THE RISE OF THEOCRATIC CENTRISM
Just as philosophy, fiction, and poetry are three branches of literature corresponding, one could argue, to three parallel spectra; and sculpture, painting, and drawing are three branches of art likewise corresponding to three parallel spectra; and ballet, the symphony, and the concerto are three branches of classical music whose correspondence to three parallel spectra is no less evident, so authoritarianism, parliamentarianism, and totalitarianism are three branches of politics, as different from each other as any of the above-named branches but, nevertheless, related by a common family tie, so to speak, to political evolution. To return to our spectrum analogy, one could speak of authoritarianism as autocratic, parliamentarianism as democratic, and totalitarianism as theocratic, indicative, in their different ways, of a progression from the Father to the Holy Spirit via the Son. Politics and religion are not entirely separate, as might at first appear to be the case, but are really two aspects of the same thing, politics being the practical application of a religious premise, the ordering of human society according to the criteria of religious precedent.
Thus in its first, or royalist, stage of evolution, politics is autocratic, reflecting the 'divine order' of the Creator and His 'fallen angels', establishing on earth an equivalent to the galactic-world-order, in which the monarch functions as the human equivalent of the central star of the Galaxy and thereby rules over both a nobility, corresponding to peripheral stars, and a populace, corresponding to planets, who are enslaved to monarch and nobility alike, owing allegiance to both, though particularly to the feudal baron, lord, or whatever, who directly rules over them and thus holds them within a solar system-like integrity. He comes in-between the peasantry and their monarch, free to rule the former as he thinks fit but owing direct allegiance to the latter, who rules by 'divine right', the personification on earth of the Creator, less truly divine, in any objectively omega-oriented (free-electron) sense, than archdiabolic, a more powerful ruler than the myriads of nobles who only correspond to minor stars, devil equivalents vis-ŕ-vis a demonic populace.
We see this same so-called 'divine order' at work in trees, where a trunk, corresponding to central star/monarch, is served by the branches, corresponding to peripheral stars/nobility, which in turn are served by the leaves, those planet/peasant equivalents which have no option but to slave for their differently-constituted masters, providing them with the nourishment they require to survive. A pedant could argue as to the exact solar/noble status of any given branch in the overall feudal hierarchy of a tree, but we need not go into such trifling details here! Suffice it to say that most of the larger branches would be equivalent to high-ranking nobles such as dukes and princes, most of the smaller ones, or those not immediately stemming from the trunk, equivalent to low-ranking nobles such as viscounts and barons. The eventual grading of nobles along more complex and variegated lines was a development presupposing a higher degree of civilization ... commensurate with a more advanced age, as the monarch moved out of his castle into a palace, and the lesser royals and/or nobility in general moved from their forts, or small castles, into country houses, or small palaces. In a strictly pagan society, this wouldn't have been possible or, indeed, credible. But with the rise of the Christian bourgeoisie and the development of parliamentarianism at the expense of authoritarianism, the status of the feudal classes was irrevocably changed, so their freedom to rule in an autocratic manner was curbed, the monarchy in due course becoming subject to greater constitutional constraint.
The emergence of parliamentarianism as a compromise, in effect, between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, the Father and the Holy Ghost, marked a shift from pseudo-pagan to properly Christian criteria, as democracy, in large measure derived from Protestant teachings as to human equality, supplanted autocracy, and the age of dualism, necessarily hostile to autocratic Roman Catholicism, was ushered in, placing due emphasis on compromise between disparate (in the main) bourgeois interests, and upholding the ethic of self-enrichment through hard work. Indeed, democracy was quintessentially ethical, concerned with the general good, usually interpreted in a commercial or utilitarian way, and thus was committed to human freedom, freedom, above all, from autocratic tyranny in order to pursue the Good rather than remain enslaved, as with feudal societies, to the Strong, whether natural or 'divine'.
Inevitably, democracy gave rise to industry and furthered the growth of urbanization, which, at first, was highly ugly. Centred in the ethics of equality and a faith in the ability of human effort to overcome natural obstacles, it necessarily favoured the artificial, one might even say the transcendental; though the theory and practical implementation of Christian teachings weren't always consonant, the industrious bourgeois rarely averse to putting practice above theory, private enrichment before the general good, and to an extent that the former tended to eclipse the latter, making for a society where the toiling masses, far from sharing in the general wealth, were exploited and oppressed by their industrial masters to a degree not far short of the exploitation and oppression experienced by peasants in the age of feudal enslavement.
The bourgeoisie may have acknowledged a transcendental perspective, relative to Protestantism, but they remained firmly rooted in the mundane and were, to a degree, sympathetic towards feudal precedent. There was no moral rebirth with them, no clean break with the past, since capitalism is ever a mode of industrial feudalism, an artificial as opposed to a natural form of exploitation. Just as Christ acknowledged the Father, so parliamentarians acknowledge royals, democracy being a kind of diluted autocracy, the bourgeoisie sharing power with the aristocracy, as symbolized by the distinction in England between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the bourgeoisie themselves divisible between capitalist and socialist interests, not to mention different shades of capitalism, as in the heyday of Tory/Liberal confrontation in Victorian times. As in Christ, so in parliamentarianism, everything must be divided, divisible, and divisive! Compromise is taken for the norm and, indeed, transformed into an ideal, not simply regarded as the best way of dealing with divisions but considered sacrosanct in itself - valid for all time!
Well, those who, as Bolshevik-styled communists, signify an extension of democracy into absolute channels ... don't think so, even though they pertain to the democratic spectrum and are themselves materialists, concerned with the ethical application to society of a proletarian humanism based on the teachings of Karl Marx, whose Communism is to pseudo-democracy what Protestantism was to democracy proper - namely the theoretical foundation for political action, Marx following on behind Christ as the Anti-Christ, state socialism no less anti-democratic, in the bourgeois atomic sense, than capitalism was pro-democratic, the means, one feels, to the overthrow of liberal democracy.
Yet not, on that account, the means to Transcendentalism, which appertains to the third and highest spectrum, the theocratic spectrum, as one that would seem to have played only a very secondary role throughout the age of parliamentarianism, theoretical influence notwithstanding, and only began to take an independent line with the rise of Fascism, an ideology biased towards Roman Catholicism but revolutionary and independent enough to signify, in the person of the Leader, a crude approximation to the Second Coming, the basis of a genuinely theocratic society in which religion becomes absolute, if on terms diametrically antithetical to the absolutism of its inception in various degrees and kinds of Creator-worship. Does not the leader of a fascist state personify divinity on terms the converse of the God-Kings of pagan antiquity?
Certainly, one would be hard-pressed to deny the divine status of the Leader in a fascist society, even if, in the late-stage petty-bourgeois context to which we are of course alluding, this status is less than a truly objective intimation of the Holy Ghost and more like a representation of the Father, given its quasi-autocratic implications. But fascism and royalism are really antithetical, and if sovereignty is vested in the Monarch in an autocratic society, the ruler equivalent to the Father there, then it is most assuredly vested in the Leader in a theocratic society, who becomes the personification of the Holy Spirit, the leading embodiment of truth, an intimation of ultimate divinity. Only in a democratic society is sovereignty vested in the People, who are entitled to elect representatives to parliament who govern and/or serve on their behalf.
Early in the twentieth century, however, a further, even more radical example of the same kind of revolution occurred in Russia and, bearing in mind the progress of history towards an absolute age, it resulted in the eventual emergence of a People’s republic, necessarily proletarian in character and therefore beyond the bourgeois compromise of the French Revolution. Beyond a Soviet-type revolution history cannot go on the middle, or democratic, spectrum, pseudo-democracy being the ultimate form of democracy, where sovereignty is vested in the proletariat and a sort of dictatorial democracy ... of the proletariat ... prevails, the antithetical equivalent to the democratic dictatorship of the Cromwellian revolution. The only way forward after this is Fascism and its ideological successor in Social Transcendentalism, but this pertains to the top, or theocratic, spectrum and can only be hostile towards republicans of whatever degree, as sovereignty is vested in the Leader, who becomes dictator to the masses, a no-less absolute figure than the autocratic monarch of royalist times, because equivalent to God.
Thus a totalitarian society is inevitably anti-republican and anti-democratic, the Leader alone responsible for determining the course of evolution, and thereby leading from above, pulling the masses after him towards the post-Human Millennium, that stage in time when man will have been completely overcome and only the Supermen prevail, in the guise of brain collectivizations artificially supported and sustained, though not without human supervision and assistance from qualified technicians. Only in the second phase of this post-Human Millennium, when the old brain has been surgically removed from each Superman, would such technicians become superfluous, as the truly classless, free society of the Superbeings, or new-brain collectivizations, hypermeditated towards transcendence and thus the attainment of pure spirit (free electrons) to the post-Millennial Beyond.
All this is, of course, pertinent to Social Transcendentalism and therefore to the ideology propounded by the closest approximation on earth to the Second Coming. If Fascism was petty bourgeois in character, the crude beginnings of a theocratic society, then Social Transcendentalism is proletarian and, hence, absolute, the more objective ideology of the Second Coming for a post-democratic age, an age when real progress towards the post-Human Millennium can be made, as Social Transcendentalism strives to extend the top spectrum towards a theocratic absolutism, and thereby paves the way for universal civilization.
Pertaining to the tail-end of the middle spectrum, Communism simply isn't qualified to further progress towards the post-Human Millennium. Its concept of Millenniumism is necessarily subjective, envisaging not the supersession of men by post-human life forms, but a kind of global equalitarian society based on the ethics of proletarian humanism. In short, it lacks a capacity for truth, being an extension of ethics beyond bourgeois relativity to a kind of proletarian absolutism germane to People’s democracy. But such a relatively absolute phase of democracy cannot stretch into a genuinely proletarian age. There is only one way forward, and that is through Social Transcendentalism. For it is only the last stretch of the top spectrum which is truly absolute in character. The age of People’s republics, no less than that of bourgeois republics, will soon be a thing of the past. Tomorrow belongs to us!
London 1979-84 (Revised 1985-2012)