Op. 104

 

UNFLATTERING CONCLUSIONS

 

Aphoristic Philosophy

 

Copyright © 2003-2010 John O'Loughlin

___________

 

CONTENTS

 

Aphs. 1-131

___________

 

1.   People distinguish rather glibly between the privileged and the under-privileged, as though there could be only two categories.  But I find it makes more sense to divide the privileged into two categories standing respectively in between the over-privileged and the under-privileged, as one might call the upper- and lower-class extremes, with the privileged divisible, in typically middle-class fashion, between those who play more than work and those who work more than play, who work to play or play to work, without being identifiable, therefore, with those who, as over-privileged, live to play and those who, as under-privileged, live to work - the former effectively playboys and the latter workmen or, in equivalent terminology, workgirls.

 

2.   Therefore I shall distinguish the over-privileged from the under-privileged on the basis of an upper-class/lower-class dichotomy which could be said to flank, above and beneath, the middle-class privileged, who are neither so typified by play that they could be described as playboys nor so typified by work that they could be described, in like terms, as workgirls, but come, somewhat professionally and/or vocationally, somewhere in between the more and less than privileged classes.

 

3.   Therefore the working class are, by logical definition, under-privileged compared to their lower-middleclass counterparts, who have more time or inclination for play without ceasing to be characterized primarily by work, whereas the leisure class are, by contrast, over-privileged compared to their upper-middleclass counterparts, who have more time or inclination for work without ceasing to be characterized primarily by play. 

 

4.   In fact, between the extremes of a play-only upper class and a work-only lower class come the great playing/working middle classes who, in their professional and/or vocational responsibilities, are neither so over-privileged nor so under-privileged as to be either blessed with play or bereft of play and effectively cursed by work.

 

5.   Strictly speaking, one should contrast psychical (mental) play with physical (manual) play and psychical (mental) work with physical (manual) work, allowing for distinctions between the psychical play of what is genuinely upper class, the physical work of what is genuinely lower class, the psychical play coupled to psychical work of what is genuinely upper middle-class, and the physical work coupled to physical play of what is genuinely lower middle-class, so that one is left in no doubt that there is as much of a psychical/physical distinction between upper-class play and lower-middleclass play as there is a physical/psychical distinction between lower-class work and upper-middleclass work.

 

6.   The classes no more play (where applicable) in the same way than they work (where applicable) in the same way.  Lower-middleclass play, being largely physical in character, will differ not only from upper-class play but from upper-middleclass play, while upper-middleclass work, being largely psychical in character, will differ not only from lower-class work but from lower-middleclass work.

 

7.   I have long believed and maintained that play appertains to the self and work to the not-self, as though in a sort of church/state or male/female polarity.  Yet I now see that one must distinguish not only between physical play and psychical play in respect of the lower middle-class and their upper-middleclass and/or upper-class counterparts, but also between physical work and psychical work in respect of the lower class and/or lower middleclass and their upper-middleclass counterparts.

 

8.   Therefore it seems to me that physical play stands to psychical play as anti-self to self, or being anti-self to being pro-self, as though in a diagonally rising bureaucratic-theocratic axial orientation in which the chief representatives of physical play were lower middle-class and the chief representatives of psychical play either upper middle-class or upper class.

 

9.   Likewise it seems to me that physical work stands to psychical work as not-self to anti-notself, or being pro-notself to being anti-notself, as though in a diagonally falling autocratic-democratic axial orientation in which the chief representatives of physical work were either lower class or lower middle-class and the chief representatives of psychical work upper middle-class.

 

10.  Therefore whereas the bureaucratic-theocratic axis would signify a diagonal ascent from the anti-self sinfulness of physical play to the pro-self gracefulness of psychical play, as from lower middle-class to upper middle-class and/or upper class, the autocratic-democratic axis would signify a diagonal descent from the pro-notself criminality of physical work to the anti-notself punishingness of psychical work, as from working class and/or lower middle-class to upper middle-class.

 

11.  Clearly it makes a lot of difference whether you work or play, whether you exist in relation to the not-self, whether physically or psychically, or in relation to the self, whether physically or psychically, and if you do both, as in the case of the middle classes, then it seems to me that one will have a bias towards either work or play of one sort or another, without being exclusively given to either.

 

12.  Therefore just as I have described the upper middle-class as being characterized by a bias for psychical play at the expense of psychical work without, however, being exclusively partial, in upper-class vein, to psychical play, so I have described the lower middle-class as being characterized by a bias for physical work at the expense of physical play without, however, being exclusively partial, in lower-class vein, to physical work.

 

13.  Therefore it may be inferred that whereas the upper middle-class will be more partial to being pro-self than anti-notself, their lower-middleclass counterparts will be more partial to being pro-notself than anti-self without, however, the one being either exclusively pro-self like the upper class or the other exclusively pro-notself like the lower class, the classes which correspond, after all, to what has been described as the over-privileged and the under-privileged - the former of whom do no work and  the latter of whom have no play, or time for play.

 

14.  Therefore being privileged is not to be exclusively pro-self, like the upper class, but rather to be either predominantly pro-self and subordinately anti-notself, like the upper middle-class, or predominantly pro-notself and subordinately anti-self like the lower middle-class, who in comparison to their upper-middleclass counterparts would be less privileged in respect of a physical approach to play which, besides being subordinate to a physical approach to work, appertained rather more to the sphere of sin than to that of grace.

 

15.  If, therefore, one is still privileged in physical play, no matter how inferior to psychical play it may happen to be, or how subordinate to physical work, it follows that the under-privileged will be such only because they have no time or inclination for play but spend the greater part of their lives working, and working, moreover, in a physical context such that leaves something to be desired even from the standpoint of psychical work, the sort of work more congenial to the upper middle-class, who are, as often as not, an executive class.

 

16.  When we take the above findings literally, it would appear that the bureaucratic-theocratic axis is primarily characterized, on the basis of both the lower- and upper-middleclass biases coupled to upper-class criteria, by physical work and psychical play, while the autocratic-democratic axis is likewise primarily characterized, on the basis of both the lower-class and lower-middleclass biases coupled to upper-middleclass criteria, by physical work and psychical play. 

 

17.  And yet I have consistently argued, in the past, that whereas the one axis is commensurate with sin and grace, the other is no less commensurate with crime and punishment, meaning that whereas the bureaucratic-theocratic axis should be divisible between physical play and psychical play, its autocratic-democratic counterpart should attest to a division between physical work and psychical work.  How, then, are we to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory conclusions?

 

18.  The answer, it seems to me, is really quite paradoxical but, for that reason, nothing new to my work, having been dealt with in more than one recent text.  For anything bureaucratic, which should attest to a female hegemony, has to be qualified in relation to the existence of theocracy when once we have established the existence of a bureaucratic-theocratic axis, and theocracy, being male, tends to twist the terms of male/female relations in respect of bureaucracy towards itself, so that instead of a relatively criminal emphasis upon physical work, as in respect of a predominating lower-middleclass bias for the not-self, one finds a sinful emphasis upon physical play which stems from the graceful attributes characterizing, in psychically playful fashion, theocracy, so that, compromised from above, the bureaucratic mean is twisted towards an emphasis upon anti-self behaviour which owes more, in sinful vein, to males than to females.

 

19.  Hence the bureaucratic-theocratic axis attests to a church-hegemonic situation in which theocratic male criteria condition the lower-middleclass reality of a bias for physical work at the expense of physical play towards an emphasis upon physical play in terms of the sinful paradox, attributable to male subversion, of anti-self behaviour, which, from a theocratic standpoint centred in grace, is of course something to be repented of in the interests of self and therefore the possibility of psychic play.

 

20.  Likewise, anything democratic, which should attest to a male hegemony, has to be qualified in relation to the existence of autocracy when once we have established the existence of an autocratic-democratic axis, and autocracy, being female, tends to twist the terms of male/female relations in respect of democracy towards itself, so that instead of a graceful emphasis upon psychical play, as in respect of a predominating upper-middleclass bias for the self, one finds a punishing emphasis upon psychical work which stems from the criminal attributes characterizing, in physically working fashion, autocracy, so that, compromised from above, the democratic mean is twisted towards an emphasis upon anti-notself behaviour which owes more, in punishing vein, to females than to males.

 

21.  Hence the autocratic-democratic axis attests to a state-hegemonic situation in which autocratic female criteria condition the upper-middleclass reality of a bias for psychical play at the expense of psychical work towards an emphasis upon psychical work in terms of the punishing paradox, attributable to female subversion, of anti-notself behaviour, which, from an autocratic standpoint centred in crime, is of course something to be wary of in the interests of not-self and therefore the actuality of physical work.

 

22.  How paradoxical, therefore, are these contrary approaches to life which divide societies - and sometimes the same society - in terms of an overall male hegemonic control in the case of the bureaucratic-theocratic axis and an overall female hegemonic control in the case of the autocratic-democratic axis, the former making for the possibility of the graceful redemption of sin, as of physical play in psychical play, the latter making for the actuality of the criminal wariness of punishment, as of psychical work from the standpoint of physical work.

 

23.  And yet, no matter how paradoxical, the redemption of sin in grace remains provisional and subject to the extent to which bureaucracy permits male criteria to operate at the expense of a context which, by its very lower-middleclass nature, is more characterized, in respect of a (feminine) female hegemony over (masculine or, more correctly, antimasculine) males, by physical work and thus pro-notself behaviour the existence of which precludes anything but an anti-self stance on the part of sinners, effectively if not literally male, and therefore renders their prospects of authentic grace in the psychical play of pro-self behaviour virtually non-existent, which is why, after all, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of the bureaucratic-theocratic axis par excellence, expects sin and forgives it in terms of verbal absolution for penitential contrition, rather than rejects it outright in the name of a genuinely free or, rather, transcendental  theocracy.

 

24.  Likewise, no matter how paradoxical, the punishment of crime remains provisional and subject to the extent to which autocracy permits female criteria to operate at the expense of a context which, by its very upper-middleclass nature, is more characterized, in respect of a (masculine) male hegemony over (feminine or, more correctly, antifeminine) females, by psychical play and thus pro-self behaviour the existence of which precludes anything but an anti-notself stance on the part of punishers, effectively if not literally female, and therefore renders their prospects of authentic crime in the physical work of pro-notself behaviour virtually non-existent, which is why, after all, the Monarcho-Parliamentary State, the State of the autocratic-democratic axis par excellence, expects crime and punishes it in terms of bourgeois justice, rather than rejects it outright in the name of a genuinely free or, rather, republican democracy.

 

25.  No more than the Roman Catholic Church can do away with sin, can the Monarcho-Parliamentary State do away with crime, for the one, though theocratically led, is hampered by the need to sinfully counter the overriding reality of bureaucracy as a female hegemonic context relatively governed by crime, while the other, though democratically led, is hampered by the need to punishingly counter the overriding reality of autocracy as a female hegemonic context absolutely governed by crime.

 

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.

 

51.  Therefore the British will fly from Continental pressures into the arms of their reigning monarch, the free autocracy which, despite constitutional ties to parliament, both noble and plebeian, is free in the sense of independent of bureaucratic constraints emanating from the Roman Catholic Church which, ever led by theocracy, enjoins the 'faithful' to penitential contrition in the interests of grace, and thus precludes that outright criminality which, I have to say, typifies the sort of autocratic state stemming from Henry VIII which concocted its own subordinate church in the form of the Anglican Church, a church I have previously characterized as pseudo-graceful in relation to the genuine crime of the freely autocratic state, to which the punishment of the parliamentary state pays heed even at the cost of a pseudo-sinful subordinate church corollary in the guise of Puritanism, as also noted in a previous text.

 

52.  Be that as it may, the reigning fulcrum of things British is not democratic and parliamentary but autocratic and monarchic, and therefore the British exemplify a fatality, as subjects of a monarchy, towards the autocratic which flies in the face of their more bureaucratically-prone Continental counterparts, whose democracy is never very far from either bureaucracy or theocracy, and rarely, if ever, genuinely Social Democratic in consequence!

 

53.  And yet in fleeing from the Continent, the British only rush into the arms of a more active and contemporary form of autocracy, the pluralistic autocracy of the United States of America, which has the ability, in its cultural and financial allure, to overshadow the British monarchy and to provide an additional excuse why Britain should not accept further European integration. 

 

54.  For it seems to many British people - and not without justification - that they have more in common with America, some of which was once a British colony, than ever they do with the Continent, bearing in mind its largely Catholic traditions and the fact, by contrast, that America was founded by Puritans escaping Anglican persecution who would henceforward give to the American nation a profoundly Protestant stamp, the sort of stamp which enables America to boast of its democratic credentials even when its actions betray, as they so often do, an autocratic bias commensurate with the culture, as I like to phrase it, of perpendicular triangularity, the sort of trianguarlity which, with its fries, burgers and coke, or jazz, blues and so-called soul, or gridiron, baseball and basketball, or even electric chair, gas chamber and lethal injection, is quintessentially autocratic in respect of a metachemical hegemony in which freedom is superficially conceived in terms of will and a sort of pro-notself somatic licence that makes a god out of fire and worships God in terms, necessarily fundamentalist, of the Old Testament, thereby drawing closer to Judaism and even, in some respects, to Hinduism, with its polytheistic (sic) fundamentalism anterior even to Jewish monotheism (sic).

 

55.  Certainly the Jewish and Indian influences are even more characteristic of America than of Britain, though Britain has its own fatality towards the older forms of cosmic fundamentalism which owes not a little to its free autocratic traditions and overlaps with Anglicanism, the rather more Creator-oriented form of Protestantism which looks down from a pseudo-graceful patrician nose, as it were, upon the pseudo-sinful Puritans and their rather plebeian bias for the New Testament which in overall terms is no less subordinate to parliamentary freedom of expression than Anglicanism to such freedom of royalist impression as characterizes the monarchy and its non-executive arm in parliament.

 

56.  Whether perpendicular triangularity is cosmic, and characterized in stellar-solar-Venusian vein by Jehovah, Satan, and Allah of Middle Eastern conservatism, or natural, and characterized in tree blossom-fruit-berry vein by Saul, David, and Mohammed of Middle Eastern liberalism, or human, and characterized in eyes-ears-heart vein by the so-called Risen Virgin, the so-called Father, and the so-called Sacred Heart of the Risen Christ of Catholic decadence, or superficially cyborg, and characterized in camera-microphone-pacemaker vein by what most typifies contemporary American civilization in terms of a secular mode of synthetic artificiality, it is ever that in which Devil the Mother rules the roost at the expense of what in other texts I have defined as the Antison of Antigod (not to be confused with the Devil!) and Antidevil the Antimother - the antimetachemical manifestation of soma which stands somewhat sensibly aloof from the freer manifestations of soma characterizing the metachemical and antimetaphysical positions more typifying the sensual bias of perpendicular triangularity as that in which the fundamentalism and/or materialism of a noumenally objective female hegemony is 'top dog' and able to prosecute free will at the expense of bound soul, whether in relation to itself or in relation to the noumenally subjective 'fall guy' of an antitranscendentalist and/or anti-idealist gender-inverted disposition.

 

57.  That this 'top dog', which is commensurate with Devil the Mother at successive devolutionary stages which are either most freely somatic in cosmic metachemical sensuality, more (relative to most) freely somatic in natural metachemical sensuality, less (relative to least) freely somatic in human metachemical sensuality, or least freely somatic in cyborg metachemical sensuality, has been scripturally identified, in respect more especially of a cosmic and/or natural 'first mover', with God ... I am only too well aware.  But while that is perhaps, if regrettably, only to be expected from a primitive and even light-bewitched environmental standpoint, it is nonetheless as far removed from what God is as it's possible to be or, rather, get!

 

58.  For God has nothing to do with metachemical sensuality, whether cosmic, natural, human, or cyborg, and everything to do with metaphysical sensibility, whether at a least evolved manifestation of it in Saturn or some Saturn-like ringed (haloed) planet in the correlative mode of cosmic sensibility, at a less (relative to least) evolved manifestation of it in winged seed-pods on trees, or certain taller trees, in the correlative mode of natural sensibility, at a more (relative to most) evolved manifestation of it in transcendental meditation in the correlative mode of human sensibility, or (to anticipate the future) at a most evolved - and therefore arguably per se - manifestation of it in the synthetically artificial transcendentalism of the correlative mode of cyborg sensibility, as one ranges from a least freely psychic manifestation of metaphysical sensibility to its most freely psychic manifestation via less (relative to least) and more (relative to most) freely psychic manifestations of such godly sensibility, a sensibility of ultimate egotistical taking that has one motive and one motive alone, and that is to transcend ego in soul and achieve a heavenly redemption of the self in the supreme beingfulness of timeless bliss.

 

59.  Therefore the idea that God somehow has something to do with creating the world and all the planets and everything in the Galaxy and even the Universe (to use a term that takes a godly, or universal, actuality into a realm where, even when it exists, it is vastly overshadowed by what pertains, stellar-wise, to Devil the Mother and thus to metachemical sensuality as more typifying what is, in fact, the polyversal nature of the cosmos in general) is so pathetically far from the truth of what God is and how He evolves through successive life stages or actualities (from cosmic and natural to human and cyborg) as to be a crime against religion and, hence, God.  It is the original crime that the Jews not least did to religion by putting a cosmically sensual first mover in the role of God and extrapolating the false and pernicious notion of Creation from that root cause, so that everything refers back and is subordinated to the stellar Lie, including, needless to say, the solar 'fallen angel' which, as Satan or Lucifer, became 'fall guy' for denigration as the Devil.

 

60.  People who have bothered to read my texts will know that I am as contrary to that Lie as it is supra-humanly possible to be, and that wherever perpendicular triangularity exists, no matter in what stage of devolution, there, too, exists the Lie of the original crime against Truth or at least, with due respect to the comparative paucity or fragility of truth in terms of cosmic and/or natural modes of metaphysical sensibility ever compromised by an objective predominance in the Cosmos and Nature as a whole, to the possibility of Truth.

 

61.  So, of course, the Lie exists not only in relation to Hinduism and Judaism, its polytheistic (sic) and monotheistic (sic) manifestations, but, by extrapolation, in all forms of Christian fundamentalism and post-Christian materialism, of which the American variety is not the least salient in the contemporary world.

 

62.  And in all cases the lie of this original crime against the possibility of truth, which sensually pegs metaphysics to an antimetaphysical inversion of itself in secondary free soma as 'fall guy for slag' which I have described as the Antison of Antigod, effectively places a taboo on what I have elsewhere in my texts called an anti-cupidian thrust from the sensuality of time (sequential) to the sensibility of space (spaced), so that, disowning the god-over-devil delusion of the original crime, one opts for salvation or, at any rate, deliverance from metaphysical sensuality to metaphysical sensibility, as from the Antison of Antigod to God the Father, secondary free soma to primary free psyche, and thus for the possibility of Heaven the Holy Soul as the salvation, or redemption, of God as and when ego is eclipsed by soul in respect of the divine consciousness having opted to merge itself into the bound will and bound spirit of the metaphysically sensible not-selves of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, viz. lungs and breath at the human stage of metaphysical evolution (though the actual context of 'Kingdom Come' would be rather more synthetically artificial and therefore sensibly cyborg in character), only to recoil from the threat of self-annihilation posed by the out-breath of holy spirit ... to self more profoundly ... as holy soul.

 

63.  That (to jump over the cosmic and natural stages of godly behaviour in respect of objectively-compromised metaphysical sensibility), is what happens on the human level, a necessarily upper-class (divine) male level of religious devotion not characteristic of either the Middle East or the West traditionally, and therefore if not beyond both, then certainly above and posterior or contrary to whatever worshipful subversion or negation of God has elsewhere prevailed.

 

64.  But in England, where the Church, necessarily false in its want of bureaucratic-theocratic axial orientation, is either Puritan and subordinate to the parliamentary state or Anglican and subordinate to the monarchic state, both of which more typify the autocratic-democratic axis, state values, not surprisingly, have tended to eclipse religious ones, and therefore Britain, under English control, has tended to recoil from anything genuinely religious in the interests of state freedom, the sort of freedom which, when it doesn't take a democratic turn, is manifestly autocratic in character and apt to defer, in consequence, to the more actively autocratic forms of secularity typifying contemporary America as the secular form of perpendicular triangularity par excellence.

 

65.  In such fashion is Britain's native reluctance to be drawn further into Europe granted an additional incentive to distance itself from what its conservative spokesmen like to regard as a Social Democratic threat to British liberal democratic interests, but what is really a bureaucratic-theocratic threat to an axis that, with the exception of America, is almost uniquely British and ill-qualified, in consequence of its empirical bent, to take a road that may well lead, eventually, to the enhanced rationalistic subjectivity - or, in plain parlance, truth - of 'Kingdom Come'.

 

66.  Therefore Britain uses America as an excuse to maintain its distance, psychologically and socially, from Europe, including Eire (which is usually ignored as though it, together with its uniquely metaphysical culture, didn't exist), and so long as Britain is typified by an autocratic conditioning and control of democracy it is difficult to the point of impossible to see any alternative behaviour on the part of Britain, which, even without American influence, would be at cultural loggerheads with most of Europe.

 

67.  Unfortunately, such autocratic-democratic opposition to Europe as Britain displays in any case is reinforced by the democratic autocracy, the dualistic autocracy of America, and thus further complicated, rendering Britain even more reactionary and partial to criteria having more to do with perpendicular triangularity than even with its own inverted triangularity, never mind the non-triangular self-oriented axial orientations of church hegemonic societies, in which psyche counts for more than soma.

 

68.  Therefore, the only solution to the problem of Britain or, more correctly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from a European standpoint, including that of Eire, is the development of a civilization which is not only commensurate with 'Kingdom Come' but which regards such an aspiration in the concrete terms, initially, of a Gaelic federation ... of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the Isle of Man, as described in previous texts, which is conceived not only with a view to developing a new and better religion than Christianity, but with a view to achieving a united Ireland on the basis of a federation of Ireland and Scotland and the Celtic, or Gaelic, countries in general, so that Irish unity is premised upon a new union in the British Isles which has the effect, bit by bit, country by country, of dismantling the United Kingdom, democratically and peaceably, and undermining the need or desirability of monarchy in proportion as a presidentially executive 'godkingship' is, so to speak, bureaucratically established in what becomes, following Judgement, or the paradoxical utilization of the state to a religiously sovereign end, a federation ... of Ireland, Scotland, etc., and the basis of both British opposition to the Continent and British fascination with America is proportionately undermined, if not entirely eradicated.

 

69.  For so long as Britain remains autocratically-democratically intact, it will not, whatever it says, be able to escape the implications of its state freedom and enter into partnership with those who would be capable of subordinating the State to the Church in what, with 'Kingdom Come', would be a Social-Theocratic development beyond bureaucratic-theocratic tradition and thus be the People's counterpart and ideological alternative to anything Social Democratic, which would be as hell on earth to the heavenly kingdom in which a religiously sovereign People - destined for ongoing cyborgization out of a post-human(ist) urban precondition - held sway for all eternity.

 

70.  Therefore it is not just for the sake of a united Ireland that I have conceived of a Gaelic federation, or even - though this is crucial - for the sake of ending the Catholic/Protestant distrust and antagonism which has schismatically bedevilled Christendom these past centuries, and ending it on the honourable basis of a religion which transcends both Protestantism and Catholicism alike without being simply a rehash of anything Eastern, but with the corollary of the democratic dismantlement of the United Kingdom as Ireland, both North and South, opts to put its differences behind it and join with Scotland and, hopefully, the Isle of Man and even Wales in the formation of a federation which will both enable the Celts to escape the autocratic-democratic clutches of England (the autocratic control of democracy always more characteristic of England than of anywhere else in the British Isles), and lead to the rejection of monarchy in England as its justification becomes increasingly tenuous in the absence of some or all of the Celtic countries, now federated, with good reason, along ideologically homogeneous lines.

 

71.  Thus, left to itself, England would have little choice, sooner or later, but to reject monarchism in favour of a republic, albeit a republic that was likely to form closer ties with the Roman Catholic Church and in which a newly disestablished Anglican Church would effectively draw closer to Rome and cease to live in the shadow of autocratic freedom, such bureaucratic freedom or, rather, paradoxical binding (to theocracy) as then obtained serving both to restrain democracy from the pitfalls of Social Democracy and to offer hope of theocratic redemption as and when the People drew closer to a bureaucratic-theocratic mean as the necessary precondition of Social Theocracy, whether in relation to our prospective Gaelic federation or, certain pro-Celtic parts of a devolved England notwithstanding, to the European Union in general, towards which England would inexorably be drawn as the obstacles to closer European integration 'withered away' in proportion to the decline and fall of autocracy - as much to be desired in respect of loosening, if not severing, ties with America as in forging closer ties with Europe.

 

72.  For as long as Britain remains characterized by a constitutional monarchy presiding over a parliamentary democracy, there is no prospect of that country escaping the malign influence of American autocracy and no likelihood of its accepting closer European integration.  Therefore it is crucial to progress both within these Isles and vis-à-vis Europe as a whole that Social Theocracy should democratically come to pass in Eire as a precondition of a Gaelic federation ... of Ireland, Scotland, etc., so that the way is prepared for the eventual dismantlement of the United Kingdom and an end to its autocratic subversion of the Gaels, whom England, having first divided, then contrived to rule in its own perverse interests.

 

73.  For democracy and autocracy hang together as two aspects of the same church-defying system, a system which, in Britain, resists true progress in the interests of an autocratically-based status quo from which democracy is a regression diagonally down an axis that allows for the punishment of crime but does not call the reality and right to existence of crime into question, least of all in respect of the freely autocratic state! 

 

74.  Only those who, esteeming neither Henry VIII nor Cromwell, do not subscribe to this moral and social aberration to anything like an English extent can be expected to join with the more overly bureaucratic-theocratic people of Eire in a struggle to liberate these islands of that very aberration which even now makes Britain a recalcitrant problem to her continental partners in the European Union and keeps her deferential to the United States, anxious, it may be, to resist Social Democracy but in no position to accept Social Theocracy and return from the state-hegemonic perversions of not-self to the church-hegemonic conversions to self.

 

75.  As noted earlier, whereas the autocratic-democratic axis which diagonally descends from crime to punishment is more about physical work and psychical work as manifestations of pro-notself and anti-notself behaviour, the bureaucratic-theocratic axis which diagonally ascends from sin to grace is more about physical play and psychical play as manifestations of anti-self and pro-self behaviour.

 

76.  Therefore the state-hegemonic realities of autocracy and democracy, ever ruled by (diabolic) female criteria in respect of crime and punishment, condition society to place an emphasis upon work at the expense of play, and generally tend to produce a work ethos which, in typically female fashion, is rather more of a curse than a blessing, particularly if and when Social Democratic criteria were to ensue upon liberal criteria and manual labour was resurrected as an 'ideal' in respect primarily of the blue-collar urban proletariat who become the pseudo-democratic equivalent to the slaves of free autocracies, except that their rulers are a pseudo-autocratic sensual elite all too ready to accuse them of anti-people crimes and to punish them through enforced labour.

 

77.  Naturally, the latter tends not to happen - at least on a grand scale - in long-established autocratic-democratic societies, who would have too much to lose from being displaced by Social Democratic usurpers who, in pseudo-autocratic fashion, punish the Many rather than the Few and brand the Many with crimes that traditionally would have been reserved, where applicable, for the Few.  But it has happened in countries which weren't even properly autocratic-democratic to begin with, and which paid the price of their naiveté at the hands of British-educated and/or influenced bourgeois malcontents and rebels whose political ambitions were greater than their political wisdom.

 

78.  And in relation to one form or another of Social Democracy not a few other countries became more autocratic than they might otherwise have been, even Social Autocratic, and simply reacted against radical democrats in a more blatantly criminal manner, punishing as 'crime' that which was really the refutation of crime but not, on that account, the solution to it.  For there is no solution to crime that comes from a punishing extrapolation from crime, but simply a perpetuation of crime and punishment on other, and usually inverted, terms.

 

79.  The only way to defeat crime is not through punishment, which crime itself legitimizes, but through a turning away from both crime and punishment, autocracy and democracy, in favour of bureaucracy and theocracy, sin and grace, with a view to the rejection of sin in grace and an end to both man and the world in consequence, a world-overcoming which has but one end in mind, and that is the otherworldly acceptance of 'Kingdom Come' as the necessary outcome to evolutionary progress, to progress conceived in relation, quite correctly, to a diagonal rise from bureaucracy to theocracy which has the capacity to culminate, through revolutionary transvaluation, in Social Theocracy.

 

80.  For the church-hegemonic realities of bureaucracy and theocracy, ever led by (divine) male criteria in respect of sin and grace, condition society to place an emphasis upon play at the expense of work, and generally tend to produce a play ethos which, in typically male fashion, is rather more of a blessing than a curse, particularly if and when Social Theocratic criteria were to ensue upon liberal criteria and psychical play was resurrected as an ideal in respect primarily of the white-collar urban proletariat who would then become the more genuinely theocratic successors to the priests of liberal theocracy who would have verbally forgiven sin, but not encouraged grace in respect of transcendental meditation. 

 

81.  Therefore from being sinners in Roman Catholicism the People would become graceful in Social Theocracy, graceful to the extent of a synthetically artificial approach to transcendentalism which was not only beyond transcendental meditation but genuinely otherworldly in relation to 'Kingdom Come' and the 'resurrection of the dead' which, in relation to the Afterlife, was the eternal purpose and justification of such a Kingdom. 

 

82.  Whereas Social Democracy criminalizes the People and punishes them through physical work, thereby resurrecting the hell of pro-notself behaviour at the expense of the anti-notself behaviour typifying the psychically-oriented 'world' of the democratically punishing, Social Theocracy would be determined to gracefully ennoble the People and deliver them from sin through psychical play, which is the mode of play according with pro-self behaviour in contrast to any anti-self behaviour typifying the physically-oriented 'world' of the bureaucratically sinful.  

 

83.  Far from reducing life in Social Democratic fashion to the lowest-common-denominator of physical work, Social Theocracy would be determined to elevate life to the highest-uncommon-denominator of psychical play, thereby reflecting that it issues, in evolutionary vein, from a diagonally rising axis of bureaucracy-theocracy rather than from a diagonally falling axis of autocracy-democracy which was always going to be more devolutionary in respect of hegemonic female criteria.

 

84.  Such a theocratic/democratic distinction between the two types of left-wing People's ideology has been characterized, if rather politically, in terms of white- and blue-collar proletarians; though this is of course only one of a number of alternative approaches to the problem, not the least of which would be to underline the ethnic division between Catholics and Protestants, or the tribal division between Celts and Anglo-Saxons, or even the topographical division at the back of everything else  between highlanders and lowlanders, the airy and the earthy. 

 

85.  No one set of terminological referents is wholly satisfactory, since there are always a number of factors at large which have to be accounted for, and although I have often made mention of urban proletarians in recent texts, and even identified them with a largely atheistic disposition vis-à-vis the 'old gods' of the Christian and even pre-Christian pantheon, I have not been so politically reductionist as to exclude the underlying influence of their religious traditions which render even the most seemingly secular of proletarians accountable to some denominational persuasion, whether Catholic or Protestant, or what have you, which enables us to distinguish church-hegemonic societies from church-subordinate societies and, correlatively, state-subordinate societies from state-hegemonic societies, with those in the former contexts bureaucratic-theocratic and those in the latter ones autocratic-democratic.

 

86.  No more than the proletariat, whether white- or blue-collar, came to pass in a void that had no basis in tradition, does tradition cease to apply in even the most radical of proletarians, whether we conceive of that tradition primarily in religious or ethnic or racial, or whatever terms.  We are the sum of all past generations, and we carry our inheritance, for better or worse, with us at all times. 

 

87.  He who tries to reduce life to a blank page upon which any claim can be written so long as it appears to lead to a desired end is guilty of confusing literature with life!  Life is ever more complicated and comprehensively exacting than literature, and when literature is mature enough to realize as much, it ceases to criminally strive to dominate life from the narrow standpoint of selected fact, but comes rather gracefully to understand it in the interests of truth, which is ever the refutation of fact and the beginning of life of a higher and deeper order, an inner order which owes more to self than to not-self, and thus to psyche than to soma.

 

88.  Thus (to repeat) far from reducing life, in Social Democratic fashion, to the lowest-common-ideological-denominator of physical work, Social Theocracy, stemming from a contrary and more self-oriented axis, will strive to elevate life to the highest-uncommon-ideological-denominator of psychical play, thereby freeing proletarianism from the clutches of humanism as transcendentalist criteria increasingly prevail in the interests of graceful redemption. 

 

89.  Frankly I have not in the past tended to identify the urban proletariat with humanism but, rather, conceived of them in post-human(ist) terms as that which, in the synthetic artificiality of its urban characteristics, was closest to a cyborg actuality and futurity without being consciously aware of or committed to such a destiny, and precisely because it still languished, whether officially or unofficially, under the humanistic influence of both the capitalistic bourgeoisie and their socialistic offshoots along the autocratic-democratic axis whose ideological persuasion is such as to dissuade people from thinking in theocratic terms, least of all in relation to the doctrine that man is something that should be overcome ... in the interests of God.

 

90.  In fact, so much is this narrowly humanistic approach to the proletariat still taken for granted in England, that mention of someone's being left-wing automatically confers a radical democratic association upon that person whether in parliamentary or, more usually, extra-parliamentary terms.  For the autocratic-democratic axis leads nowhere else but down, down towards a Social Democratic nadir, and such a nadir, no matter how radically conceived, is still couched - and in the nature of things democratic can only be couched - in humanistic terms, with a consequence that proletarianism itself is reduced, in Marxist vein, to a narrowly humanistic conception as a logical extrapolation from bourgeois humanism.

 

91.  And yet even English proletarians, quite apart from the large numbers of urbanized people in England who are not English, are more usually post-humanist in their synthetic artificiality and refusal to identify too closely with criteria that would reduce life to the rule of man and the persistence of mere physical criteria, not least in respect of work.  There is ever a shadow bureaucratic-theocratic axis at play in England, especially where Catholics are concerned, and such an axis points upwards, towards the godly transcendence of 'the world', with particular reference to that aspect of it which, in paradoxically vegetative fashion, is more characterized by sin than by (watery) punishment and thus by nominally hegemonic women than by nominally hegemonic men, albeit the women are still subject to criteria extrapolated from a theocratic hegemony characterized, in (divine) male vein, by airy grace, and have their not-self affirming chemical mean antiphysically subverted in consequence.

 

92.  Therefore to conceive of left-wing progress solely in democratic terms, which in any case are doubtfully progressive, is the mark of a humanistic limitation, reminiscent of Sartre, which owes nothing to bureaucracy-theocracy and much if not everything to autocracy-democracy, and such a conception can only appear woefully misguided from a genuinely progressive standpoint, in which the Nietzschean notion that man is something that should be overcome is given a transcendentalist twist commensurate with the acceptance of a radically new approach to the metaphysical sensibility of godliness, as of God, and the concomitant possibility of divine grace, a possibility to which the post-human(ist) urban proletariat should be capable of responding as and when they are made aware of their true destiny and come, with judgement, to a decision, democratically mandated, as to whether they wish to remain subordinate to humanistic, not to mention nonconformist, criteria or elect for the cyborg transcendentalism of 'Kingdom Come', in which they would have rights proportionate to religious sovereignty and be able, within an increasingly cyborg-oriented framework, to develop self and/or constrain not-self in the interests of salvation, which is, above all, deliverance from ego to soul with a view to the achievement of heavenly bliss.

 

93.  Of course, I have never conceived of 'Kingdom Come' solely in relation to transcendentalism, to godliness; for much as that may constitute the top tier of our projected triadic Beyond it would have less applicability to the middle and bottom tiers, to tiers primarily reserved for people of Anglican and Puritan descent who, released from the governing clutches of fundamentalist and humanist elites within their respective churches, would revert to a sort of secondary mode of transcendentalism tempered, in representative vein, by transmuted humanist and nonconformist criteria in respect of 'vegetative' and 'watery' shortfalls from an airy per se, as discussed in a number of earlier texts. 

 

94.  I shall not repeat myself all over again, but the reader should have some idea, by now, as to what I am getting at, as to the fact that I am alluding to Irish or Celtic Protestants vis-à-vis their Catholic counterparts within the triadic Beyond, which would have to be served by an antibureaucratic administrative aside responsible for safeguarding the religiously sovereign interests and rights of the People in relation, primarily, to transcendentalism, and thus to the lead of genuinely godly criteria, which would be committed, in synthetically artificial fashion, to the salvation of God in Heaven, as of the metaphysical ego in the metaphysical soul, or truth in joy.

 

95.  Therefore 'Kingdom Come' is conceived within a pluralistic framework which takes what is there to be taken from the pluralistic status quo of multi-denominational proletarianism and moulds it to a Social Transcendentalist mean itself subdivided into various tiers and, as the reader may recall, subsections relative to both gender and class (of male).  In overall terms, the triadic Beyond may be proletarian, or conceived with respect to the urban majority of any given society, but there is a sort of class hierarchy between blue- and white-collar proletarians at every level, as between chemical females in the bottom subsection of all tiers, physical males in the middle subsection of all tiers, and metaphysical males in the top subsection of all tiers, as different approaches to transcendentalism, both in relation to any given elemental position and as filtered through humanist (in the case of physical males) or nonconformist (in the case of females) shortfalls from it which would nevertheless be expected to defer to the overall lead of transcendentalism, as germane to metaphysics and thus to the metaphysical elites, with particular reference to the transcendentalist per se in the top tier of the triadic Beyond.

 

96.  To me, a proletarian hierarchy arranged on something approximating to the above description is not classless, even if the comparative absence of bourgeois, clerical, and feudal criteria relative to plutocrats, meritocrats, and aristocrats would qualify the triadic Beyond, ever characterized by a theocratic utilization of technocracy to a graceful end, for some such recognition in classical Marxist or Social Democratic estimations.

 

97.  I, however, do not think like a classical Marxist or anything else democratically left-wing, and therefore I am not prepared to consider anything to be genuinely classless until there is nothing but what most pertains to transcendentalism, and therefore to God and Heaven, left of what remains to 'Kingdom Come' when once it becomes truly godly and heavenly, as it should do eventually, after many decades if not centuries (within the overall framework of eternity) of fine-tuning, so to speak, the triadic Beyond and administrative aside towards a more totalitarian end, a goal set not on earth centres but in space centres some distance above the earth where transcendentalism would peak in respect of the attainment of the Beyond to its maximum grace and holiness, its maximum truth and joy in the timeless bliss of eternity.

 

98.  Therefore classlessness when once all pluralism has been overcome in the interests of a divine oneness, a divine unity of God and Heaven, as the culmination point of 'Kingdom Come' when once the Beyond ceases to be triadic, or even duadic, but becomes blissfully monadic, blissfully at one with itself in relation to God and Heaven, or, more correctly, to the transcendence of God in Heaven. 

 

99.  Therefore eternal classlessness as the outcome, the culmination, of 'Kingdom Come', and only comparatively germane to our projected triadic Beyond as the starting point, in proletarian transcendentalism (as post-humanism would have become by then), of what lies beyond the class-bound world of both bourgeois humanism and clerical nonconformism and/or feudal fundamentalism, not to mention their secular counterparts in naturalism, realism and materialism, to which the idealism of the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond would appear no less classless than anything properly transcendentalist.

 

100. It could be argued, in church/state vein, that the chemical mean (compromised by antiphysical factors) of worldly sin and pseudo-punishment is thus divisible between the nonconformism of a hegemonic church and the realism of a subordinate state in which meritocratic criteria appertaining to bureaucracy obtain, whereas the metaphysical mean (compromised by antimetachemical factors) of otherworldly grace and pseudo-crime is likewise divisible between the transcendentalism of a hegemonic church and the idealism of a subordinate state in which technocratic criteria appertaining to theocracy obtain.

 

101. Conversely, it could be argued, in state/church vein, that the metachemical mean (compromised by antimetaphysical factors) of netherworldly crime and pseudo-grace is thus divisible between the materialism of a hegemonic state and the fundamentalism of a subordinate church in which aristocratic criteria appertaining to autocracy obtain, whereas the physical mean (compromised by antichemical factors) of worldly punishment and pseudo-sin is likewise divisible between the naturalism of a hegemonic state and the humanism of a subordinate church in which plutocratic criteria appertaining to democracy obtain.

 

102. Therefore it can be maintained that no less than meritocratic realism will be subordinate to nonconformism in chemical bureaucracy, so technocratic idealism will be subordinate to transcendentalism in metaphysical theocracy, as church hegemonic criteria take precedence over the State.

 

103. Likewise it can be maintained that no less than aristocratic fundamentalism will be subordinate to materialism in metachemical autocracy, so plutocratic humanism will be subordinate to naturalism in physical democracy, as state hegemonic criteria take precedence over the Church.

 

104. Therefore while the bureaucratic-theocratic axis will primarily be characterized by nonconformism and transcendentalism, as by genuine sin and grace, and only secondarily by realism and idealism, as by pseudo-punishment and pseudo-crime, the autocratic-democratic axis will primarily be characterized by materialism and naturalism, as by genuine crime and punishment, and only secondarily by fundamentalism and humanism, as by pseudo-grace and pseudo-sin.

 

105. Either way, the rising diagonal will pass from the nonconformism of anti-self behaviour to the transcendentalism of pro-self behaviour in church hegemonic terms, with the subordinate state characterized by anti-notself and pro-notself behaviours of a pseudo order, as though in a pseudo-punishing and pseudo-criminal retort to the hegemonic existences of genuine sin and grace.

 

106. Contrariwise the falling diagonal will pass from the materialism of pro-notself behaviour to the naturalism of anti-notself behaviour in state hegemonic terms, with the subordinate church characterized by pro-self and anti-self behaviours of a pseudo order, as though in a pseudo-graceful and pseudo-sinful retort to the hegemonic existences of genuine crime and punishment.

 

107. Reduced to its primary components, the rising diagonal of bureaucracy-theocracy will proceed from the nonconformism of anti-self behaviour to the transcendentalism of pro-self behaviour, while the falling diagonal of autocracy-democracy will proceed or, more correctly, recede from the materialism of pro-notself behaviour to the naturalism of anti-notself behaviour, so that an ecclesiastic/secular dichotomy may be inferred as distinguishing the two axes - the rising axis in which the self takes precedence over the not-self and the falling axis in which, by contrast, the not-self takes precedence over the self.

 

108. One could illustrate this dichotomy by citing a motor-racing analogue between sidecar-motorbikes in respect of anti-self and superbikes in respect of the self, the former arguably bureaucratic, the latter their theocratic counterparts in what amounts to a more self-oriented context, or a context simply closer to self, much as we determined, in an earlier text, that vests were closer to self than muscle shirts, whereas the autocratic-democratic axis rather calls for a distinction between formula one-type racing cars and saloon-car races, the former arguably pro-notself in their objective bodily orientation, the latter no-less arguably anti-notself in respect of a more subjective, or roofed-in, bodily orientation which would accord with a democratic as opposed to an autocratic disposition, one paralleled, we argued, by tee-shirts as opposed to rugby shirts.

 

109. Be that as it may, the concrete-track and therefore quintessentially proletarian distinction between sidecar bikes and superbikes on the one hand, and racing cars and saloon cars on the other is such that calls to mind our original dichotomy between psyche and soma, self and not-self, mind and body, sin and grace in respect of the rising axis of bureaucracy-theocracy and crime and punishment in respect of the falling axis of autocracy-democracy, and in such contrasts we may detect the underlying influence of either church hegemonic societies and traditions, as in the case of bikes, or state hegemonic societies and traditions, as in the case of cars, with slang implications which contrast 'cunts' and 'bums' in relation, primarily, to 'fucking' and 'snogging' (church hegemonic) self-oriented norms with their rather more not-self oriented 'prick' and 'jerk' counterparts for whom 'sodding' and 'frigging' are the more appropriate (state hegemonic) verbal expletives or descriptions.

 

110. There was a time, to be sure, when I would have questioned the applicability of such expletives or verbal definitions right across the political/religious board, as it were, from state to church, maintaining that only the state-oriented actualities warranted such qualifications or denigrations.  But time has left such philosophical uncertainty in the lurch; for I have been able, in recent texts, to show that church hegemonic societies can be primarily distinguished from state hegemonic ones in terms of reference to either 'fucking' or 'snogging' in the one case, that of the bureaucratic-theocratic axis, or 'frigging' or 'sodding' in the other case, that of the autocratic-democratic axis, and that just as the bureaucratic church/state is typified by 'cunts', whether 'fucking' or 'sodding', and the theocratic church/state by 'bums', whether 'snogging' or 'frigging', the former in each context church hegemonic and the latter their subordinate state corollaries, so the autocratic state/church is typified by 'jerks', whether 'frigging' or 'snogging', and the democratic state/church by 'pricks', whether 'sodding' or 'fucking', the former in each context state hegemonic and the latter their subordinate church corollaries.

 

111. Therefore there is no excuse for not applying such verbal expletives where applicable; for the church is as subject to 'fucking' and/or 'snogging' actualities as the state to 'frigging' and/or 'sodding' ones, albeit one must carefully distinguish the application of church-oriented terms like 'fucking' and 'snogging' to 'cunts' and 'bums' from their application to 'pricks' and 'jerks' where, far from being germane to genuine sin and grace in respect of bureaucracy and theocracy, they pertain to pseudo-sin and pseudo-grace in respect of democracy and autocracy or, more correctly, to Puritan and Anglican church-subordinate definitions relative to parliamentary and monarchic state hegemonies.

 

112. Conversely one must carefully distinguish the application of state-oriented terms like 'frigging' and 'sodding' to 'jerks' and 'pricks' from their application to 'bums' and 'cunts' where, far from being germane to genuine crime and punishment in respect of autocracy and democracy, they pertain to pseudo-crime and pseudo-punishment in respect of theocracy and bureaucracy or, more correctly, to Centrist and Republican state-subordinate definitions relative, if I may be so bold, to Social Transcendentalist and Roman Catholic church hegemonies, the former of course appertaining to what would supersede Roman Catholicism in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty which had been conducted within the republican context towards a Centrist end in which the service of a more genuine theocracy would be the principal concern, as germane, I have argued, to 'Kingdom Come', a theocracy not intermediate between man and God in terms of a transcendentalized humanism, nor even pertaining to the humanized transcendentalism of the practitioners of transcendental meditation, but rather indicative of a post-human(ist) or, rather, cyborg-oriented transcendentalism which would - space centre mortuaries notwithstanding - effectively 'resurrect the dead' in terms of a synthetically artificial approach to afterlife-type experience which was beyond anything Buddhist in character and certainly able to transcend the ego more effectively in the interests of the soul, that raison d'être of true religious experience, even if lesser concerns and commitments would continue to be honoured for quite some time in respect of the overall pluralism of our projected triadic Beyond, which would have to deal not only with Catholics and Protestants but also with males and females, as already described.

 

113. However that may be, the application of terms like 'snogging' to the theocratic church and 'frigging' to the theocratic or, rather, technocratic state, is logically sustainable and not something I would now consider irrelevant or impertinent, even if one must carefully distinguish 'snogging' in relation to 'bums' from 'snogging' in relation to 'jerks' and, conversely, 'frigging' in relation to 'jerks' from 'frigging' in relation to 'bums', so that there is no confusion between the genuine expression and pseudo-impression, genuine grace and pseudo-crime, in respect of 'bums' and the genuine impression and pseudo-expression, genuine crime and pseudo-grace, of their upper-class, or noumenal, counterparts, who, as 'jerks', are rather more metachemical, in terms of free soma, than metaphysical, in terms of free psyche.

 

114. Likewise one must carefully distinguish 'fucking' in relation to 'cunts' from 'fucking' in relation to 'pricks' and, conversely, 'sodding' in relation to 'pricks' from 'sodding' in relation to 'cunts', so that there is no confusion between the genuine impression and pseudo-expression, genuine sin and pseudo-punishment, in respect of 'cunts' and the genuine expression and pseudo-impression, genuine punishment and pseudo-sin, of their lower-class, or phenomenal, counterparts, who, as 'pricks', are rather more physical, in terms of free psyche, than chemical, in terms of free soma; albeit such free psyche is no less tempered by female criteria in regard to punishment than the free soma of chemistry by male criteria in regard to sin, as already described in relation to the paradoxical hegemonic influences of autocratic crime in the one case and theocratic grace in the other.

 

115. For the autocratic-democratic and/or aristocratic-plutocratic axis is, of course, based in the free soma of not-self, for which impression is always more genuine, in state-hegemonic vein, than expression, whereas the bureaucratic-democratic and/or meritocratic-technocratic axis is centred in the free psyche of self, for which expression is always more genuine, in church-hegemonic vein, than impression.

 

116. Thus we contrast the genuine crime of metachemical impression with the pseudo-grace of metachemical pseudo-expression in respect of autocratic state freedom and aristocratic church binding, the free will of 'frigg*** jerks' and the bound soul of 'snogg*** jerks', whose pseudo-grace, being fundamentally evil, is bound to crime.

 

117. Thus we contrast the genuine grace of metaphysical expression with the pseudo-crime of metaphysical pseudo-impression in respect of theocratic church freedom and technocratic state binding, the free soul of 'snogg*** bums' and the bound will of 'frigg*** bums', whose pseudo-crime, being idealistically wise, is bound to grace.

 

118. Thus we contrast the genuine punishment of physical expression with the pseudo-sin of physical pseudo-impression in respect of democratic state freedom and plutocratic church binding, the free ego of 'sodd*** pricks' and the bound spirit of 'fuck*** pricks', whose pseudo-sin, being humanistically good (modest), is bound to punishment.

 

119. Thus we contrast the genuine sin of chemical impression with the pseudo-punishment of chemical pseudo-expression in respect of bureaucratic church freedom and meritocratic state binding, the free spirit of 'fuck*** cunts' and the bound ego of 'sodd*** cunts', whose pseudo-punishment, being realistically foolish, is bound to sin.

 

120. One can no more expect a hegemonic state in relation to bureaucracy-theocracy than a hegemonic church in relation to autocracy-democracy.  On the contrary, only a subordinate state in respect of meritocracy-technocracy in the one case, and a subordinate church in respect of aristocracy-plutocracy in the other case. 

 

121. In regard to the state-hegemonic materialism/church-subordinate fundamentalism of autocracy/aristocracy, the 'cowpuss' of metachemical impression in relation to the free will of 'frigg*** jerks' would contrast with the 'cowgas' of metachemical pseudo-expression in relation to the bound soul of 'snogg*** jerks'.

 

122. In regard to the church-hegemonic transcendentalism/state-subordinate idealism of theocracy/technocracy, the 'bullgas' of metaphysical expression in relation to the free soul of 'snogg*** bums' would contrast with the 'bullpuss' of metaphysical pseudo-impression in relation to the bound will of 'frigg*** bums'.

 

123. In regard to the state-hegemonic naturalism/church-subordinate humanism of democracy/plutocracy, the 'bullshit' of physical expression in relation to the free ego of 'sodd*** pricks' would contrast with the 'bullpiss' of physical pseudo-impression in relation to the bound spirit of 'fuck*** pricks'.

 

124. In regard to the church-hegemonic nonconformism/state-subordinate realism of bureaucracy/meritocracy, the 'cowpiss' of chemical impression in relation to the free spirit of 'fuck*** cunts' would contrast with the 'cowshit' of chemical pseudo-expression in relation to the bound ego of 'sodd*** cunts'.

 

125. My intention in composing the above notes has not been to shock or wound but to outline, in the most comprehensively exacting terms, the distinctions between the four main elemental contexts, and to show that no one type of terminology is applicable to each and every context, that each context has to be treated on its own merits, whether in terms of state hegemonic and church subordinate criteria or, conversely, of church hegemonic and state subordinate criteria.

 

126. Those who can understand and level with this are capable of truth or, at the very least, of respecting truth.  Those who can't understand it but shy away from it in shock or disbelief will be incapable of truth and could not be expected to respect it in consequence - something for which one must have the necessary width and depth of mind as occasioned by a bias for freedom conceived in psychic as opposed to somatic terms.

 

127. I have no doubt that those who are instrumental in upholding both autocratic-democratic state hegemonies and aristocratic-plutocratic church subordinations to such hegemonies, being materialistically and naturalistically genuine in not-self or fundamentalistically and humanistically false to self, will be incapable of appreciating or respecting such conclusions and would be likely, in defence of vested interests or the status quo, to ignore or reject them.

 

128. On the other hand, I am quietly optimistic that those who are instrumental in upholding both bureaucratic-theocratic church hegemonies and meritocratic-technocratic state subordinations to such hegemonies, being nonconformistically and transcendentalistically true to self or realistically and idealistically false in not-self, will be capable of appreciating and respecting such conclusions and would be likely, in the interests of genuine progress, to accept and further them.

 

129. Therefore the judgement, to all intents and purposes, has already been made; for it is as unlikely that those who uphold a hegemonic state would encourage a vote for religious sovereignty as it is that those who are habituated to a hegemonic church would seek to extend political sovereignty at its expense or, more to the point, oppose the concept and promise of religious sovereignty, which is what would alone guarantee, in the event of a majority mandate, the legitimacy and institutional development of 'Kingdom Come' as a context characterized by such sovereignty and by the rights that would accrue to it, including the right to expand godliness and heavenliness independently not only of cosmic impedimenta, whether genuinely godly/heavenly or (more usually) otherwise, but also of natural and human impedimenta, thereby bringing metaphysical sensibility to a peak of evolution not only at the expense of earlier stages of its evolution in relation to the Cosmos, nature, or man, but at the expense of everything less than or contrary to such sensibility, which includes, aside from the physical, such sensually hegemonic factors as typify, in free will and/or spirit, both metachemical and chemical realities.

 

130. For, ultimately, we who strive for 'Kingdom Come' are concerned less with free will, free spirit, or free ego than with bound will, bound spirit, free ego, and, above all, free soul, which can only be truly free when everything else is subordinated to its lead, not least in the metaphysically sensible context itself, which requires that such free ego as truthfully exists in relation to God the Father should subordinate itself to the timeless joy (bliss) of free soul in Heaven the Holy Soul via the bound will of the Son of God and the bound spirit of the Holy Spirit of Heaven, whose truthful approach to beauty and joyful approach to love in bound soma should ensure that the correlative beauty and love of Antidevil the Antimother and Antihell the Unclear Spirit will permit of a beautiful approach to truth on the part of the Antidaughter of the Antidevil and a loving approach to joy on the part of the Unclear Soul of Antihell as the secondary free psychic complements to the primary psychic freedom of truth and joy which proclaims the lead of God and Heaven for all eternity in what, increasingly, will be synthetically artificial contexts of transcendentalism and antifundamentalism which will tower above what remains of humanism, duly modified, and antinonconformism until such time as, with the dawn of a more perfect totalitarianism, nothing but God in Heaven remains to proclaim the Blissful Oneness not merely of a Beingfulness Supreme but of the Most Supreme Beingfulness there could ever be - the Beingfulness of Ultimate Universality.

 

131. For there is no more merely one mode of supreme being than one mode of primal being, or antibeing, but stages of supreme being which evolve with metaphysical sensibility from cosmic heaven to cyborg heaven via natural and human heavens, as from the least universal supreme being of Heaven the Holy Soul in the Cosmos to the most universal supreme being of Heaven the Holy Soul in the Cyborg via the less (relative to least) universal supreme being of Heaven the Holy Soul in nature and the more (relative to most) universal supreme being of Heaven the Holy Soul in humankind, as beingful supremacy evolves through successive stages of heavenly unfolding towards a synthetically artificial peak which is not compromised by polyversal primacy (analytic naturalness), impersonal primacy (synthetic naturalness), or personal supremacy (analytic artificiality) to anything like the same extent as before, but is able to assert its own universal supremacy - a value always characterizing the metaphysically sensible - independently of either polyversally powerful, impersonally glorious, or personally formal obstacles to universal contentment.  In such circumstances, supreme being would be truly supreme!

 

LONDON 2003 (Revised 2004-10)

 

 

UNFLATTERING CONCLUSIONS

 

 

Support independent publishing: Buy this e-book on Lulu.

 

Bookmark and Share