to the State, as in the case of the generality of Protestant churches, or to the Church, as in the case of states which defer to Catholicism, the Irish Republic being a case in point.

2. In fact, one could distinguish between the soft-line naturalism of the Irish State in its deferential relationship, via a titular presidency, to the humanism of the Roman Catholic Church, and the rather more hard-line naturalism of the French Republic, the executive presidency of which confirms an independence of the Church that owes not a little, one suspects, to the sort of Rousseauesque naturalism that paved the way for the French Revolution towards the close of the eighteenth century.

3. Further back, on the female side of the gender fence, one would have to allow for the parliamentary realism of the British State, the Constitutional Head of which, viz. the reigning monarch, is simultaneously head of the Anglican Church as a church less humanist, in Catholic sensibility, than naturalist in view of the upended masculinity of that which exists in a subordinate position both to the Nonconformism of the so-called free churches - free, it may be, of Anglicanism but, in reality, rather more bound to state freedom - and the realism of a parliament in which power tends to be more in the hands of realists of one persuasion or another than of their naturalistic, and arguably more liberal, counterparts, so that the analogue of two types of rugby, viz. union and league, over association football, corresponding to the naturalistic 'fall guy' within the inverted triangle of parliamentary/Protestant solidarity or, at any rate, representative British civilization, inevitably comes leaping to mind, and one realizes that despite its materialist and weakly fundamentalist aspect in the Constitutional Monarchism of the Blood Royal, and its naturalist and weakly humanist aspect in Liberalism/Anglicanism, Britain is essentially a strongly realist society dominated by parliamentary government to which the weakly nonconformist Protestantism of the so-called free churches readily subscribes.

4. Back and up from this realist democracy, however, is the pluralist or, at any rate, binary materialism of the American Republic, with its executive presidency, and this manifestation of state freedom, ever a symptom of democracy, differs from the French example of republicanism largely in terms of its association, traditionally, with Protestantism, so that it is, in a sense, as somatically leftwards of parliamentary democracy in Protestant Britain as, say, the French Republic is of the Irish Republic in relation to their different historical approaches to Catholicism.

5. In that respect, the American form of state freedom is somatically worse even than the British form, given the more markedly somatic emphasis accruing to the metachemical context of democratic materialism, as compared with the chemical context in which realism tends, in parliamentary vein, to be the more characteristic mode of soma, and watery criteria accordingly take precedence over anything fiery, like freedom of speech over freedom of the camera-besotted press, however much the latter cannot and should not be ruled out.

6. Certainly the American mode of republicanism is somatically worse than the French mode, which is somehow still on the masculine side of the gender fence as far as its national association, through naturalism, with a humanistic religious tradition in Catholicism is concerned, much as it may have sought to achieve and maintain as much independence of the Catholic Church as is possible in such a situation, in contrast, one must say, to the example of the Irish Republic, which is still somewhat reluctant to break ties with humanism despite periodic attempts by the more democratically-minded elements to undermine Ireland's reputation as a Catholic Republic and make it more secular, more sensual and somatic, after, possibly, the French example.

7. However that may be, if a distinction still exists, as I believe, between the soft-line naturalist republicanism of Ireland and the hard-line naturalist republicanism of France, then the materialist counterpart of that would have to be between the democratic pluralism, as it were, of the American Republic and the totalitarian monism of those Communist states which still profess, or formerly professed, to some form of Marxism-Leninism, or Bolshevism.

8. Clearly, the absolute nadir of state freedom is reached with Communism, and thus with that order of somatic darkness which opposes any form of church freedom, or even church existence, from a standpoint rooted, all too somatically, in hard-line materialism, the so-called dialectical materialism of that which devalues life, history, society, people, from a strictly materialistic point of view, so that everything is judged from a superficially metachemical standpoint in which the negativity of soma takes an ugly and hateful guise in relation to the basest possible female criteria.

9. It was in opposition to such a crass reductionism of life to purely external interpretation that Fascism-proper - as distinct from the hard-line realism coupled to a degree of idealism, one could argue, of National Socialism - arose in idealistic recoil from the barbarity and evil of Communism, to protect the Catholic Church from the sort of state absolutism, deriving from Hegel and Marx, that spells the worst of all possible worlds or, rather, netherworlds.

10. Yet, with its own brand of materialism, even the American Republic is a kind of netherworldly society compared to the realism of Britain and the naturalism of France, and, in idealism, as described above, there is a sort of upended otherworldly resolve which strives, in its own paradoxical fashion, for world-overcoming and the defeat of netherworldly opposition.

11. But even idealism is hamstrung from achieving lasting credibility and stability, no matter how successful it may be in the short term in combating and undermining materialism, not least of all in its Bolshevik guise, since it is simply another mode of somatic lopsidedness, in this case rather more metaphysical than, like its naturalistic counterpart, physical, and although arguably more worthy of male, particularly upper class, support than anything somatically female, like chemical realism or metachemical materialism, it can only succumb to sensual pressures for want of adequate deference or, indeed, any deference to psychic transcendentalism, the metaphysical corollary of idealism, and therefore will end-up succumbing, like its physical counterpart, to the rule of negativity in philistine and sinful antivalues, the sort of antivalues that owe a lot more to the dominating female realities to which it sooner or later succumbs than to anything intrinsically male.

12. For just as naturalism will, for want of adequate deference in sensibility to humanism, get sucked-in to a subordination, in under-plane subservience, to realism, so idealism can only get drawn into a like subordination to materialism for want of adequate deference in sensibility to transcendentalism, and that which opposed the somatic darknesses of realism or materialism from contrary standpoints in naturalism or idealism simply become more akin to them and at a disadvantage, moreover, in under-plane subservience of illusory insanity to factual sanity, of a secondary order of somatic freedom to a primary order of somatic freedom which, in the barbarism and criminality of its vacuously-conditioned objectivity, cannot help but remain top dog, as history, unfortunately, has shown.

13. No, in that respect, idealism is no more able than naturalism to prevail against the gender enemy, so to speak, from a contrary sensual standpoint, a standpoint that, no matter how sensible it may declare itself to be, will inevitably succumb to the somatic negativities of sensuality for want of church sympathy, whether in relation to humanism or, above this, to transcendentalism.

14. For idealism, too, is of the State, and any state that is too fond of its own freedom, at the expense of the Church, can only come to somatic grief, no matter how much it may protest its innocence and proclaim its loyalty to culture, civilization, god, truth, and all the rest of those sensible ideals which, in reality, state freedom is effectively, if not blatantly, in subversive revolt against.

15. For the State is a monster of somatic darkness when free, free, that is, to be independent of the Church and the teachings of psychic freedom in conjunction with somatic binding that should properly accrue to the Church, as confirmed by the metaphor of the Crucifixion and, hence, of the bound body of the Saviour on the Cross.

16. The State can never, by itself, be the cure of all moral ills, a panacea for moral affliction, and even the idealistic state must fail abysmally in bringing lasting peace and confidence to people when, bereft of somatic deference to free psyche, it takes upon itself the ills of the world, of mankind, and seeks to address them by combating materialism on terms which owe more to state power and glory than ever they do to church form and contentment.

17. Two wrongs, as I have said before, do not make a right, and the only lasting consequence of state freedom of a male order taking upon itself the role of combating state freedom of a female order, of idealism against materialism or, down below space/time in the phenomenal planes of volume/mass, of naturalism against realism ... is the domination of folly by evil and the subordination of state folly to state evil, of state unholiness to state clearness, as the more aggressive powers eventually and, one can safely say, inevitably get the upper hand and defeat or, at the very least, twist and corrupt what was merely, though culpably, philistine and sinful towards barbarism and crime, making of it a second-class image of itself.

18. All those who, from Plato to Hegel and beyond, exclusively advocate the State, as though the State were the ultimate solution to mankind's problems and shortcomings, err on the side of immorality and vice, of somatic darkness powerfully or gloriously proclaiming the right of might to vanquish all opposition and deliver from superstition those who would question the value of state freedom.

19. Even the materialists and realists, worse as they may be than their idealistic and naturalistic opponents, and much as they might believe in might from an objectively aggressive somatic base, would not necessarily want to vanquish all opposition but rather, in time-honoured female vein, to control and dominate it to their own objective advantage, be that advantage absolutely somatic in ugliness and hatred or relatively somatic in weakness and humility.

20. And yet states rooted in materialism or realism must fail in delivering peace and lasting contentment to people, because they are the very opposite of any such conditions, and simply the means whereby an unhappy outcome to history or civilization or life can be guaranteed, world without somatic end.

21. Combating such states on approximately their own terms does not lead to peace or contentment either, as history has shown, but simply compounds the problem and makes the reactionary aggressors worse than before, more akin to their enemies and certainly, in the inevitable march of illusory insanity, inferior to them in terms of the kind of freedom to which they foolishly subscribe, a kind that can only prove subordinate, in secondary damnation/cursedness, to the evil freedom which wears a mask of factual sanity and has the benefit of empirical objectivity firmly and, one might say, squarely on its side.