51. When I hear people singing the praises of
democracy, I metaphorically reach for my revolver. Such liberals are no use to the Second
52. I am one of those Irishmen for whom the Republic is an embarrassment. Political sovereignty can and must be superseded by religious sovereignty, if true theocratic progress is to be made!
53. Let's not speak of democratic progress; such
'progress' is for Antichristic fools, not for
Messianic wise! Any move in the
direction of a People's Republic, a socialist democracy, would take the true
Irish further away from God, which is to say, from the possibility of Messianic
Transcendentalism in due course. For
once you reach rock-bottom, so to speak, in the exclusive materialism of a
People's republic, there is no question of 'God building', by dint of the fact
that materialism is not contiguous with idealism but exists independently as an
autonomous absolute - the transmuted diabolism of an electron-particle
equivalent. Consequently the only
relevant move for the true Irish - who are, after all, a 'God's people' - is
towards superidealism from the realistic
liberal-republican status quo, which is still partial to idealism in some
degree. The Centre will exist embryonically within the
54. One thing of which the Irish must beware is
drawing superficial parallels between the contemporary fate of certain overseas
peoples and their own historical situation under British dominion. Sympathy for the Palestinian cause, for
example, is understandable but, to the extent that it overlooks
55. Of course, I do not favour the indefinite
survival of the Israeli State as such; for, to my mind, statehood is a
phenomenon historically limited in time and, if Israel is to become fully
redeemed, it should be democratically superseded by Centrism, that is to say,
by an Israeli Social Transcendentalist Centre, which would eventually become a
regional component of a federation of Social Transcendentalist Centres. The democratic state should not be regarded
as a permanent ideal but, rather, as a means to a higher end, one presupposing
a supra-national ideological integrity commensurate with true religion. How and when
56. As to Ireland, north and south, it is
understandable that various people should choose to see a parallel between the
Palestinian struggle for a homeland and the historical struggle waged by
certain sections of the Catholic people to free Ulster from British dominion,
since, on the surface, it would appear that both 'freedom struggles' are motivated
by identical circumstances, i.e. by the desire of an indigenous people to throw
out and free themselves from the domination of an imperialistic people. But, in reality, no such parallel exists,
since the Israelis are not imperialist usurpers but ... descendants of a people
driven out of their homeland by imperialists, and the Palestinians know, deep
down, that the Jews have an historical right to Israel. Whether they realize that the presence of a
Jewish state is of strategic importance in the development of an alternative
path to Islamic civilization ... is another thing; but it is evident that many
Irish people have yet to realize this, not least of all those sympathetic to
Irish nationalism, to the historical struggle of the Provisional IRA to eject
the British from Ulster in the name of a united Republican Ireland, and to them
organizations like the PLO and the IRA are pretty much equivalent
phenomena. Two wrongs don't make a
right, however, and a wrong view of
57. Just as the evolution of religion, or God, is divisible into approximately three stages, beginning with the Father, progressing to the Son, and culminating in the Holy Ghost, so a person's life is divisible into three evolutionary stages approximating to the aforementioned divisions, with youth corresponding to the Father, adulthood to the Son, and maturity, or old age, to the Holy Ghost, as though in confirmation of the fact that man's personal evolution leads from folly to wisdom via some atomic compromise coming in-between.... Which, if true, must have interesting political implications in an overall evolutionary spectrum stretching from monarchic autocracy to dictatorial theocracy via representative democracy - three stages of political evolution not only approximately corresponding to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost but, in some sense, to those generational divisions which appear to parallel them on both a personal and - dare I say it? - a historical basis. Thus not only would there appear to be a division, based on age, between folly and wisdom or, for that matter, the Father and the Holy Ghost, but age itself would appear to be divisible into political epochs, with youth most suited for autocracy, adulthood for democracy, and old age for theocracy. By which I do not mean to imply that a youth will necessarily be royalist and, by contrast, a mature person fascist, but, rather, that in an autocratic epoch youth is the ideal age for a ruler, in a democratic epoch adulthood is the ideal age for a representative, whilst in a theocratic epoch maturity is the ideal age for a leader. In other words, politics also comes of age by degrees and attains to maturity in theocracy, making it virtually obligatory that its transcendental equivalent (of the Holy Ghost) should be reflected in the maturity of the Leader. A young leader, then, in a properly Fascist or, preferably, Centrist society would be a contradiction in terms, as would an elderly ruler in a properly Royalist society of, say, pagan antiquity, when physical strength largely determined status. Nowadays even the democratic representatives of the People are, on average, bordering on if not actually in old age, as though in confirmation of a quasi-theocratic bias commensurate with the evolution of politics towards a serenely wise old age. Doubtless one may take it as axiomatic that the future attainment of politics to its climax and, in some sense, refutation in Social Transcendentalism ... will require the guidance of elderly men - though not so elderly, of course, that they are victims of senility! A youngish maturity would be more feasible.
58. Against and antithetical to dialectical materialism, with its crudely scientific view of history, I posit dialectical idealism, the 'theosophical' view which prophesies the inevitable triumph of Centrism over Socialism in a dialectics moving from a Transcendental Socialist thesis to a Social Transcendentalist antithesis, and then to a supertheocratic synthesis, albeit one more deriving from a purified Centrism than from a combination, as it were, of the two adversaries. Which may suggest that post-dialectical, or transcendental, idealism would be a more appropriate term than dialectical idealism. For the distinction is rather more between the Devil and God on the levels of the Antichrist and the Second Coming than between, say, the Devil and the world on the basis of a socialist opposition to the capitalist West.
59. Social Transcendentalism makes no claims to
being an exclusively working-class ideology.
For such an ideology - Marxism, Communism, Socialism, as you prefer -
will inevitably entail a glorification of work for the sake of work, and
thereby presuppose a reduction of society to the lowest-common-denominator of
proletarian materialism. As soon as you
side exclusively with the worker, you tend towards a dead-end of working-class
materialism. Thus Social
Transcendentalism will never advocate itself under the banner of, say, the
Irish Workers' Social Transcendentalist Party but, on the contrary, will simply
be known as the Social Transcendentalist Party (STP). In such fashion it will appeal, on a
democratic basis, to the Irish electorate, irrespective of their class, and
with a view to elevating Eire from its current liberal realism to a Centrist
idealism - something that could not be achieved from a purely working-class
point of view, since no contiguity exists between materialism and idealism, and
therefore no basis for a progression or leap from the one to the other. But, of course, Social Transcendentalism
could not exclude the working class, for it is not a middle-class
ideology. Rather, it would seek to win
to its cause the majority of workers who, in effect, would correspond to the
'social' side of Social Transcendentalism, with the transmuted lower-middle
class corresponding, by contrast, to its 'transcendental' side, the class more
partial to idealism and capable, given the right encouragement, of breaking
with realism in favour of a superidealism
commensurate with the Centre. Hence a proletarian-superfolkish
integrity, drawn from both working- and middle-class sources from within the
60. It is curious that the full title of Hitler's Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party, or NSDAP (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), with the implication of a left-wing proletarian allegiance. And yet, Hitler assiduously avoided identifying the Party with the workers, maintaining that National Socialism was more of a religious movement than simply a political organization and one, moreover, that sought the support and allegiance of the entire German People, irrespective of class. So, in reality, no question of the NSDAP being a working-class party; though Hitler intended, quite understandably, to win as many workers, i.e. blue-collar 'proletariat', to National Socialism as possible, while simultaneously outflanking the working class (and thereby reducing Marxist competition) through the agency of the middle class, particularly the lower-middle class, and thereby subordinating it to meritocratic and idealistic priorities. When Ortega y Gasset opined, in The Revolt of the Masses, that National Socialism was a lower-middle-class phenomenon, he was, I believe, quite mistaken! Neither lower-middle class nor working class, the NSDAP was, contrary to its title, a 'völkisch', or People's, movement that sought to transform both the middle and working classes along 'völkisch' lines, which, as history attests, it largely succeeded in doing! So the antithesis of a 'proletarian' party, which favours the blue-collar workers at the expense of everyone else, but is nevertheless compelled, by necessity, to compromise with and endorse a large white-collar population of, by traditional evaluation, lower-middle-class status - at least if it attains to power and is capable of becoming a viable administrative entity, a thing, however, that would scarcely apply to the hard-core working-class parties of the West, which are simply Marxist and therefore politically unviable.
61. If I generally prefer the term 'superfolk' to 'folk', it is because it transcends the traditional, rural, naturalistic connotation of the latter, suggesting, instead, a revolutionary evaluation of the People commensurate with supernatural criteria. In German, 'völk' carries a different connotation from 'folk', more pagan and populist, inextricably bound to blood and soil. Hitler to some extent transmuted 'völk', giving it a revolutionary dimension similar to the above. But the paradoxical was ever the case with Nazism, and so one must hesitate to ascribe a preponderantly revolutionary status to the word, bearing in mind Hitler's own rather pagan temperamental and ideological bias! If there was a kind of supertheocratic revolutionary dimension to National Socialism, it was no more than the tip of an iceberg the greater part of which lay submerged beneath a neo-pagan sea. And we need not doubt that this was largely attributable to the racial limitations of the German people, whose Nordic antecedents, then as now, presuppose a quasi-pagan identity stemming from the Father rather than an overtly transcendental identity aspiring towards the Holy Spirit. Hitler's 'chosen people' were inherently incapable of a more unequivocally supertheocratic identification and lifestyle, as was the Führer himself, with consequences too well-known to warrant further comment here! Yet all Nordic humanity, including the English, are possessed of a similar limitation, which is why Social Transcendentalism, the political front of Centrism, makes no immediate claims upon them but, on the contrary, seeks out its principal 'chosen people' among the Irish, in order that they may be instrumental in disseminating the ideology amongst other 'chosen peoples', like Israelis, Iranians, Spanish, etc., for subsequent wider dissemination vis-ŕ-vis Third World peoples in general, who should be the true beneficiaries of a religion primarily intended for dark-haired, dark-skinned races, where, so this writer believes, a real transcendental aspiration (towards the Holy Spirit) can be anticipated. If the bogus approximation to the Second Coming aimed fair, then the true approximation to that Messianic destiny must aim dark. For pure spirit will, in its essential being, more approximate to the darkness of a black hole than to the brightness, in apparent doing, of a sun, and accordingly must be initially furthered among the dark peoples.
62. The solution to the inability of the fair peoples to proceed in a radically transcendental direction in the short term is, of course, Social Democracy, which, as a hard-line republican phenomenon, will bring them a step closer to theocracy while maintaining a democratic integrity. Yet if a global civilization of transcendentalist aspiration is ever to arise, then extensive transmutation of the Nordic peoples through interbreeding with higher Aryan and non-Aryan races, particularly coloured and black, should be given every encouragement so that, eventually, even the Socialist-dominated regions of the world will become racially qualified for a uniform ideological upgrading along the utmost Centrist lines and need only be converted before further encouragement to the formation of a global humanity, and hence global civilization, is given, with results suggestive of an omega unity - a sort of new and ultimate coloured race forged from heterogeneous ingredients and capable of uniform aspirations.
63. When I see black or coloured youths with white girls, or black or coloured men with white women, I am witnessing the trend of evolution, of racial progress in the making, as it were, right before my very eyes! Doubtless this trend will be intensified in the decades ahead, and I fancy that it would be given more encouragement under a socialist regime than under the current capitalist ones, particularly if sperm banks and artificial insemination become increasingly prevalent, and propagation becomes correspondingly more racially impersonal, with results guaranteed to facilitate evolutionary progress.
64. One should distinguish between a pro-working-class
party and a working-class party. For whereas the latter will be proletarian, the former is petty
bourgeois, i.e. appertaining to the left wing of a parliamentary tradition. Thus the distinction is, in effect, between
Democratic Socialists and Socialists, the Labour Party on the one hand and, for
example, the Socialist Party of
65. No less than on the Left ... a distinction should be drawn on the Right between an anti-working-class and/or pro-folkish party such as the Conservatives and a superfolkish party like the National Front or, more recently, the British National Party. Of course, it would be fanciful to suppose that the Conservatives were Democratic Fascists; for no real petty-bourgeois/superfolkish continuity exists on the Right (like a petty-bourgeois/proletarian continuity on the Left), since the Conservative Party is, in reality, a grand-bourgeois party and therefore one more anti-working class than pro-folkish, even if, in recent years, it has assumed the guise of a petty-bourgeois pro-folkish party, with a painterly equivalent, as it were, in Abstract Impressionism or some such idealistic petty-bourgeois aesthetic integrity. Clearly while the tip, or leadership, of this party may be pro-folkish, and thus to a certain extent Democratic Fascist, there undoubtedly remains a large percentage of it that is more conservatively-minded, aligned with grand-bourgeois tradition and representing what, in metaphorical terms, must be the submerged bulk of a parliamentary iceberg with anti-working-class prejudices. However that may be, a folkish or, rather, superfolkish party would stand to the pro-folkish tip of the Tories as laser light art to Abstract Impressionism or even Op Art, and in no way could such a party be regarded as anti-working class, least of all on the proletarian-folkish level of Social Transcendentalism, where a holographic equivalent, combining representation and idealism, would be in order. Yet, no less than the German Nazi Party, it would not appeal directly to the workers but to the broad masses of working class and lower-middle class alike. Were it anti-working class, it would not seek to win the support of a majority of workers; though I shall concede that there is a strong sense in which it would be against working-class parties, with their proletarian exclusivity and Marxist ideology. A superfolkish party reaches out to the broad masses irrespective of their class; for it is determined to circumvent and overhaul working-class materialism through the agency of the realistic and/or idealistic lower-middle class, from whom a superidealistic mandate can be inferred. Moreover, it is more concerned with the ethnic uniformity of the People than with their class uniformity, since race and ideology are intimately connected and a supertheocratic idealism requires the appropriate ethnic material, without which no ideological transformation could be achieved. The People in question, purged of alien elements and united as never before, will then deal with their common or traditional enemies in the interests of freedom to pursue supertheocratic goals and effect an overall amelioration of their situation. Then they will link-up with and assist other such peoples, who have a common interest in developing supertheocracy. What happened in Germany may well be repeated in Eire, though on a higher, truer, and more far-reaching scale - the difference between National Socialism and Social Transcendentalism, as, eventually, between the Greater German Reich and a federation of Social Transcendentalist Centres - that projected supra-national ideological integrity.
66. Do not confound truth with Supertruth; truth is bourgeois and relative, Supertruth ... folkish and absolute. Truth is Christian, Supertruth ... Centrist. Truth teaches that there is more to life than the world and accordingly posits a posthumous Heaven; Supertruth rejects life-after-death in favour of Eternal Life conceived as the goal of evolution, and teaches the way to it, not simply in human terms but, more importantly, with regard to the subsequent creation and furtherance of post-human life forms ... in the guise of Supermen and Superbeings and/or Supra-beings respectively - those brain and new-brain collectivizations artificially supported and sustained for purposes of a more intensive, not to say extensive, cultivation of pure spirit, either indirectly, through LSD tripping, or directly, through hypermeditation, depending on the life form in question. Whereas truth pertains to Christ, Supertruth appertains to the Second Coming, from whose teachings a new civilization is destined to arise, a civilization inexorably leading to the post-Human Millennium, from which evolutionary platform Heaven will be but a spiritual launch away.
67. Increasingly the 'super' is coming to replace the 'ordinary' or 'standard' phenomenon: the supermarket replacing the market, the superstore replacing the store, the superpower replacing the power, the supergroup replacing the group, the superdrug replacing the drug, supersex replacing sex, and, of course, Superman replacing man. This is a trend that can only be intensified and expanded in the future, particularly under supertheocratic guidance.
68. Distinguish carefully between sex, anti-sex, and supersex. Sex is Liberal and heterosexual, anti-sex Marxist and homosexual, supersex Fascist and pornographic. Sex is an attraction between penis and vagina. Anti-sex denies the vagina, and hence woman, in favour of the non-sexual, because unreproductive, rectum. Supersex elevates the attraction of penis for vagina from the body to the head in an erotic and/or pornographic voyeuristic fixation. Beyond supersex, however, there is what may be termed Social Transcendentalist sex, involving an evolutionary 'fall' (forwards) from pornography to the use of plastic inflatables, or 'sex dolls', in the case of men (supermen) and vibrators in the case of women (quasi-supermen). Yet beyond this is the supra-sex, germane to a supertheocratic age and society, of computerized late-teenage erotica ... where the attention will once again be focused upon the vagina, only this time of an innocence and purity, relative to mature adults, suggestive of a more abstract, attenuated, and sublimated heterosexuality. Sex purged, as it were, of guilt and naturalism.
69. An approximate visual-art equivalent to the above distinctions would be: Fascist laser art, Social Transcendentalist holography, and Centrist abstract holography/computer graphics; that is to say, a progression from superidealism to supra-idealism via super-realism.
70. The distinction in concrete sexual relations between an absolute relativity and a relativistic absolutism is simply the difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple each of whom look and dress alike. So whereas both the former are males, the latter appear male, although one of them is in fact a female dressed in masculine-like attire, i.e. slacks, PVC pants, jeans, or whatever, with her hair relatively short.
71. The kind of lacuna or contradiction often found between a person's politics and his sexuality may also be discovered with regard to his politics and mode of dressing. How often one encounters, in the media or elsewhere, people who, while considering themselves working class or proletarian, dress in a bourgeois manner! The truth, more often than not, is that they are bourgeoisie who are sympathetic towards the working class. There is nothing about office work that makes a collar-and-tie more suitable than a T-shirt. One can write, read, type, and phone just as easily in a T-shirt as in a collar-and-tie. What counts is the type of office work with which one is involved. In other words, whether it is overtly middle class, like insurance, or connected with the People in some way, like the pop-music industry.
72. Changing the system from within is a Fascist prerogative, changing it from without ... a Communist prerogative. The difference, one could argue, between an internal and an external, an essential and an apparent, an idealistic and a materialistic, approach to revolution. The profoundest changes can only come via those who work within the system; though this is not to say that superficial external changes are of small account or should be ignored! On the contrary, a radical revolution will require the dismantling of various traditional institutions as well as the transmutation of certain contemporary ones. There will be a compromise between the 'within' and the 'without', albeit one favouring the former. But, of course, when I speak of working within the system I am not alluding to the traditional system, like, for example, a parliamentary democracy, but to the use of traditional means to further revolutionary ends, to the development of a revolutionary ideology within the democratic system ... as in the case of Hitler's National Socialist Party, which exploited the democratic process from its own revolutionary point-of-view and consequently set about changing the system from within. Those who work within liberal democratic parties, however, are obliged to remain loyal to the traditional system. They can modify it but not replace it! For they are the traditional system!
73. If angels are absolutist, then Socialism must correspond to a 'fallen angel', an angel fallen from the world, where only democratic criteria obtain, to the absolute depths of a proletarian materialism. Bad, though doubtless expedient in the dialectics of historical progress! For unless the world is eventually overcome by the Devil, there will be no prospect of God being established on a universal basis in due course. So the end of the world is nigh; but this should not be mistaken for the planet. Fortunately, the globe will survive whatever history has in store for it, but the world won't!
74. Sense in which cans of cola seem to be extreme left-wing equivalents and, by contrast, bottles of cream soda extreme right-wing equivalents, to the extent that the former suggest a non-alcoholic extension beyond beer, while the latter suggest an equally non-alcoholic extension beyond wine. For it seems to me that there is something left wing or liberal about beer, whereas wine would seem to reflect a right-wing or conservative tradition, one more Catholic than Protestant. In which case one could speak of a progression, on the Left, from bottled beer to canned beer and/or lager, as from a bourgeois Liberal to a petty-bourgeois Labour equivalent, prior to a 'fall' (forwards) into post-alcoholic, albeit beer-like, cola, which suggests a Marxist equivalence by dint of the inherent materialism of the can. Similarly, one could speak of a progression, on the Right, from bottled wine and/or champagne to bottled cream soda, which has a wine-like appearance while being strictly non-alcoholic, and which is usually available in a plastic as opposed to a glass bottle - an important distinction in the evolution of idealistic, or transparent, modes of fluid containment! Contrast the transparency of a (tall) bottle of cream soda with the opacity of a (squat) can of cola, and you are left in no doubt as to the relative ideological connotations of these two People's drinks, the former idealistic and, hence, fascistic; the latter materialistic and, hence, communistic: a distinction, inevitably, between God and Devil on the levels of the Second Coming and the Antichrist respectively, levels which transcend the worldly connotations of beer and wine, those inherently bourgeois drinks, with particular regard to the former. If a Marxist-Leninist equivalent is to be inferred, it should apply to bottled cola, wherein a 'theocratic' element, viz. the transparent bottle, is used to contain the democratic beer-like fluid, and a compromise between Lenin and Marx would seem to be the consequence, all the more credibly so when the bottle is plastic and, hence, transcendental. Personally, I would rather drink cola from a bottle than a can which, when used independently of a glass, reflects an absolutist status commensurate, it seems to me, with Marxist materialism. Drinking lager straight from the can, on the other hand, would suggest an extreme Democratic Socialist equivalent, commensurate with radical petty-bourgeois criteria.
75. If the Devil uses fools God calls the wise, and he calls them not to Socialism (not even in its theocratic manifestation), but to Social Transcendentalism, the Centrist ideology of the Second Coming and/or True Messiah, which upholds the transcendent sovereignty of the Divine Leader in order that the People, as superfolk, may be released from political sovereignty to cultivate the ultimate sovereignty of the spirit in their collective quest for transcendence, without which there can be no civilization. For civilization is inextricably linked with - indeed, is indistinguishable from - an institutionalized religious quest, and where such a quest is manifestly lacking, there is either decadence, as in the bourgeois West, or barbarism, as in the proletarian East.
76. In the next civilization people will not bath but shower, since showering will largely do the job of washing the body for them and oblige them to remain in a vertical position - the very position consonant with a closed-society supertheocratic absolutism, in complete contrast to the horizontal position usually associated with bathing, one which is too pagan to be credible in a transcendental age. Consequently there will no longer be an option between bathing and showering, as in the petty-bourgeois civilization of the Americanized West, for bathing will be taboo. As will drying oneself with a towel and thereby involving oneself in a degree of manual effort. All drying will be done with the use of blow-dryers, probably several in conjunction being directed on different parts of the body at the touch of a switch, these several dryers located in the walls, ceiling, and even floor of a special 'drying cubicle' situated beside the 'shower cubicle' - a Social Transcendentalist relativistic absolutism between the wet and the dry, enabling a person to step through from the one to the other and achieve a quick drying, as currents of warm air converge upon his wet body from various directions, a truly supernatural and transcendental procedure ... far superior to towelling. Doubtless the term 'bathroom' will become obsolete in an age of showers.
77. Increasingly one finds continental quilts taking over from blankets on beds, and this trend will inevitably be accelerated in the future, as puffy synthetic quilts replace woollen blankets, so that the average bed is covered in but one continental quilt, with the probability of only one nylon sheet underneath ... to reflect a kind of Social Transcendentalist approximation in a relativistic absolutism of transmuted sheet, i.e. from cotton to nylon, and revolutionary quilt - one-to-one rather than two-to-two or even two-to-three, with cotton sheets beneath woollen blankets and a naturalistic compromise the atomic norm. Certainly anyone who considers himself a supernaturalist should be sleeping under a puffy synthetic quilt, and preferably on an air bed or a water bed than on a mattress. After all, mattresses appertain to a bourgeois tradition, a naturalistic genre, whereas air and water beds suggest a communistic/fascistic split beyond relative criteria, the former down and the latter up, albeit transcending the atomic compromise between bed and mattress, as the mattress is transmuted into a puffed-up thing that transcends a bed, taking 'bed' in the sense of a raised board, or platform, used as a support for the mattress which, by contrast, rather signifies a democratic addition to an autocratic tradition, subordinating the latter to a merely supportive role (analogous to the part played by picture frames in the realm of canvas painting - that uniquely bourgeois atomic art-form). For it should not be forgotten that beds, in the sense of a couch-like support for the body, preceded mattresses, just as sculptures preceded paintings, being, in their own materialistic fashion, no less absolutist than the contemporary air and water beds which constitute their antithesis, and which may be regarded as the ideological successors to relativistic beds, whose compromise between bed and mattress signifies a democratic as opposed to a theocratic integrity, commensurate with bourgeois realism. So no less than light art lies beyond painting, air beds and water beds lie beyond mattresses, being of an absolute rather than a relative tendency, albeit divisible, as already suggested, into communistic and fascistic extremes corresponding to a new materialistic/idealistic dichotomy. Yet, of course, bourgeois beds may also signify such a division in a petty-bourgeois epoch, as when the bed-and-mattress relativity is taken above the Liberal level to a kind of radical Conservative level in a bed-like absolutism through the use of convertibles, or settees, with or without (though preferably with) a continental quilt. Conversely, one could equate the use of only a mattress with a Democratic Socialist absolutism, since once the 'transcendentalism' of a bed has been removed the resulting contact of mattress with floor must indicate a mundane, indeed materialistic, status commensurate with left-wing criteria, which contrasts with the idealistic status of the couch-like settee, raised on its legs above the ground. So in a sense bed and mattress would appear to have drifted apart in the petty-bourgeois equivalents of a radical Tory/Labour antagonism, as though in deference to absolutist criteria within a relativistic, or traditional, context (analogous to the split in modern art between, say, Abstract Impressionism and Abstract Expressionism - those idealistic and materialistic extremes of a painterly tradition).
78. Beyond these absolutes, however, lies what might be called People's beds - just as holographic and sculptural light art lie beyond the painterly extremes of petty-bourgeois abstraction. But why do I ascribe a fascistic status to water beds and, by contrast, a communistic status to air beds? Well, the straight answer is that I realize that air beds are generally opaque and hence materialistic, whereas water beds, being transparent, suggest an idealistic bias analogous to a plastic bottle of cream soda. Furthermore, as I tend to distinguish, on the Extreme Left, between Marxist and Transcendental Socialist levels of ideological integrity, it struck me that a parallel division could be construed as existing between opaque air beds, such as are often found in people's gardens or at the seaside in summer, and transparent air beds which, by contrast, would suggest the substitution of an idealistic dimension for a materialistic one, as though in confirmation of a theocratic, or Leninist, bias that could be said to parallel the distinction between, say, canned cola on the one hand and bottled cola on the other. Thus if the medium in which this non-alcoholic fizzy drink is contained confers either a materialistic or an idealistic status on the drink, depending whether an opaque can or a transparent bottle is being used, then the medium in which the air of an air bed is contained should do likewise, depending whether opacity or transparency be the quality of the medium in question. Certainly a low, flat, opaque air bed would seem to be the next logical class-step beyond a single mattress (used independently of bed) in a progression, as it were, from Democratic Socialist to Socialist criteria, with a petty-bourgeois/proletarian distinction between the two. Then if air is still the content of the next logical class step, the medium encasing it has changed, since a superficial theocratic equivalent is discernible in the transparency of the plastic material employed, which suggests a folkish-proletarian integrity commensurate, so I believe, with Transcendental Socialism. From the opposite standpoint, namely that of a water bed, one may suppose the use of water significant of an idealistic bias on account of the fact that it suggests an essential presence, as though the interior of the bed were more than just a void but, to the extent that it has been filled with water, becomes symbolic of spirit, of transmuted proletarianism, which is encased in a transparent plastic medium suggestive of an idealistic bias, so that the whole represents a proletarian-folkish integrity commensurate with Social Transcendentalism - the ideology of Centrism. Doubtless the water bed stands taller, as a rule, than the transparent air bed, though it isn't altogether unlikely that the average transparent air bed will stand taller than the average opaque air bed, as though in confirmation of a superior ideological status - one with a theocratic dimension.
79. If we now recall the supernotes concerning the various ideological connotations suggested by the different drinks we mentioned earlier, viz. Catholic wine, Protestant and, in particular, Liberal beer, Conservative champagne, Democratic Socialist lager, Marxist canned cola, Communist bottled cola, and Fascist cream soda, we should be able to list the ideological connotations, or equivalents, suggested by the different kinds of beds alongside them, so that a parallel is drawn between the two lists. Thus: Liberal bottled beer/couch-like beds; Conservative bottled champagne/relative beds; Labour canned lager/mattresses only; Marxist canned cola/opaque air beds; Communist bottled cola/transparent air beds; Fascist bottled cream soda/water beds. A further distinction could probably be drawn, with regard to beer and relative beds, between a Liberal and a Liberal Democratic equivalent ... to the extent that one associates canned beer and continental quilts with the latter.... This could well imply that anyone who uses both blankets and quilt on his relative bed is closer to a Liberal/Liberal-Democratic equivalent than to either of them separately, having the best of both worlds, so to speak. Finally, if a distinction is to be drawn between Protestant and Liberal beer, not to mention between one kind of relative bed and another, why not tankard and bottle in the one case, and double mattress and single mattress in the other? Admittedly, a debatable contention; though not one that could be dismissed too easily!
80. Certainly, restaurants and cafés would appear to offer themselves to approximate ideological classification, with, broadly, restaurants suggesting Conservative and Liberal equivalents, while cafés suggest, by contrast, Democratic Socialist and Marxist connotations. Obviously there are borderline or exceptional cases, but I would suppose an eating establishment that - relative to potatoes - only provided boiled potatoes to be traditionally Conservative (Tory), one that provided roast and boiled to be Liberal, one that provided both roast and fried to be Liberal Democratic, one that only provided fried to be Democratic Socialist, and one that only provided mash to be radical Conservative. In which case, we would be left with the task of accounting for the Marxist equivalence in terms of a small fried-only establishment with bar-like seating and counter arrangements. Hence Tory restaurant; Liberal restaurant; Liberal Democratic restaurant/café; Democratic Socialist café; radical Conservative inn; and Marxist bar. Which leaves us with that comparatively new phenomenon, the take-away service, a phenomenon suggesting either a Communist or a Fascist connotation, depending on whether the take-away is optional or obligatory, which is to say whether existing in conjunction with an eat-in service or as a totally independent service existing in its own more absolutist right. If I were to distinguish between the democratic and the theocratic in eating habits, it would be difficult for me not to conclude the eat-in to be democratic and the take-away, by contrast, theocratic or, at any rate, pertinent to a transcendental dimension. Of course, one could argue that an inherent bias towards the eat-in in an optional eating establishment would confer a Transcendental Socialist status, whereas the converse, with the emphasis clearly on the take-away, would suggest a Social Transcendentalist integrity, each of these being compromises between the 'in' and the 'out', but with diametrically opposite emphases ... as befitting the respective ideological biases of Communism and Centrism.
81. As anyone familiar
with my work will realize, Transcendental Socialism and Social
Transcendentalism reflect a Devil/God dichotomy beyond the world on approximate
levels of the Antichrist and the Second Coming respectively. No more than the theocratic element of the
former ideology is genuine, can it be said of the latter ideology that its
democratic element is genuine, since both are subordinated to and modified by
the principal elements in each case, thereby precluding a conversion from the
one to the other, or vice
versa. A People's democracy is only
'theocratic' to the extent that it reflects proletarian sovereignty in a
republican state. For,
in contrast to the democratic, the theocratic is inherently absolutist and thus
beyond any relativistic compromise.
Not genuinely democratic, the People's democracies are theocratically democratic and therefore ideologically more
radical than the genuine democracies of the atomic West ... to the degree that
theocracy succeeds democracy in the evolution of ideology from autocratic
beginnings to theocratic endings or, to speak theologically, from the Father to
the Holy Ghost via the Son, with the inevitable consequence that absolute
criteria succeed relative criteria, as in the case of the Antichrist
democracies of the People's republics. But if absolute democracy succeeds relative democracy, so absolute
theocracy must succeed relative theocracy, though obviously not in the same
countries. For Social Transcendentalism
is only democratic, or socialistic, to the extent that it would be voted-in by
a majority of the electorate of the essentially theocratic nations, who would
sanction the end of democracy, fundamentally foreign or tangential to them, and
the establishment, in due course, of a theocratic administration, in which
political sovereignty was vested in the Leader, who, through his acknowledged
Messianic status, would confer religious sovereignty upon the People in order
that they could be delivered from worship and aspire, one way or another,
towards the Omega Beyond - the free-electron wavicle
goal of evolution in pure spirit.
Certainly, there could be no question of the People owning the means of
production either directly - the utopian dream of socialist purists - or
indirectly, which is to say, through the State, since, for one thing, the State
would effectively cease to exist following a Social Transcendentalist
revolution, and, for another, the People would no longer be politically
sovereign and thus entitled to such republican ownership. Rather, they would have been freed from
political sovereignty for religious sovereignty by the Centre, which would
assume the ownership or, more correctly, trusteeship of the means of production
for the People, determining what shall or shall not be produced and allocating
funds according to its uniquely meritocratic scale of
priorities, with the main emphasis being placed on religious as opposed to
social spending, so that bureaucracy is subordinated to meritocracy and a
properly Centrist economic system duly emerges, in contrast to a socialist
system, in which bureaucracy preponderates to the exclusion, as a rule, of
cultural and religious advancement.
Certainly, if the Irish do not subscribe to an arrangement whereby the
power to allocate spending priorities is firmly in meritocratic
hands, then they would be less than true to themselves - indeed, virtually
indistinguishable from the liberal British!
But in Ireland, remember, 'God and the Church come first' (Joyce), so if
there is to be any genuine evolutionary progress, that same arrangement, or
principle, must apply on higher terms ... with regard to the Holy Ghost and the
Centre, the political/administrative framework of which would determine
economic and public-spending priorities at any given time. For Social Transcendentalism is a political
religion (not to be confused with religious politics, or Transcendental
Socialism), and although religion might appear to be dirtying its hands, so to
speak, by taking economic responsibility upon itself, it is better that such
responsibility be borne by the Centre than that the old atomically relative
dichotomy between church and state should continue, to the detriment of
absolute, and hence real theocratic, progress.
The Centre would have opportunities enough to cleanse its hands in the
course of time, but at least the economic and administrative responsibilities
would be in the right hands, not in the traitorous hands of those who, in their
blind hatred or ignorance of higher things, would deny religion altogether and
sell Ireland out to Communism! A liberal
republic may leave something to be desired, but a People's Republic would be
far worse, signifying the end of all religious commitment (and progress) in the
dead-end of proletarian materialism.
Rest assured, however, that if the Irish ever vote, whether directly or
indirectly, for an end to the
82. Clearly, a people who put religious principles first will be disposed to the assumption of the higher sovereignty. He who corresponds to a Second Coming does not intend to remain religiously sovereign in himself; for that could lead to his being worshipped as God. On the contrary, he desires to transfer such sovereignty, based on his Supertruth, to the People, where, transmuted from the external to the internal, from the other to the self, it becomes the motivation for self-realization, and they approximate to collective divinity in successive stages on route, as it were, to transcendence. The Second Coming is a prophet of the Holy Ghost who recognizes God in pure spirit, who sees in the People a means to the end ... of divine realization, beyond and above all anthropomorphic worship (of man as God). But he cannot transfer his religious sovereignty to them unless they grant him, following the assimilation and acceptance of his teachings, the power to do so; unless they democratically sanction his 'reign'. For once he has acquired political sovereignty from the People, he will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are given every encouragement to develop religious sovereignty, steps which only political power can guarantee. For the Saviour would have his priorities in order, and he would know that the People's loyalty could only be guaranteed in the event of his giving them a good deal. Yet how can the People be given more, better, bigger ... without ruining the economy? He knows the answer to this, too: for his closed society would not have the same priorities as an open society, but would be determined to 'Rob Peter in order to pay Paul', thereby reflecting the ideological requirements of Social Transcendentalism. One has more money to spend in one context by withdrawing it from another, and, believe me, there are many contexts in the Liberal Republic (as in all open societies) that, judged from a supertheocratic standpoint, are quite superfluous and anachronistic - merely bourgeois or aristocratic luxuries that a closed society could neither afford nor want. What people tend to forget ... is that a revolution, when thorough and radical, will permit the re-ordering of society to such an extent that a whole host of obsolete contexts which thrive on public spending can either be cut back or (depending on the context) eradicated altogether, in order to permit maximum public spending in the relatively few contexts deemed necessary to the successful prosecution of the ideology's short-term goals. Rest assured that the enlightened Leader would know what to withdraw from the old society in order that the new one he creates is true to the ideological requirements and ambitions of the ultimate theocracy! Only the wise will prevail, for the Second Coming cannot abide fools.
83. One of the things that must be done away with is prisons, which are to bourgeois times what dungeons were to aristocratic times - places of punishment and retribution where offenders against the system may be detained or, more usually, incarcerated for anything from a short to an indefinite period of time, depending on the nature or gravity of their offence. Prisons would have to be superseded, in the closed-society free-electron absolutism of the Centre, by corrective centres - much nicer-looking buildings designed on a comparatively transcendental basis, where offenders would be detained for varying periods of time, depending on the nature of their offence, though never for very long. And not as a punishment either, but in order to be corrected and reprogrammed for a speedy return to everyday society. Perhaps for no more than five years on average?
84. Why, then, do I turn my back on the concept of
bourgeois justice and instead advocate an attitude based on clemency and
kindness, on educative correction in comparatively pleasant surroundings? Obviously because I am speaking on behalf of
closed-society criteria commensurate with theocratic freedom, rather than as
the advocate of an attitude which, while not identical with 'an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth' (that autocratic absolutism of literally an equal
retribution), nevertheless stems from it to the extent that a 'wavicle retribution' is matched against a 'particle crime',
and an 'atomic balance' is duly meted-out to the offender in the name of
impartial justice. Thus a life sentence
is matched against the taking of a life, a psychic eye for a physical eye, a
period of indefinite detention for murder.
No such 'atomic' justice could be upheld in the supertheocratic
closed societies of the future, where only electron criteria would apply. Most if not all proton crimes would probably
cease to exist, but even relatively serious offences would be regarded in an
electron light ... as errors, accidents, or the product of misguidedness,
and steps would have to be taken to ensure that corrective facilities were made
available to the offender in order to leave him in no doubt as to the error of
his ways. Yet this would not be justice, or retribution on higher terms for a low act. Thus the taking of a life would not entail a
lifetime's detention but, rather, a relatively short period of correction,
education, counselling, and, if required or considered desirable, manual work
and/or training for a specific skill.
Kindness, then, would replace open-society justice, and in most cases
such kindness would be responded to with affection and a willingness to avoid
any repetition of the original offence.
For if you treat people kindly, they are more likely to respond in kind
than to rebel against it. Kindness
begets kindness no less than cruelty begets cruelty. A supertheocratic
society could not be partial to the encouragement of a vicious circle of crime
and punishment! Admittedly, there would
be exceptions - people who responded to kindness by indulging in a different or
identical form of cruelty after release from a corrective centre. There are always exceptions to the rule, and
therefore the Social Transcendentalist Centre would have to protect society
from what could only be viewed as an insane response to kindness by having the
offender, once caught, dispatched to a special asylum where, if further efforts
at his reform were to no appreciable avail, steps would duly be taken to
liquidate him on the grounds that he was incurably insane and thus of a status,
analogous to cretins and the mentally retarded, incompatible with
closed-society criteria - in short, a sort of crime against the Holy Ghost
which, in a supertheocratic context, could not be
countenanced. Euthanasia would be the
accepted mode of liquidation.... Not that euthanasia should be mistaken for or
identified with the death penalty. On
the contrary, it would be a legitimately painless means of removing mentally
undesirable elements from the more uniformly intelligent society of the future,
not a retributive penalty meted-out to criminals and having its basis in 'an
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', so that a death-for-murder absolutism
was the proton consequence. Such
autocratic materialism would not square with theocratic idealism, even if it
still clings, albeit tangentially, to societies in which democratic realism is
the ideological norm, as when, very occasionally, somebody is hanged,
guillotined, electrocuted, poisoned, gassed, or shot for murder or some other
serious offence. Thus the death penalty
would be irrelevant in a supertheocratic society,
where the protection of life would be of paramount importance ... to square, as
it were, with free-electron criteria.
Doubtless it is one of the strangest and most ironic paradoxes of an
inherently paradoxical country that, despite its official monarchic status,
85. If prisons would cease to be viable in a Centrist society, then so, too, would courts of law, those inherently democratic institutions for the dispensation of atomic justice. Certainly there could be no question of People's courts superseding Liberal (bourgeois) courts in countries destined for Social Transcendentalism, since such 'materialistic' institutions are solely applicable to People's republics, where the proletariat are both politically and economically sovereign, and therefore it is only logical, despite the additional burden placed upon them, that they should be judicially sovereign as well. Hence People's judges to pass Socialist sentence on criminal offences and send the offender to People's prisons, or hard-labour camps. Such is the judicial norm in Socialist states, where a more exclusive form of democracy, and hence justice, reigns supreme, complete with People's juries. Of course, juries have long existed in liberal republics, not to mention in constitutional monarchies, as they are bound to do wherever people are politically sovereign, conceiving of 'people' here in the wider and more comprehensively liberal sense that makes no distinction between bourgeoisie and proletariat. A capitalist and a socialist may be obliged to rub shoulders in a Liberal (bourgeois) jury, but only Socialists would be found in a Communist (proletarian) jury - at any rate, in theory if not always in practice. Neither kind of jury could apply, however, to a Social Transcendentalist Centre, where the Centre would be politically, economically, and judicially sovereign, with special Centrist jurists presiding over the interpretation and execution of the law in no-less special law centres, the supertheocratic successors to or, rather, replacers of all democratic courts of law. For the People would be religiously sovereign, after all, and thus above and beyond any judicial sovereignty of the democracies. The law centre would dispense its own corrective suggestions behind closed doors, and these suggestions would lead, as already intimated, to correction centres rather than to prison (though only, of course, in cases where detention was thought advisable). Yet these Centrist jurists would not be judges, any more than the law centres would be courts, but a kind of extension of and refinement upon lawyers, transmuted lawyers whom people could continue to consult on a variety of legal matters, obtaining advice as well as, where necessary, corrective suggestions. There would be no relative division between lawyers and/or barristers and judges and/or magistrates in a Social Transcendentalist Centre, no atomic dichotomy between judge and advocate. On the contrary, judges, with their retributive justice of a life sentence for murder, would cease to exist, there being no place for such proton-biased 'absolutists' in a free-electron society, nor for the long white wigs certain judges wear as a sort of confirmation of an autocratic status. Rather, lawyers - men versed in the law but particularly in Centrist law - will be brought in from the 'particle fringe', from the outside world, to take their place in law centres, much as doctors are increasingly abandoning their individual practices to form collectives in the various health centres which have mushroomed in recent years. Duly transmuted, these lawyers would assume a 'Social' rather than a Socialist status, no longer individuals of the secular periphery but collectivized by the various law centres, redeemed in and by the Centre, become, in effect, superlawyers or superjurists ... to help people as before, but not to plead for anyone since, without 'atomic' justice, there will be neither need of nor place for the traditional advocatory arts, there being no judges in opposition, and thus no proton-wavicle retribution meted-out to proton-particle crimes.... Of course, judges do not always function on a redeemed autocratic basis; they are perfectly capable, under juridical pressures, of a certain degree of clemency and therefore of a more lenient approach to justice. Yet, as a rule, they function on the basis of a balanced sublimated retribution, with the sentence matched, as far as possible, against the perceived gravity of the crime, and a prison eye for a physical eye the judicial norm, a norm which inevitably leaves something to be desired even by democratic standards, insofar as we are then referring to electron-particle criteria ... where money, i.e. bail and/or fines, becomes the alternative to incarceration - in my estimation, a democratic alternative that reflects liberal materialism. But such an alternative would largely if not wholly cease to apply in a Social Transcendentalist Centre where, under electron-wavicle guidance, only corrective detention would be relevant, people not being obliged to pay anything, not even fines accruing to damaged property and in compensation for loss, the Centre taking such compensatory responsibility upon itself in order to divest the offence of criminal implications and avoid any retributive justice of the 'democratic', or materialistic, variety, which, in contrast to the 'autocratic' variety, imposes a financial eye for a criminal eye, money (as fines, bail, etc.) being to the State what incarceration is to the Church. Thus not only would proton-wavicle justice cease to apply in the Centre; electron-particle justice would also cease, having been transmuted to a 'Social' status commensurate with Centrist undertakings to meet damages claims, compensation for loss of property, health, limbs, etc., according to the nature of the offence - the Centre thereby taking upon itself the 'sins of the world' so that people could go free of judicial retribution and consequently be all-the-more qualified and disposed to cultivate religious sovereignty, with a minimum 'crime rate' the logical corollary, since offences against society would automatically become offences against the Centre, and no self-respecting person would wish to put himself in the poor light of appearing to be an enemy of the Second Coming and/or Holy Ghost and thus, by implication, an enemy of his supertheocratic people, particularly when maximum efforts were being made to better his spiritual lot. Offences in such circumstances would be the exception to the rule, to be dealt with on a Centrist basis - never in terms of open-society justice.
86. Interesting how everything, or almost everything, becomes a centre on the omega level of supernatural closed-society criteria: health centres, sports centres, shopping centres, youth centres, meditation centres, education centres, information centres, social-service(s) centres, housing centres, job centres, law centres, correction centres, nursery centres, play centres, and (last but by no means least) the Centre - that politico-religious organization intended to supersede the State, which would constitute an evolutionary antithesis to the Kingdom, or 'Ringdom' ... as one might alternatively call the alpha organism in the subnatural-world-order of autocratic antiquity. For it seems that what ends in the Centre began in the Ring, a journey from one extreme to another via the atomic naturalism of squares and oblongs. Rings are apparent, centres essential. Rings stem from the Father, centres aspire towards the Holy Ghost. Rings are superficial and extrovert, centres ... profound and introvert. Rings imply a centrifugal connotation, centres a centripetal one. A truly advanced civilization, which was entirely Centrist, could not tolerate the existence of rings; for there is no contiguity between the two absolutes, and whatever pertains to the alpha must of necessity be alien to the omega, where centro-complexification remains ever the guiding norm, in confirmation, as it were, of a more evolved integrity. Thus no bullrings, boxing rings, circus rings, wedding rings, engagement rings, fancy rings, earrings, rings of flowers, of fire, etc., in the Centre. And no re-naming of such alpha-stemming phenomena by other names, either!
87. Just as Socialist states are identifiable as People's democracies, so the future Social Transcendentalist Centres should be identified as People's theocracies, in consequence of the fact that people will be religiously sovereign and thus of a sovereignty above and beyond the political, economic, and judicial norms of the People's democracies. Ideally, one should not speak of the Centre in terms of a Leader's theocracy; for the Leader or, rather, Saviour would be politically sovereign and thus in a Christ-like position of bearing 'sins of the world' on his shoulders, in order that the People might go free of them in the name of their religious sovereignty ... through the highest possible ideological framework given to man. Hence the progress of sovereignty from the political to the religious, the material to the spiritual, proceeds in the collective, insofar as the collective is the electron ideal that pertains to the omega poles of evolution in a goal of indivisible unity and, by implication, maximum co-operation.
88. Whatever is separate and individual pertains to the alpha beginnings of evolution, stretching from an intensive aristocratic individualism to a more attenuated, albeit still perceptible, bourgeois individualism, where competition between a variety of exploitative manufacturers is the social norm. Competition stems from the alpha, co-operation aspires towards the omega, the former is diabolic, the latter divine - a distinction, fundamentally, between protons and electrons. If human evolution began in individualism, it must end in collectivism, as a straight antithesis between evil and good, star-like apartness and transcendental cohesion, particles and wavicles. People may have come together in tribal collectives in the alpha-stemming past, but such collectives were merely apparent, since they served the dual purpose of protecting the individual from external aggression and, conversely, of enabling him, spear or sword in hand, to attack individuals from alien tribes in the mass, with a better chance of survival and success the pragmatic concomitance. In other words, the tribe was an expedience in the prosecution of individualistic evil, not a co-operative ideal, and it was held together by the force of chieftains, or especially strong men who revelled in dominating weaker individuals and whose competitive instincts were best served through the mass. Such 'collectives' were but means to a competitive end, and thus no more than conglomerations of individuals especially susceptible to proton violence, both within and without the tribe. The true collectives of an electron-biased humanity, on the other hand, are genuinely co-operative, since people come together out of mutual love and respect ... for the honourable purpose of furthering their co-operation, and thereby approximate to the indivisible unity of true divinity. If they come together on the material level of proletarian solidarity in a People's democracy, they must come together on the spiritual level of transcendental sovereignty in a People's theocracy. Time cannot be reversed, and those individuals that remain - as leaders, police, armed services, etc. - outside the religious sovereignty of the People, should remember that they are there to serve the People rather than to exploit or oppress them, like the aristocratic individuals of an autocratic age. They, too, are part of the collective idealism of an electron age.
89. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: proton-proton reactions; atomic contractions; and electron-electron attractions. Autocratic soulfulness, democratic materialism, and theocratic spirituality.
90. Patrick Pearse, the
son of an Englishman from
91. Whether one sleeps on one's stomach, back, or side, there should be an ideological correlation attaching to the habit, a correlation indicative, in some degree, of one's personal predilection within an evolutionary framework stretching from autocratic protons to theocratic electrons via democratic atoms. Thus anyone who habitually sleeps on his stomach would suggest an autocratic bias, insofar as this position entails, willy-nilly, a concession to gravitational force downwards and was probably also originally intended, in far-off autocratic times, to mitigate the hardness of the low-lying one-piece couches, the stomach being more qualified, on account of its inherent softness and fleshiness, than the back in this regard. Furthermore, the stomach, as front, is absolutist and therefore particularly relevant to an autocratic age and/or aristocratic bias, in complete contrast to the sides which, being relative, suggest a democratic correlation, whether of the Right or of the Left, depending on the sleeper's individual preference; though a Liberal correlation could doubtless be inferred for those who toss-and-turn at night, now sleeping on their left side, now on their right, but never exclusively on either. However, the ultimate sleeping position is, of course, on one's back, an absolutism in which the sleeper would seem to have 'turned his back' on any concession to gravitational force downwards and to be committed to a position the converse of the autocratic - a necessarily theocratic absolutism appropriate, one feels, to a radically closed-society affiliation.
92. Bread is to eating habits what beer and wine are to drinking ones - a traditional genre corresponding to an atomic stage of evolution. One could accordingly distinguish between Liberal bread, or large uncut loaves, and its more artificial successor ... the smaller cut loaf, whether of the Right or of the Left, depending, I would argue, on its colour and packaging, i.e. whether brown or white and ... in a transparent plastic bag or in an opaque paper-wrapper, so that the suggestion of a radical Conservative equivalent would attend the former and, by contrast, a Labour equivalent the latter, brown somehow essential in connotation, white suggestive, on the other hand, of appearances, an idealist/materialist dichotomy further opening-up between the two kinds of loaves in the packaging contrasts to which we have already alluded. However, even if, at its most radically absolutist packaging, a small cut-loaf can never be more than petty bourgeois and thus inherently democratic, the evolutionary successor to cut loaves must be rolls which, depending on the type, would assume a People's status analogous to cola and cream soda in drinks. Consequently rolls would be theocratic on account of their puffed-up supernatural and more absolutist constitution, and I fancy that the distinction between bun-like round rolls and sausage-like finger rolls corresponds to a kind of Communist/Fascist split symptomatic of a particle/wavicle electron dichotomy, the former connoting with materialism, the latter, by contrast, with idealism - proletarian and superfolkish distinctions the inevitable People's corollary. Probably a Marxist/Communist distinction can be inferred to exist, on the Extreme Left, between white round rolls and brown round rolls, as though the latter indicated a redeemed materialism symptomatic of Transcendental Socialism, whereas a Fascist/Centrist distinction could well exist, on the Extreme Right, between white finger rolls and brown finger rolls, as between National Socialism and Social Transcendentalism, the latter somewhat more inherently theocratic than the former. Of course, before the emergence of the Liberal loaf, with its oblong atomic shape, bread was baked in shapes more curvilinear or elongated, as with the typical round loaf on the one hand and the french roll on the other, both of which, somewhat hard-crusted, may be accorded absolute proton connotations suitable to an autocratic age, whether on the side of the particle Kingdom, as in the case of the squat round loaf, or on that of the wavicle Church, as in the case of the french roll, neither of which would compare very favourably with modern soft rolls, whether on the particle or wavicle sides of an electron divide.
93. Holography is no less beyond art than sculpture was before it. Holography is to a theocratic age what sculpture was to an autocratic one. Equally absolutist, holography aspires towards the supernatural no less than sculpture stemmed from the subnatural. The essence of a free-electron age, in complete contrast to the appearance of a bound-proton one.
94. As we cast a panoramic mind across the spectra of civilized evolution, we discover that people's names, or the ways of naming people, parallel the changing distinctions between the autocratic, the democratic, and the theocratic. Beginning with an autocratic emphasis on first names only, suitable for an alpha-stemming absolutism. Thus David, Solomon, Goliath, Stephen, Brian, Charles, Hector, Achilles, Ajax, King John, King Harold, Richard the Lionhart, Sir Lancelot, Joan of Arc, St. Patrick, St. Paul, St. Mark, Mary and Joseph, etc., all of which may be accounted appropriate to the absolutism of a proton age. Unlike the relative, and hence democratic, emphasis on two names, i.e. a first or so-called Christian name and a second or surname, both of which, taken in conjunction, would seem to indicate an atomic integrity of proton and electron cohesion. Hence John Donne, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon Bonaparte, Franz Liszt, Robert Schumann, Oscar Wilde, Claude Monet, Pablo Picasso, and so on. Yet gradually, out of the democratic compromises, there arises a progression towards electron absolutism, suitable to a theocratic age, of surnames only, as in impersonal reference to Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Sartre, Malraux, Camus, Bergson, Nietzsche, Marx, Spengler, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Berg, and Bernstein. Could it be, I wonder, that the evolutionary progression towards surnames is indicative of a Socialist trend that will one day be transcended in some other, possibly more transcendental means of naming or identifying people? Means, I mean, which are already incipient in the pop industry, where, for example, the proliferation of nicknames like Sting, the Edge, Bono, et al. would seem to be a growing trend and which, together with the use of numbers and/or letters, may well reflect a Centrist alternative? I, for one, would not be at all surprised! For it does seem that the progression from Christian-name/surname dualism to surname absolutism parallels the political progression from liberal democracy to social democracy, as from an atomic balance to a materialistic absolutism, so that the dropping of Christian names conforms to the secular requirements of an atheistic age or society. In which case the Centrist alternative should indicate a new religious or spiritual mode of identification suitable to an idealistic absolutism - one in which a 'Centre name', or kind of transmuted surname, takes the place of traditional surnames, to be used either in conjunction with or as a familiar alternative to the official numbering and lettering of people. Thus a sort of Social/Transcendental distinction existing between the two - a distinction destined to be eclipsed, in the course of time, by the impersonal theocratic.
95. No less than Transcendental Socialism, Social Transcendentalism must duly subscribe to the principle of collective leadership, which accords with an electron bias. It will not be the Leader who is politically sovereign so much as the Centre, or party organization. Naturally the Leader will be the hub around which the inner commissariat revolves, not just a party figurehead ... but the chief architect of administrative co-ordination, disposed, so far as possible, to keeping a 'philosophical' perspective in view at all times, in the interests of the overall ideological integrity and security of the Movement, so that no one department acquires undue attention or power at the expense of another. If flexibility is required to meet any particular exigency, including that of the Leader's own design, then he will stipulate the order of priorities, overruling inner-party democracy. But, gradually, a more collective framework should emerge in the wake of the messianic leader's departure, paralleling the progression from, say, Stalin to Khrushchev, when, as in the case of the fledgling People's democracies, a People's theocracy will properly arise. No such collective framework could be expected, however, before the divinely-inspired Leader has done all or most of his revolutionary work, and thus functioned on a largely dictatorial basis commensurate with the gravity and magnitude of the tasks before him!
96. Interesting (and so significant of Western decadence) how the Cartesian mind/body dichotomy has been superseded, in the absolutization of relative civilization, by a mind-body symbiosis ... as republican materialism chips away at the old church/state dualism in the name of secular progress. No longer a mind separate from and independent of the body, as in the idealistic realism of Cartesian theory, but one connected with and dependent on the body as part of an overall mind-body integrity, in the realistic materialism of decadent bourgeois and communistic theorizing. Not that this is the end of the downhill road; for there are others, more purely Communist, who deny mind altogether and would have us believe in the materialistic absolutism of the body, mind being, according to them, an idealistic illusion with no place in an 'enlightened' head, which is almost believable as far as these materialistic blockheads are concerned! Though it is doubtful that the less-stupid Transcendental Socialists would grant the idea much credence.... As for me, I would like to commend a body-mind symbiosis commensurate with Social Transcendentalism, so that a relativistic absolutism in which a redeemed body is subordinated to a free mind (the body simply conceived as the support and 'house' of the mind) becomes the alternative theory in a realistic idealism that should pave the way for the absolute idealism of mind in the Centrist civilization to come. Of course, considered literally, spiritual mind emerged from the body, the physical preceding the spiritual in the material evolution of advancing life on this planet. Yet, with idealism, a re-evaluation is required, so that mind is conceived as existing in material form, taking bodily form for its own purposes.... Which is not to claim that mind came from 'On High' (the Father) and now sits in the body while being inherently independent of it. For Cartesian dualism owes more to mind conceived as soul, as emotional receptivity pre-dating matter, than to mind conceived as spirit, as pure awareness post-dating it. Certainly I would not argue against the theory that soul precedes matter, since there is ample cosmic evidence to support the fact. Yet no less than proton absolutism precedes the atom, so electron absolutism succeeds it, and this leads us away from any mind/body relativity towards a body-mind absolutism that owes more to the mind-body absolutism of the State ... insofar as we are here dealing with a new mind, intellectual and rational, albeit subordinated to material factors, as a means to an end, and thus allowing, willy-nilly, for the subsequent possibility of a body-mind re-evaluation, given the requisite divinely-inspired will, in which mind becomes an end-in-itself: pure rather than intellectual. Such electron-wavicle free mind, however, derives from the electron-particle bound mind of the rationalists. The Centre could not come into being without the prior existence of the republican state. We lovers of electron freedom are all descendants from and inheritors of the 'Age of Reason'. Voltaire and the Philosophes were our ideological forebears. Their minds had little to do with the soul-mind of the proton church. They rejected Descartes.
97. The intellectual may be a man of the Left, particularly the Extreme Left, but the tripper and/or meditator has to be a man of the Extreme Right - the former leading to the latter no less than night to day.
98. Where currency is concerned, bank notes parallel the soul-mind, albeit transmuted, of the Church; coins, by contrast, parallel the mind-body symbiosis of the State. Consequently there exists a mind/body dualism in the distinction between the two, a distinction, however, which the State is gradually undermining and superseding with the minting of new coins, such as the one-pound piece, to replace or supplement notes to an equivalent value. Clearly, a trend in the direction of a materialistic absolutism is under way here, and one could well be justified in anticipating further high-currency mints in the course of time, with, say, five-pound pieces replacing or supplementing notes to an equivalent value, as materialism becomes ever more extensive and Liberal society correspondingly more Social Democratic. Ironically, it is the Marxist purists who would like to do away with money altogether, replacing any Liberal realist note/coin dichotomy or realistic materialist note-coin symbiosis (notes and coins to an identical value) with a neo-barter primitivity of the direct materialistic exchange of products or, even more unlikely, the simple acquisition of products according to one's need. Not that one envisages Transcendental Socialists condoning any such utopian materialism! For theirs is a more idealistic bent, not incompatible with a desire to establish a universal currency on the basis of a coin absolutism. Which leaves, I should argue, the need for transmuted notes, or universal vouchers, if Social Transcendentalist idealism is to have its day.
99. Why is it, one may wonder, that trousers generally have side pockets, whereas jeans have pockets at the front? I wrote, some pages ago, about the relative nature of the sides in relation to the absolute nature of the front (or back), and this reference to physiological reality should go some way towards answering the above question. Side pockets indicate a relative allegiance, front pockets ... an absolute one. There, I believe, lies the ideological justification behind the dissimilar appearances of trousers and jeans. But are jeans, as I suggested earlier, really proletarian in relation to trousers? You may recall that I thought so; but I also admitted to a certain ambivalence which, I confess, has stayed with me until now. For if jeans (denims and cords) are People's equivalents, where do leather and acrylic pants fit in? Surely some accommodation must be made for these more radical kinds of leg wear, which transcend the cotton naturalism of jeans, and in ways suggesting antinatural and supernatural distinctions - leather being antinatural in a materialistic absolutism that would appear to derive from pagan origins ... in the primitive use of animal furs and/or skins; acrylic being supernatural to the degree that it derives from synthetic fibres. Hence a kind of Communist/Fascist distinction between the two, with 'pants' the key word. Yet if PVCs are to be considered a logical step beyond acrylic pants to a Social Transcendentalist equivalent ... of supernatural plastic pants, then there must also exist a parallel distinction, on the Far Left, between Marxist and Transcendental Socialist equivalents, which I fancy would take the form of two different kinds of leather pants, those corresponding to the Marxist being opaque, coarse, and heavy; those corresponding to the Transcendental Socialist being glossy, smooth, and light, as though a sort of redeemed leather which, while still fundamentally antinatural, has been infused with a theocratic dimension suggestive of a supernatural boost, i.e. equivalent to an anti-supernaturalism. Certainly, one could not confound the two types of leathers, the smooth variety closer in appearance to PVCs and thus indicating a Transcendental Socialist equivalence beyond and above the raw, militant leather of Socialist purists. Thus no less than synthetic pants of one type or another would seem to lie beyond cord jeans, it can be argued that leather pants of one type of another lie beyond denim jeans. Now if both synthetic pants and leather pants correspond to People's levels of leg wear, then it should follow that both cords and denims correspond to petty-bourgeois levels - the former radical Conservative and the latter Democratic Socialist, each of which are commensurate with extreme parliamentary levels, not to mention extreme (abstract) levels of canvas art.
100. Considering the art equivalents of People's pants, we should find sculptural light art on the level of opaque leather, neon light art on the level of the redeemed, or glossy, leather; laser shows on the level of acrylic pants, and holography on the level of PVCs. Politically considered, a split occurs on each side between extreme left-wing sculptural light art and right-wing (Transcendental Socialist) neon light art; as between extreme right-wing laser shows and left-wing (Centrist) holography. If any further progress can be made in art, as in leg wear or clothing generally, it can only be in the direction of pure or abstract holography, not to mention computer graphics, which would correspond to the widespread adoption of one-piece PVC zipper suits, commensurate with right-wing Centrism, in a truly global stage of the ultimate civilization.