RADICAL PROGRESS -
The Only Way Forward
Copyright © 2003-12 John O'Loughlin
1. The world, in general terms, is characterized by both the rising axis of bureaucracy-theocracy, of anti-self sin and pro-self grace in respect of a male hegemony which, by its very nature or, rather, nurture can only esteem psychic freedom, and the falling axis of autocracy-democracy, of pro-notself crime and anti-notself punishment in respect of a female hegemony which, by its very nurture or, rather, nature can only esteem somatic freedom.
2. Therefore the world is divisible between the self-oriented relativity of bureaucracy-theocracy and the notself-oriented relativity of autocracy-democracy - the former omega-aspirant in terms of grace, the latter alpha-stemming in terms of crime.
3. There are, however, two extreme possibilities beyond the world of, what in general terms one could call, liberal compromise between conservative and radical alternatives, as between the sinful conservatism of bureaucracy and the graceful radicalism of theocracy or between the criminal conservatism of autocracy and the punishing radicalism of democracy, and these are the People's extremes of Social Theocracy on the one hand and Social Democracy on the other, the former aimed at a more absolute gracefulness, the latter tending to result in a more absolute punishingness.
4. But such extreme radical movements or developments tend, sooner or later, to invite an equally extreme conservative backlash in the form of what may be called either Social Bureaucracy on the one hand or Social Autocracy on the other, the former tending to result in a more absolute sinfulness, the latter aimed at a more absolute criminality.
5. One can generically distinguish between that which, in People's radicalism, is extreme left-wing and that which, in People's conservatism, is extreme right-wing in terms of Communism and Fascism, with what may be called the religious form of Communism that, in theocratic vein, has been identified with Social Theocracy inviting a reactionary backlash from what may be called the political form of Fascism that, in bureaucratic vein, has been identified with Social Bureaucracy on the one hand, and what may be called the economic form of Communism that, in democratic vein, has been identified with Social Democracy inviting a reactionary backlash from what may be called the scientific form of Fascism that, in autocratic vein, has been identified with Social Autocracy on the other hand.
6. Hence, in straightforward terms, an extreme graceful/sinful distinction between the religious communism of Social Theocracy and the political fascism of Social Bureaucracy on the one hand, that of a polarized bureaucratic-theocratic axis, and an extreme punishing/criminal distinction between the economic communism of Social Democracy and the scientific fascism of Social Autocracy on the other hand, that of a polarized autocratic-democratic axis.
7. Whenever the world of liberal relativity is split asunder in consequence of a departure from radical/conservative compromise to a situation in which either theocratic or democratic absolutism communistically proclaims its right not merely to exist but to triumph over the world and effectively replace it in the interests of one form or another of People's paradise, an extreme conservative backlash ensues in which either bureaucratic or autocratic absolutism fascistically opposes such an ambition on the part of radical extremists less, be it noted, in the names of either sin or crime than in order to 'save' the world from the threat posed to it by an undue emphasis, an extremist or absolutist emphasis, upon either grace or punishment which would threaten the very existence not merely of relative grace or punishment but also of relative sin or crime, thereby justifying recourse to absolute sin or crime, depending on the type of fascism, as the necessary counterpoint to communist intentions.
8. In such contrary fashions, stemming from different axial orientations, the People are split asunder to confront one another more absolutely from contrary standpoints of extreme radicalism and extreme conservatism, communism and fascism, which are what transpire when once liberal relativity is undermined and the world finds itself under threat from those who would radically supersede it one way or another on the one hand, and those who oppose such action from extreme reactionary standpoints on the other hand.
9. Because the modern world, the world of Protestant-derived secularity, has tended to be characterized, in autocratic-democratic axial fashion, more in relation to different approaches to not-self than to self, it has been the economic mode of communism, necessarily Marxist, and the scientific mode of fascism, avowedly anti-Marxist, which has tended, in the West and indeed wider afield, to typify the contrary approaches to radicalism and conservatism which we have identified, in People's terms, with Social Democracy on the one hand and with Social Autocracy on the other, a clash which came to a head with the opposition of Nazism in Germany to Bolshevism in the Soviet Union, and which duly resulted in some of the worst atrocities and/or most savage battles of the Second World War.
10. As yet we have not really seen a Social Bureaucratic opposition to Social Theocracy in the West or indeed anywhere else, for the simple reason that Social Theocracy has not as yet, in 2003, come to pass, and there has consequently been no pretext for a politically-oriented fascist opposition to a religious form of communism that, besides being decidedly un-Marxist, was somewhat radically pro-self and therefore likely to engender a correspondingly extreme form of anti-self conservatism in certain countries which, for whatever reasons, were not 'up to' the kind of absolute grace which Social Theocracy would be determined to encourage and thereby reacted from such a prospect in terms of a deeper or more absolute commitment to sin, as though to save 'the world' from the threat of Heaven and re-affirm mundane values.
11. Of course, there is no guarantee that any such opposition of extreme bureaucratic conservatism to extreme theocratic radicalism would lead to war, since the axis of self is quite distinct from that of the not-self, and grace is hardly likely to provoke conflict with sin the way, say, crime provoked conflict with punishment during World War II, even if the opposition of sin to grace, of conservative bureaucracy to radical theocracy, might lead those in the fascist camp to politically challenge the religious idealism of their communist counterparts and to oppose it however they could, not least within their own sphere of influence.
12. For if it is one thing to root out opposition within one's own country in the interests of societal stability and the avoidance of civil war, it is quite another thing to actively oppose those in other countries who may be interested in developing precisely what one feels or knows to be of little or no practical relevance domestically, particularly if and when such developments are acceptable to the countries concerned and one could not reasonably oppose them in consequence. The only instance in which conflict between two or more polarized countries would be justified, no matter how regrettably so, would be in the event of one of the countries unreasonably provoking conflict with the other and obliging the other to defend itself from outside interference which, in the circumstances, it would be justified in doing.
13. Needless to say, the prospects of a religiously communist country or society attacking a politically fascist one must be somewhat slim in view of the incompatibility of grace and war, the latter of which is rather more criminal than even sinful in character, given its objective nature which owes more to a free female hegemony in autocracy than to a bound female hegemony in bureaucracy which, provided there is a deference to theocracy, paradoxically plays second-fiddle to male sin and is not in a position, short of theocracy being heathenistically renounced, to resort to a relative approach to crime which may or may not lead to a correspondingly objective approach to freedom in terms of war, if with a bureaucratic rather than an autocratic bias such that could lead one to infer lower- rather than upper-class criteria.
14. In fact, the heathenistic renunciation of theocracy, and thus of a theocratic subversion of bureaucracy in favour of criteria having reference, in male vein, to a secondary order (compared to females) of somatic freedom, would more likely correspond to the sort of state-hegemonic situation in which not sin but crime became the principal characteristic, and the possibility, if not inevitability, of war grew ever greater in response to a most virulent form of political fascism, a form not merely anti-communist but anti-church and effectively pro-state to a degree not far short of bureaucratic absolutism.
15. Clearly, such a degree of extreme political conservatism could well provoke a war with any nation whose extreme religious radicalism was regarded, no matter how falsely, as a threat to its own, if not the world's, mundane integrity, and one would then be beneath the realm of a more sinful approach to life in reaction to enhanced gracefulness coming to pass elsewhere to one that, in state-hegemonic vein, was openly criminal and thus disposed to war or state-sponsored violence in blatantly fascistic terms, which would be prepared to ride roughshod over church opposition to any such stratagem allegedly for the defence of the status quo but, in reality, at the behest of a 'new order' of state freedom analogous to that which existed above in the scientifically fascist realm of Social Autocracy.
16. Such a scenario may seem somewhat fanciful, and I hope and pray it is and continues to be. But one cannot rule out the possibility of something analogous in relation to Social Bureaucracy, if only because a bureaucratic eclipse of meritocracy is always likely to happen whenever free female criteria break loose of theocratic guidance and conditioning 'from above' and crime accordingly thrives at the expense of sin, pretty much as phenomenal objectivity at the expense of phenomenal subjectivity or, in elemental terms, chemistry at the expense of physics or, rather, antiphysics.
17. For the distinction between chemistry and antiphysics in respect of state bureaucracy and church meritocracy is paralleled above by the distinction between metaphysics and antimetachemistry in respect of church theocracy and state technocracy where what we have called the bureaucratic-theocratic axis is concerned; though meritocratic-theocratic would more typify the church-hegemonic actuality of sin and grace in which the prevalence of sin at the expense of bureaucratic crime 'down below' is only sustainable on the basis of the free influence of grace theocratically obtaining 'up above', which effectively upends, in paradoxical vein, the terms of reference at the expense of the nominal female hegemony which would otherwise favour relative crime and ensure that such crime was the characteristic aspect of bureaucratic freedom.
18. Contrariwise, the distinction between physics and antichemistry in respect of church democracy and state plutocracy is paralleled above by the distinction between metachemistry and antimetaphysics in respect of state autocracy and church aristocracy where what we have called the autocratic-democratic axis is concerned; though autocratic-plutocratic would more typify the state-hegemonic actuality of crime and punishment in which the prevalence of punishment at the expense of grace 'down below' is only sustainable on the basis of the free influence of crime autocratically obtaining 'up above', which effectively upends, in paradoxical vein, the terms of reference at the expense of the nominal male hegemony which would otherwise favour relative grace and ensure that such grace was the characteristic aspect of democratic freedom.
19. Instead of which, thanks to the upper-class influence of a criminally free autocracy, punishment becomes no less the chief characteristic of plutocratic freedom to which relative grace is bound than sin the chief characteristic of meritocratic freedom to which relative crime is bound vis-à-vis the upper-class influence of a gracefully free theocracy.
20. Of course the plutocratic freedom of the antichemical is more usually called democratic, just as the meritocratic freedom of the antiphysical is usually called bureaucratic. But, in actuality, state-hegemonic criteria characterize the former context no less than church-hegemonic criteria the latter, and the existence of punishment at the expense of grace in the one context and of sin at the expense of crime in the other owes much, if not everything, to the contrary noumenal influences of autocratic crime and theocratic grace, without which neither phenomenal context would paradoxically continue in effectively plutocratic or meritocratic fashion but in outright democratic or bureaucratic fashion, as befitting church and state hegemonies of a lower-class order.
21. However, a graceful democracy is no more desirable from the standpoint of autocratic crime, which subverts democracy plutocratically, than is a criminal bureaucracy from the standpoint of theocratic grace, which subverts bureaucracy meritocratically, and therefore neither lower-class actuality will obtain in countries or societies conditioned by upper-class criteria, whether for theocratically better or autocratically worse, the former of course subverting females sinfully, the latter subverting males punishingly. For theocracy is no less male in its upper-class grace than autocracy female in upper-class crime - the former metaphysical and airy, the latter metachemical and fiery.
22. But, down below, it is not quite so clear-cut, so absolutist, but subject, as the phenomenal always is, to the relativity of both chemistry and physics, water and vegetation (earth), whether in respect of a nominal chemical hegemony in the case of theocratically-subverted bureaucracies, which pander to antiphysical meritocracy, or of a nominal physical hegemony in the case of autocratically-subverted democracies, which pander to antichemical plutocracy.
23. Let's have, at this point, some slangful fun - shall we? - and revert to terms like 'prick' and 'cunt' and 'fucking' and 'sucking' (equivalent to 'sodding' in the sense of a female bias to squeeze, but more immediately intelligible in that capacity than a term which, besides not rhyming with 'fuck', has more of a rectal or anal connotation) and other such crude shorthand techniques for subsuming more complex insights and realities. For chemistry over antiphysics would be no less equivalent to 'cunts' over 'antipricks' than ... 'pricks' over 'anticunts' in the case of physics and antichemistry.
24. As to the populist notion and conceit of 'fuck*** cunts', however, one can forget it; it doesn't really conform to reality. Only 'pricks' fuck (coitally breach), and they fuck either as 'fuck*** pricks' in relation to physics or as 'fuck*** antipricks' in relation to antiphysics, the former somewhat democratically pseudo-sinful in their sheath-oriented earthiness and overly masculine bias, the latter somewhat meritocratically sinful in their sheath-disdaining anti-earthiness and willingness to engage with bureaucratically hegemonic females on terms which may well lead to watery expansion and, hence, conception.
25. Once it is ascertained that only 'pricks' and 'antipricks' fuck, it should be possible to infer what 'cunts' and 'anticunts' do; for they are the categories of female who are either chemically hegemonic in sensuality, albeit passively under the sensible lead of theocracy diagonally above, or antichemically subordinate in sensibility, albeit actively under the sensual rule of autocracy diagonally above, and we can be sure that they, in effect, suck (coitally squeeze), whether as 'suck*** cunts' in relation to chemistry or as 'suck*** anticunts' in relation to antichemistry, the former somewhat bureaucratically pseudo-punishing in their IUD-type wateriness and overly feminine bias, the latter somewhat plutocratically punishing in their IUD-disdaining antiwateriness and willingness to engage with democratically hegemonic males on terms which may well lead to vegetative (earthy) expansion and, hence, promiscuity.
26. Of course, the above coital dichotomy is not to be taken too literally, whether in relation to females or to bent males, or males who effectively function as females by dint of a bureaucratic and/or plutocratic disposition which puts them 'suckingly' at loggerheads with their meritocratic and/or democratic counterparts. With slang, no matter how gender- or element-conditioned, there is always an element of illogicality, of irrationality, which defies logical symmetry on any but a provisional or approximate basis such that has, by more objectively philosophical standards, to be taken with a considerable pinch of salt!
27. However that may be, one can believe that 'fuck*** cunts' are as much the exception to the rule as 'suck*** pricks', since it is in the nature of 'cunts' to suck (coitally squeeze) and of 'pricks' to fuck (coitally breeze or, rather breach), whether with a female (suck on) or antifemale (suck off) bias in the one case or with a male (fuck on) or an antimale (fuck off) bias in the other case, so that a dialectical relationship is established between that which 'sucks on' and 'fucks off' on the one hand, and that which 'fucks on' and 'sucks off' on the other hand.
28. For the existence of hegemonic 'cunts' in chemistry spells the correlative antiphysical reality of 'antipricks', who will be sinfully orientated in anti-self behaviour of a 'fuck off' nature, whereas the existence of 'pricks' in physics spells the correlative antichemical reality of 'anticunts', who will be punishingly orientated in anti-notself behaviour of a 'suck off' nature, and therefore as contrary to pro-notself crime as their 'antiprick' counterparts to pro-self grace.
29. All of which brings us back to the upper-class contexts of autocratic females and theocratic males, the former slangfully identifiable with 'frigg*** jerks' and the latter with 'snogg*** bums' - the 'jerk' being an upper-class 'cunt', the 'bum' an upper-class 'prick'.
30. On a corresponding basis to the above it can be maintained that only 'jerks' frig (onanistically squeeze), and they frig either as 'frigg*** jerks' in relation to metachemistry or as 'frigg*** antijerks' in relation to antimetachemistry, the former somewhat autocratically criminal in their pornographic fieriness and overly diabolic bias, the latter somewhat technocratically pseudo-criminal in their pornography-disdaining antifieriness and willingness to engage with theocratically hegemonic males on terms which may well lead to airy expansion and, hence, breathiness in respect of the stimulation provided by vibrators and other massaging devices of a sexual nature.
31. Once it has been ascertained that only 'jerks' and 'antijerks' frig, it should be possible to infer what 'bums' and 'antibums' do; for they are the categories of male who are either metaphysically hegemonic in sensibility or antimetaphysically subordinate in sensuality, and we can be sure that they, by contrast, snog (oralistically breach), whether as 'snogg*** bums' in relation to metaphysics or as 'snogg*** antibums' in relation to antimetaphysics, the former somewhat theocratically graceful in their inflatable-oriented airiness and overly divine bias, the latter somewhat aristocratically pseudo-graceful in their inflatable-disdaining anti-airiness and willingness to engage with autocratically hegemonic females on terms which may well lead to fiery expansion and, hence, oral sex.
32. As before, the above should not be taken too literally, whether in relation to females or to bent males, or males who effectively function as females by dint of an autocratic and/or technocratic disposition which puts them at 'frigging' loggerheads with their aristocratic and theocratic counterparts.
33. Be that as it may, one can believe that 'snogg*** jerks' are as much the exception to the rule as 'frigg*** bums', since it is in the nature of 'jerks' to frig (onanistically squeeze) and of 'bums' to snog (oralistically breach), whether with a female (jerk off) or an antifemale (jerk on) bias in the one case or with a male (snog on) or an antimale (snog off) bias in the other case, so that a dialectical relationship is established between that which 'jerks off' and 'snogs on' on the one hand, and that which 'snogs off' and 'jerks on' on the other hand.
34. For the existence of hegemonic 'jerks' in metachemistry spells the correlative antimetaphysical reality of 'antibums', who will be pseudo-gracefully orientated in pro-notself via compromised self behaviour of a 'snog on' nature, whereas the existence of 'bums' in metaphysics spells the correlative antimetachemical reality of 'antijerks', who will be pseudo-criminally orientated in pro-self via compromised not-self behaviour of a 'frig on' nature, and therefore as contrary to anti-self via compromised anti-notself pseudo-punishment as their 'antibum' counterparts to anti-notself via compromised anti-self pseudo-sin.
35. I have maintained that 'pricks' and 'bums' correspond to physics and metaphysics and their 'antiprick' and 'antibum' counterparts to antiphysics and antimetaphysics, whereas 'cunts' and 'jerks' correspond to chemistry and metachemistry and their 'anticunt' and 'antijerk' counterparts to antichemistry and antimetachemistry.
36. Forgetting for the moment the anti orders of 'prick', and 'bum', we can maintain that since both 'pricks' and 'bums' are male they are the lower- and upper-class manifestations of a subjective orientation which we could subsume under the overall epithet 'prick', provided we recognize that lower-class 'pricks' are the per se order of 'prick' and upper-class 'pricks' what would more usually be described, in the British Isles, as 'bums'.
37. Likewise, forgetting for the moment the anti orders of 'cunt' and 'jerk', we can maintain that since both 'cunts' and 'jerks' are female they are the lower- and upper-class manifestations of an objective orientation which we could subsume under the overall epithet 'cunt', provided we recognize that lower-class 'cunts' are the per se order of 'cunt' and upper-class 'cunts' what would more usually be described, in the British Isles, as 'jerks'.
38. Hence, for the sake of simplification, we can distinguish the subjectivity of 'pricks' from the objectivity of 'cunts' in terms of democratic physics and theocratic metaphysics from bureaucratic chemistry and autocratic metachemistry, as though to distinguish those of the Left from their right-wing counterparts or even, in equally general terms, communists of one persuasion or another from fascists - something that boils down, like so much else in life, to a gender distinction between males and females, radicals and conservatives, psyche and soma, with the former divisible between form and contentment, ego and soul, and the latter between glory and power, spirit and will.
39. However, in practice, democracy is subverted by plutocracy, which is feminine or, rather, antifeminine, when autocracy is free to rule in the interests of diabolic crime, making for a punishing retort to crime which sidelines masculine grace, whilst, in parallel though contrary vein, bureaucracy is subverted by meritocracy, which is masculine or, rather, antimasculine, when theocracy is free to lead in the interests of divine grace, making for a sinful retort to grace which sidelines feminine crime, so that far from having, as I initially argued, an autocratic-democratic axis on the one hand and a bureaucratic-theocratic axis on the other, what one effectively finds is an autocratic-plutocratic axis of crime and punishment in respect of state-hegemonic criteria in the one case and a meritocratic-theocratic axis of sin and grace in respect of church-hegemonic criteria in the other case, the case not of an upper-class female (diabolic) rule, but of an upper-class male (divine) lead of society.
40. Thus whereas the diagonally descending autocratic-plutocratic axis subordinates the Church to itself in respect of aristocratic and democratic criteria, the diagonally ascending meritocratic-theocratic axis subordinates the State to itself in respect of bureaucratic and technocratic criteria, thereby ensuring the hegemony of either state criteria, in the one case, or church criteria, in the other, such that precludes effective compromise between these two types of society, the female-ruled society characterized by crime and punishment and the male-led society characterized by sin and grace, the former of which can only retain punishment in the interests of crime, the latter of which only retain sin in the interests of grace, since crime and grace are the respective upper-class ideals, the diabolical female ideal of a metachemically free soma commensurate with autocracy on the one hand, and the divine male ideal of a metaphysically free psyche commensurate with theocracy on the other hand - alpha and omega of the beginning of civilization in barbarity and the end of civilization in culture, with the subordinate corollaries of a psychically-bound philistinism in the one case and of a somatically-bound civility in the other.
41. Therefore each civilization, or type of society, posits freedom as the ideal, but they relate to diametrically opposite kinds of freedom - the somatic freedom of free females on the one hand, and the psychic freedom of free males on the other hand - diabolic and divine approaches to freedom which necessarily exclude each other from the overall frame, since autocratic freedom, which is somatically impressive, can only thrive with the absence of theocratic freedom and theocratic freedom, which is psychically expressive, with the absence of autocratic freedom, and thrive, paradoxically, with the assistance of either plutocratic or meritocratic factors which, depending on the context, subvert the democratic and bureaucratic alternatives to autocratic and theocratic freedom by ensuring that grace remains subordinate to punishment in relation to a hegemonic crime and, conversely, that crime remains subordinate to sin in relation to a hegemonic grace, crime and grace being, to repeat, the respective ideals of each type of society.
42. Therefore we have to contrast Devil-the-Mother's society ruled by crime in freely autocratic fashion with God-the-Father's society led by grace in freely theocratic fashion, as one would contrast black with white or the dark with the light or free soma with free psyche or fire with air or ugliness with truth or hatred with joy, and so on, never forgetting their bound psychic and bound somatic corollaries which enable us to bring terms like evil and wisdom into the frame as pseudo-expressive and pseudo-impressive adjuncts to the prevalence of either somatic impressiveness or psychic expressiveness, as the case may be.
43. For evil follows from crime, or is that which appertains to acquiescence in crime, which has barbaric consequences, whereas wisdom follows from grace, or is that which appertains to acquiescence in grace, which has civil consequences.
44. Certainly civil consequences in respect of wisdom are no less preferable to barbaric consequences in respect of evil than is grace to crime; for crime appertains to free soma, not least in the autocratic context of metachemistry, whereas grace appertains to free psyche, not least in the theocratic context of metaphysics, and in that distinction one has all the difference not merely in the world but, more pertinently, above the world in the 'overworldly' contexts which either rule, in free female vein, or lead, in free male vein, 'the world', as the case may be, causing, in the one case (autocratic), that which is female to take precedence, even 'down below', over male criteria and, in the other case (theocratic), that which is male to take precedence, even 'down below', over female criteria, with implications for punishment or sin in respect of either a plutocratic subversion of democracy in autocracy's criminal interests or a meritocratic subversion of bureaucracy in theocracy's graceful interests.
45. Such, then, are the class and gender ramifications of either autocratic or theocratic control of society, with diametrically antithetical axes which either fall diagonally from crime to punishment, as from autocracy to plutocracy, or rise diagonally from sin to grace, as from meritocracy to theocracy, as both democracy and bureaucracy are undermined to complement, from contrary perspectives, the aristocratic subordination of the Church to the State in the one context and the technocratic subordination of the State to the Church in the other context.
46. One could - as I'm sure many people would - employ such standard terms as 'evil' and 'good' to distinguish the one type of society from the other. But frankly such an oversimplification is a waste of philosophical time, since evil and good are merely bound complements, in psyche and soma respectively, to criminal freedom (primary) of soma on the one hand and to punishing freedom (secondary) of psyche on the other hand, both of which are female actualities which have to be distinguished from their male counterparts, whether in terms of graceful freedom (primary) of psyche or sinful freedom (secondary) of soma or their bound complements, in soma and psyche respectively, of wisdom and folly.
47. Clearly, reducing the world or life to something so narrow as 'good' and 'evil' hardly does justice to its full gender spectrum in which not merely 'good' and 'evil' or, for that matter, punishment and crime have to be considered but, on the male side of the gender fence, folly and wisdom coupled, in free soma and free psyche, to sin and grace.
48. Therefore we can safely conclude that those who reduce life to 'evil' and 'good' are no less guilty of gender partisanship within a given system or type of society than those for whom 'folly' and 'wisdom' are sufficient to the purpose of defining life, although both sets of terminology would fall rather short of addressing freedom from contrary gender standpoints, which, in contrast to bound psyche or soma, appertains to free soma or psyche, and which rather calls to mind such pairings as crime and punishment on the one hand and sin and grace on the other - the respective types of freedom which obtain in relation to autocracy-plutocracy as a female-conditioned state-hegemonic descending axis and meritocracy-theocracy as its male-conditioned church-hegemonic ascending counterpart.
49. Therefore both plutocracy and meritocracy appertain to contrary approaches to freedom under the aegis of either an autocratic control of society in the case of plutocracy or a theocratic control of society in the case of meritocracy, the former making for crime and punishment as manifestations of female freedom, the latter for sin and grace as manifestations of male freedom, with democracy bound to plutocracy in the interests of autocratic crime and bureaucracy bound to meritocracy in the interests of theocratic grace, neither of which are free to become either democratically graceful or bureaucratically criminal, as the case may be, but get sidelined into being either democratically pseudo-sinful or bureaucratically pseudo-punishing, as church subordination to the plutocratic State or state subordination to the meritocratic Church obtains in the overall interests of autocratic state freedom in the one case, that of the autocratic-plutocratic axis, and theocratic church freedom in the other case, that of the meritocratic-theocratic axis.
50. Such antithetical concepts of and commitments to freedom obviously mean that in the female-dominated case of autocracy-plutocracy life is characterized, somewhat somatically, in terms of pro-notself and anti-notself patterns of behaviour relative, in state-hegemonic vein, to crime and punishment, whereas in the male-dominated case of meritocracy-theocracy life is characterized, from a psychic bias, in terms of anti-self and pro-self patterns of behaviour relative, in church-hegemonic vein, to sin and grace, so that we find an objective/subjective dichotomy between that which diverges, in metachemistry, from a vacuum and that which converges, in metaphysics, towards a plenum, or that which devolves, falling diagonally, from alpha to 'the world' conceived in largely antiwatery (antipurgatorial) terms and that which evolves, rising diagonally, from 'the world' conceived in largely antivegetative (anti-earthly) terms towards omega - all the difference, in a word, not merely between the Devil and God or Hell and Heaven but, more specifically, between Devil the Mother and Heaven the Holy Soul, photonic elemental particles and protonic elemental wavicles, or something to that alpha/omega effect.
51. For if the alpha-most aspect of things is somatically wilful, or characterized by metachemical will, whether in respect of the Cosmos, nature, mankind, or Cyborgkind, then the omega-most aspect of things can only be psychically soulful, or characterized by metaphysical soul, whether in respect of the Cosmos, nature, mankind, or Cyborgkind, not forgetting the necessity of differentiating, in degrees of somatic freedom, between most devolved (in cosmos), more - relative to most - devolved (in nature), less - relative to least - devolved (in mankind) and least devolved (in cyborgkind) manifestations of metachemical free will on the one hand, and of differentiating, in degrees of psychic freedom, between least evolved (in cosmos), less - relative to least - evolved (in nature), more - relative to most - evolved (in mankind), and most evolved (in cyborgkind) manifestations of metaphysical free soul on the other hand.
52. Be that as it may, a society characterized, in state-hegemonic fashion, by female domination will favour free will and, to a lesser extent, free antispirit, whereas its male-dominated, church-hegemonic counterpart, being sensibly orientated, will favour free anti-ego and, to a greater extent, free soul, since the autocratic-plutocratic axis is typified by free will in respect of metachemical crime and free antispirit in respect of antichemical punishment, in contrast to the free anti-ego in antiphysical sin and the free soul in metaphysical grace typifying the meritocratic-theocratic axis which, as we have seen, is as keen, in its psychic orientation, to marginalize if not neutralize free spirit, or chemical crime, in the hegemonic interests of free soul as is its somatic counterpart to marginalize if not neutralize free ego, or physical grace, in the hegemonic interests of free will.
53. For free spirit would spell not bureaucratic binding to meritocratic freedom in the overall interests of theocratic freedom but the chemical crime, as noted, of bureaucratic freedom, while free ego would spell not democratic binding to plutocratic freedom in the overall interests of autocratic freedom but the physical grace, as noted, of democratic freedom, neither of which would serve the purposes of the respective upper-class ideals of metachemical crime and metaphysical grace.
54. Now since neither chemical crime nor physical grace can be encouraged to exist in societies characterized by either metachemical crime or metaphysical grace, then what ensues, in respect of the prevalence of antiphysical sin and antichemical punishment is the transmutation of bureaucracy into the pseudo-punishment of a subordinate state and the transmutation of democracy into the pseudo-sin of a subordinate church, the former subordinate to church sin, the latter subordinate to state punishment, both of which are in turn freely deferential to church grace and to state crime which, to complete the overall picture, have - or should be capable of having - their own subordinate state and church parallels in terms of pseudo-crime and pseudo-grace.
55. Hence not merely a bureaucratic subordination to meritocracy or a democratic subordination to plutocracy, but as an upper-class parallel to each of these lower-class paradoxes a technocratic subordination to theocracy and an aristocratic subordination to autocracy, making for a church-hegemonic meritocratic-theocratic axis coupled to a state-subordinate bureaucratic-technocratic axis on the one hand, and a state-hegemonic autocratic-plutocratic axis coupled to a church-subordinate aristocratic-democratic axis on the other hand, with correlative distinctions between sin and grace coupled to pseudo-punishment and pseudo-crime in the one case, and crime and punishment coupled to pseudo-grace and pseudo-sin in the other case.
56. If sin is anti-self behaviour which takes place under phenomenally objective pressures provided there is an acknowledgement of or a commitment to noumenally subjective factors, then pseudo-sin is anti-self behaviour which is subjectively independent of such phenomenal pressures and divorced, moreover, from noumenally subjective factors; if grace is pro-self behaviour which takes place independently of noumenally objective pressures because there is a commitment to noumenally subjective factors, then pseudo-grace is pro-self behaviour which takes place under noumenally objective pressures without reference to noumenally subjective factors; if crime is pro-notself behaviour which takes place independently of noumenally subjective pressures because of a commitment to noumenally objective factors, then pseudo-crime is pro-notself behaviour which takes place under noumenally subjective pressures without reference to noumenally objective factors; if punishment is anti-notself behaviour which takes place independently of phenomenally subjective pressures because of a commitment to phenomenally objective factors, then pseudo-punishment is anti-notself behaviour which takes place under phenomenally subjective pressures without reference to phenomenally objective factors.
57. Clearly there is as much difference between sin and pseudo-sin as between grace and pseudo-grace where hegemonic church and subordinate church criteria are concerned, whether because the subjective are subjected to objective pressures or not, just as there is as much difference between crime and pseudo-crime as between punishment and pseudo-punishment where hegemonic state and subordinate state criteria are concerned, whether because the objective are subjected to subjective pressures or not, as the case may be.
58. Yet, at the end of the day, a society whose ideal is crime will not be partial to grace, or even to genuine sin, any more than one whose ideal is grace will be partial to crime, or even genuine punishment. The criminal society, ruled by she-devils, will tolerate punishment for the sake of crime, whereas the graceful society, led by he-gods, will tolerate sin for the sake of grace.
59. Neither society, it goes without saying, will see 'eye to eye' but, rather, tend to disparage and ostracize one another, carrying on, as far as possible, as though the other didn't exist or was simply too contrary to contemplate. And whilst it logically follows that the omega-oriented society will resist attempts made by its diabolic or other enemies to subvert and corrupt it, it is only to be expected that the alpha-stemming and deferring society will do its utmost to corrupt and subvert, from a want of reason, its divine antithesis, since Devil the Mother has only one agenda and that is to rule 'the world' and thwart God the Father, Her upper-class rival Whose will is to lead 'the world' towards Heaven.
60. But, as already outlined, 'the world' that Devil the Mother rules over in the interests of crime and 'the world' that God the Father leads towards enhanced grace are not the same but two different approaches to worldly life, an earthly coupled to antipurgatorial commitment to the world in which physics stands nominally above antichemistry and therefore democracy likewise above plutocracy, and a purgatorial coupled to anti-earthly commitment to the world in which chemistry stands nominally above antiphysics and therefore bureaucracy likewise above meritocracy, albeit, as already noted, the democracy of the former context is subverted by plutocracy in the interests of autocratic freedom of crime which continues to rule the axis in question, while the bureaucracy of the latter context is subverted by meritocracy in the interests of theocratic freedom of grace which continues to lead the axis in question.
61. Therefore 'the world', split asunder in this axial fashion, can no more be saved (from sin to grace) en bloc than damned or, rather, sentenced (from crime to punishment) en bloc, because no single type of terminology can do equal justice to both contexts of worldly reference, the rising axis of meritocracy-theocracy being one which encourages salvation from sin to grace, the falling axis of autocracy-plutocracy one which permits sentencing from crime to punishment, so that while the Saved are theocratically 'On High', having risen diagonally from sin, the Damned are plutocratically 'down below', having fallen diagonally from crime which, like grace, is an ideal, albeit the she-devil's ideal of freedom in terms of metachemical soma as opposed, like God's, to freedom in terms of metaphysical psyche.
62. Therefore theocracy and plutocracy attest to contrary judgmental fates, the salvation of 'the sinful' in the grace of theocracy 'On High' and the sentencing of 'the criminal' in the punishment of plutocracy 'down below', which, compared to the heavenly grace of theocracy, is a sort of worldly hell compounded of the antipurgatorial subversion of the earth, as of the earthly.
63. But if one can, as a Catholic, be saved from sin to grace, rising diagonally from meritocracy to theocracy, then it must follow that, in subordinate church fashion to a hegemonic state, one will be damned, as a Protestant, from pseudo-grace to pseudo-sin, falling diagonally from aristocracy to democracy, as though from the Anglican corollary of autocratic state freedom in monarchy to the Puritan corollary of plutocratic state freedom in parliament, so that the application of religious terminology is not in question in association with church criteria, only the relevance of a given application to a particular axial context.
64. Likewise if one can be sentenced, as a monarchic subject, from crime to punishment, falling diagonally from autocracy to plutocracy, then it must follow that, in subordinate state fashion to a hegemonic church, one will be released, as a republican freeman, from pseudo-punishment to pseudo-crime, rising diagonally from bureaucracy to technocracy, as though from the ministerial corollary of meritocratic church freedom in Marianism to the presidential corollary of theocratic church freedom in Christ (transcendentally conceived in relation to God the Father), so that the application of political terminology is not in question in association with state criteria, only the relevance of a given application to a particular axial context.
65. Hence it should follow that the church-hegemonic axis of meritocracy-theocracy will attest to the possibility of salvation from meritocratic sin to theocratic grace as a primary characteristic, the corollary of which, in secondary vein, will be release from bureaucratic pseudo-punishment to technocratic pseudo-crime in conjunction with the state-subordinate axis of bureaucracy-technocracy which therefore cannot - and should not - be advanced independently of church-hegemonic criteria.
66. Likewise it should follow that the state-hegemonic axis of autocracy-plutocracy will attest to the possibility of sentencing from autocratic crime to plutocratic punishment as a primary characteristic, the corollary of which, in secondary vein, will be damnation from aristocratic pseudo-grace to democratic pseudo-sin in conjunction with the church-subordinate axis of aristocracy-democracy which therefore cannot - and should not - be advanced independently of state-hegemonic criteria.
67. Therefore salvation and damnation are no more germane to the same axial context than releasing and sentencing, since the rising diagonals of the primary approaches to sin and grace and, as their state shadow, the secondary approaches to punishment and crime will be characterized by salvation and release, salvation from sin to grace in meritocracy-theocracy and release from pseudo-punishment to pseudo-crime in bureaucracy-technocracy, whereas the falling diagonals of the primary approaches to crime and punishment and, as their church shadow, the secondary approaches to grace and sin will be characterized by sentencing and damnation, sentencing from crime to punishment in autocracy-plutocracy and damnation from pseudo-grace to pseudo-sin in aristocracy-democracy.
68. Therefore whereas the rising diagonals of church-hegemonic meritocracy-theocracy and state-subordinate bureaucracy-technocracy lead to graceful salvation from sin and to pseudo-criminal release from pseudo-punishment, the falling diagonals of state-hegemonic autocracy-plutocracy and church-subordinate aristocracy-democracy lead to the punishment of sentencing from crime and to pseudo-sinful damnation from pseudo-grace.
69. Consequently one can only be saved and/or released from 'the world' when 'the world' is meritocratic/bureaucratic and thus indicative of sin and pseudo-punishment, neither of which have anything much to commend them to the otherworldly criteria of grace and pseudo-crime which require a theocratic/technocratic partnership between church and state such that reflects a subjectively-hegemonic upper-class orientation in which the metaphysical/antimetachemical Few take sensible precedence over the sensuality of the antiphysical/chemical Many.
70. Consequently one can only be sentenced and/or damned to 'the world' when 'the world' is plutocratic/democratic and thus indicative of punishment and pseudo-sin, neither of which have anything much to commend them to the netherworldly criteria of crime and pseudo-grace which require an autocratic/aristocratic partnership between state and church such that reflects an objectively-hegemonic upper-class orientation in which the metachemical/antimetaphysical Few take sensual precedence over the sensibility of the antichemical/physical Many.
71. Therefore whilst one is saved and/or released from 'the world', conceived in relation to meritocratic and bureaucratic criteria, to an overworld characterized, in otherworldly vein, by theocratic and technocratic criteria, one will be sentenced and/or damned to 'the world', conceived in relation to plutocratic and/or democratic criteria, from an overworld characterized, in netherworldly vein, by autocratic and aristocratic criteria.
72. Being saved and/or released from 'the world' implies coming to terms with upper-class criteria such that progressively supersede lower-class criteria in relation to the rejection of sinful meritocracy in favour of graceful theocracy on the one hand, that of salvation as a characteristic of church-hegemonic criteria, and to the rejection of pseudo-punishing bureaucracy in favour of pseudo-criminal technocracy on the other hand, that of release as a characteristic of state-subordinate criteria, so that one effectively climbs from antiphysical sin to metaphysical grace, antimasculine maleness to divine maleness in the primary context, and from chemical pseudo-punishment to antimetachemical pseudo-crime, feminine femaleness to antidiabolic femaleness in the secondary context.
73. Being sentenced and/or damned to 'the world' implies coming to terms with lower-class criteria such that regressively supersede upper-class criteria in relation to the ejection from criminal autocracy to punishing plutocracy on the one hand, that of sentencing as a characteristic of state-hegemonic criteria, and to the ejection from pseudo-graceful aristocracy to pseudo-sinful democracy on the other hand, that of damnation as a characteristic of church-subordinate criteria, so that one effectively falls from metachemical crime to antichemical punishment, diabolic femaleness to antifeminine femaleness in the primary context, and from antimetaphysical pseudo-grace to physical pseudo-sin, antidivine maleness to masculine maleness in the secondary context.
74. If one is saved from 'the world', as defined above, by God, with a view to heavenly redemption in grace, then one is damned to 'the world', as also defined above, by the Devil, with a view of hellish perdition in pseudo-sin.
75. Thus whilst one is saved in church-hegemonic society from sin to grace, rising diagonally from meritocracy to theocracy, one is damned in church-subordinate society from pseudo-grace to pseudo-sin, falling diagonally from aristocracy to democracy. The God of theocracy saves up from antihumanist (nonconformist) sin to transcendentalist grace, being commensurate, in his upper-class highness, with such grace; the Devil of democracy damns down from antitranscendentalist (fundamentalist) pseudo-grace to humanist (antinonconformist) pseudo-sin, being commensurate, in his lower-class lowness, with such pseudo-sin.
76. Thus whereas God is gracefully 'On High', the Devil is pseudo-sinfully 'down below', the former appertaining in properly religious terms to the upper-class manifestation (transcendentalist) of a church-hegemonic axis, the latter, in pseudo-religious terms, to the lower-class manifestation (humanist) of a church-subordinate axis, both of which, however, are male.
77. If one is sentenced to 'the world', as defined above, by Justice, with a view to worldly guilt in punishment, then one is released from 'the world', as defined in contrary terms above, by Law, with a view to otherworldly innocence in pseudo-crime.
78. Thus whilst one is sentenced in state-hegemonic society from crime to punishment, falling diagonally from autocracy to plutocracy, one is released in state-subordinate society from pseudo-punishment to pseudo-crime, rising diagonally from bureaucracy to technocracy. The Justice of plutocracy sentences down from anti-idealist (materialist) crime to antirealist (naturalist) punishment, being commensurate, in her lower-class lowness, with such punishment; the Law of technocracy releases up from realist (antinaturalist) pseudo-punishment to idealist (antimaterialist) pseudo-crime, being commensurate, in her upper-class highness, with such pseudo-crime.
79. Thus whereas Justice is punishingly 'down below', Law is pseudo-criminally 'On High', the former appertaining in properly political terms to the lower-class manifestation (antirealist) of a state-hegemonic axis, the latter, in pseudo-political terms, to the upper-class manifestation (idealist) of a state-subordinate axis, both of which, however, are female.
80. No less than the grace of God and the pseudo-criminality of the Law go hand-in-glove, as two aspects of the same subjectively-oriented upper-class reality or, rather, ideality led - though not exclusively characterized - by male criteria, so do the punishment of Justice and the pseudo-sin of the Devil go hand-in-glove, as two aspects of the same objectively-oriented lower-class ideality or, rather, reality governed - though not exclusively characterized - by female criteria.
81. Therefore one is either saved/released up from the sinful/pseudo-punishing 'below', or one is sentenced/damned down to the punishing/pseudo-sinful 'below', depending on one's axial orientation within a given type of society, be it criminally free in autocratic state hegemony on the one hand, or gracefully free in theocratic church hegemony on the other hand, the corollary of the former being pseudo-graceful binding in aristocratic church subordination and the corollary of the latter being pseudo-criminal binding in technocratic state subordination.
82. That which is diagonally above Justice/the Devil is not the Law/God, as defined above, but what is unlawful/ungodly in its state criminality and church pseudo-grace.
83. That which is diagonally beneath God/the Law is not the Devil/Justice, as defined above, but what is unholy/unjust in its church sinfulness and state pseudo-punishment.
84. Therefore although state criminality poses as Law and church pseudo-grace as God, God and the Law are only to be found in church grace and state pseudo-criminality, which stand to metachemical freedom and antimetaphysical binding in the antithetical terms of metaphysical freedom and antimetachemical binding, or that which is sensibly noumenal as opposed to sensually noumenal.
85. Therefore although church sinfulness poses as the Devil and state pseudo-punishingness as Justice, Justice and the Devil are only to be found in state punishment and church pseudo-sin, which stand to the theocratically-conditioned upended paradoxes of antiphysical freedom and chemical binding in the antithetical terms of the autocratically-conditioned upended paradoxes of antichemical freedom and physical binding, or that which is sensibly phenomenal as opposed to sensually phenomenal.
86. One falls in primary terms from Unlawfulness (criminality) to Justice (punishment) and in secondary terms from Ungodliness (pseudo-grace) to the Devil (pseudo-sinfulness) in connection with the descending axes of autocracy-plutocracy and aristocracy-democracy, but rises in primary terms from Unholiness (sin) to Godliness (grace) and in secondary terms from Injustice (pseudo-punishment) to the Law (pseudo-criminality) in connection with the ascending axes of meritocracy-theocracy and bureaucracy-technocracy.
87. God and the Law are no less the theocratic/technocratic radical end of things rising (evolving) than Justice and the Devil are the plutocratic/democratic radical end of things falling (devolving); for in the Beginning of the one axis there is an unholy/unjust conservative hope of things Godly and Lawful, and in the Beginning of the other axis an unlawful/ungodly conservative fear of things Just and Devilish.
88. Now imagine a situation in which there is a conservative hope of things Godly and Lawful because of the sinful unholiness and pseudo-punishing unjustness which obtains in relation to a theocracy/technocracy which liberally defers to 'the world' by absolving sin and accepting pseudo-punishment through a type of grace and order of pseudo-crime which is implicit rather than explicit, latent rather than developed, and therefore inclined, for all its conditioning influence on 'the below', to play second-fiddle, as it were, to what more prevalently obtains there in relation to the worldly Many.
89. Such a situation typifies the church-hegemonic meritocratic-theocratic axis and the state-subordinate bureaucratic-technocratic axis which currently exists in, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where you have explicit sin and implicit grace, the grace not of transcendental meditation as graceful praxis in humanized transcendentalism but of verbal absolution in response to penitential contrition as an aspect of the transcendentalized humanism of Christianity proper, and, coupled to this, explicit pseudo-punishment and implicit pseudo-crime, the crime not of a presidential executive as pseudo-criminal praxis in idealism but of a titular presidency in response to the legislative representativeness of the realism of the existing republican constitution.
90. This is the situation of 'the world' when 'the world' as meritocracy/bureaucracy, sin and pseudo-punishment, has not been 'overcome' but effectively keeps the overworld of theocracy/technocracy, grace and pseudo-crime, pegged to its own lower-class limitations and short of that otherworldy transmutation commensurate, through a higher and, in its synthetic artificiality, more genuine order of transcendentalism and idealism, with 'Kingdom Come'.
91. Yet 'Kingdom Come' is not the reinstatement of monarchy in some future Kingdom with divine and/or heavenly intentions, but a church-hegemonic context of Social Theocracy that stands above and beyond the liberal theocracy which, through Roman Catholicism, characterizes the religious status quo, and such a context would be determined (in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, the sovereignty of 'Kingdom Come' which would supersede political sovereignty and ensure that the People had rights in respect of a religious development that was totally independent of anything worshipfully subservient to anterior factors, including the so-called 'Creator'), would be determined, I repeat, to reverse the fulcrum of power, so to speak, which characterizes 'the world' of meritocracy/bureaucracy in favour of its fulcrum being the theocracy/technocracy which would characterize the otherworldly context of a religiously sovereign people coupled to a politically sovereign leader, responsible for bearing the sins and/or pseudo-punishments of 'the world', as church and state took on a Social Theocratic/Technocratic standing which explicitly replaced implicit grace with the more authentic grace of transcendental meditation, duly transmuted from anything Buddhist in respect to the necessity for the urban proletariat of synthetically artificial criteria, and explicitly replaced, through a new written constitution suited to the legal arrogation of political sovereignty in response to a democratic exchange of such sovereignty on the part of the masses for religious sovereignty, implicit pseudo-crime with the more authentic pseudo-crime of a presidential executive such that would be empowered, in the name of the religiously sovereign People, to serve the advancement of that sovereignty by all means in its state power, including, besides the advancement of the institutional and cultural structures of religious sovereignty for a religiously sovereign church (people), the removal, bit by bit and place after place, of whatever remained of the old order and stood in the way of further theocratic progress, the residues of meritocratic sin and bureaucratic pseudo-punishment not least of all!
92. For 'Kingdom Come' cannot be run on the basis of 'the below' calling the shots but, being otherworldy in its upper-class orientation, requires to be run from 'On High' in the interests of a religiously sovereign People that, in the event of having provided a majority mandate at 'Judgement', or the choice between 'the world' of sin and pseudo-punishment and 'the overworld' of grace and pseudo-crime, will have been saved from sin to grace, and therefore require to be served in such upper-class fashion, a fashion commensurate with a presidential executive which would have the power to reshape society in the interests of a theocratic freedom which was not merely liberal, and effectively deferential to sin, but radical to the point of Social Theocracy, the extreme-left-wing communist counterpart to Social Democracy which, being low and physical, approaches communism from an economic standpoint rather than from a religious standpoint in respect of a metaphysical disposition intended to save society, or a certain type of society (primarily meritocratic-theocratic), to the graceful heights as opposed to sentence a contrary type of society (primarily autocratic-plutocratic) to the punishing depths, depths which, in criminalizing the bourgeoisie, condemn the People to eternal punishment as that which must henceforward punish itself or disintegrate for want of anything better to do.
93. For we cannot even speak here of the People's having been damned to pseudo-sin when the criteria primarily at work are secular and associated, in consequence, with crime and punishment, with unlawfulness and justice, in autocratic-plutocratic fashion, such aristocracy and democracy as is unearthed, as from under the hegemonic dead-weight of a stone of state power and antiglory, failing to deliver 'heaven on earth' for want of genuine religiosity in relation to a context, an axial mean, which defies religion and relegates it, in pseudo-graceful and pseudo-sinful terms, to Limbo, a shadow-world presided over by the atheistic ungodly, who are or become as demons punishing devils that are only too ready, in the pseudo-sinful earthiness of 'fuck*** hell', to punish themselves.
94. No, we shall not make the error of investing a fundamentally secular context like Social Democracy with religious attributes and dimensions which it would be ill-qualified and ill-equipped to develop! Social Democracy can never bring 'heaven to earth' for the simple reason that it remains profoundly irreligious in its secular, or economic, estimate of society and, by extension, life in general, and the nadir thereby of a state-hegemonic axis whose punishment is class justice.
95. Social Democracy remains the victim, for all its messianic and apocalyptic rhetoric, of an axial tradition dominated, in female vein, by state-hegemonic criteria appertaining to crime and punishment, and there is no way that it can extricate itself from that fate and cultivate anything approximating to genuine grace. Its polarities are of wealth and poverty, and when the poor cannot punish the wealthy through their elected representatives, then the poor will punish themselves or, rather, unelected representatives of the poor will punish the poor in the name of some elusive paradise which, for all its religious rhetoric, would return society to a collectivistic variant on the status-quo ante in which state wealth replaced state poverty in the interests of neo-autocratic crime.
96. No, there cannot be 'heaven on earth' where there is no capacity for anything heavenly, or graceful, to begin with, but only earthly justice as the precondition of a new form of unlawful crime. 'Heaven on earth' or, more correctly, 'anti-earth', for all its shortcomings, is closer to the theocratic absolution of sins which the meritocratically sinful receive through penitential contrition, and even that is inadequate, as we have seen, from the standpoint of what is more genuinely godly and graceful and indisposed, in consequence, to forgive sin, since once 'the world' of meritocratic sinfulness had been judgementally overcome there would be little or no sin to forgive, in any case, and much more incentive and scope for the cultivation of grace.
97. Thus those who live in hope of redemption from sin can only be truly saved via Social Theocracy, which will set about designing means whereby grace becomes the rule and sin the exception, a rule that can only be upheld and furthered by the correlative existence of pseudo-crime which releases, in its upper-class innocence, from the guilt of pseudo-punishment as its church-hegemonic counterpart saves from the mortal stain of sin to the immortal purity of authentic grace in transcendentalist praxis, a praxis duly informed and characterized by synthetically artificial criteria such that portend the development of cyborgization towards a sensible peak which will be the omega point of Heaven, not merely of a 'heaven on anti-earth', but of Heaven in space, the space-centre omega point of a heavenly per se.
98. There are the 'fuck*** pricks' of Social Democracy who lead down deeper into the earth, as towards Hell, and there are the 'snogg*** pricks' ('bums') of Social Theocracy who lead up deeper into space, where Heaven can peak in perfect self-realization of soul. Both, however, are extreme left-wing, albeit in diametrically opposite ways - the economic form of communism that, to a large extent, stems from Marx, and the religious form of communism that stems, to no little extent, from Nietzsche, albeit I have done much to clarify and concretize the terms of engagement whereby this higher form of communism, or People's radicalism, comes to pass as that which is properly representative of 'Kingdom Come', since it is not about the transformation of mass poverty into mass wealth but of mass hope into mass or, rather, space charity, a kindly attitude towards the self, the soul, which develops out of any such attitude towards others which, in the sinful past, has been fostered by the spirit duly informing, or transmuting, ego.
99. Because both forms of communism, like anything radically male, are oriented towards enhanced subjectivity, they are characterized by clenched-fist saluting, whether on bent-arm or raised-arm terms, the difference, after all, between earth and sky, blue-collar and white-collar proletarianism, the lower-class democratized plutocracy of state socialism or the upper-class technocratized theocracy of church transcendentalism - in short, between the bent-arm clenched fist of Social Democracy and the raised-arm clenched fist of Social Theocracy.
100. Confusions and ambivalences in the past were doubtless due to a plethora of factors, not least the want of a clear-cut or, indeed, any distinction between these two approaches to communism, but followed from the subsuming of what I would now call Social Theocratic tendencies into Social Democracy under the prevailing influence of Marxism on communism, and therefore the economic interpretation of history and class struggle which owes a lot more to autocracy-plutocracy and even, in church-subordinate vein, to aristocracy-democracy than ever it does to anything meritocratic-theocratic or, in state-subordinate vein, bureaucratic-technocratic, all the more regrettable when peoples closer to the latter pairings were co-opted to criteria stemming from the former pairings under the misguided influence of persons who, like Marx and Lenin, studied abroad and were influenced by currents of thought that arguably owe more to English, if not Anglo-American, traditions than to anything properly Continental, not excepting the French Revolution.
101. But, of course, there was what I have called a Social Autocratic reaction to Social Democracy, as we may call the economic mode of communism, and this reaction took the scientifically fascist form of the raised-arm extended-hand salute, since it was no less objectively upper-class than the bent-arm clenched-fist salute of Social Democracy subjectively lower-class, being significant of a kind of absolutely criminal retort to the unduly punishing nature of blue-collar communism, with its ravenous appetite for class justice.
102. The most virulent form of scientific fascism was, of course, National Socialism, and in this form, deeply steeped in racial hatred, a bloody conflict was waged with the economic form of communism which led to some of the most savage fighting of World War Two, as an axis that in Britain and even America tended to live in liberal compromise between radical and/or liberal and conservative elements was torn asunder from contrary standpoints, the polarized standpoints of totalitarian punishment in Social Democracy and totalitarian crime in Social Autocracy, better known as Bolshevism and Nazism.
103. Should there be a Social Bureaucratic reaction to Social Theocracy, presuming upon a like-division or parting of the ways between meritocracy and/or bureaucracy and theocracy and/or technocracy in respect of the rising diagonals of church-hegemonic societies, then such a reaction would take the politically fascist form of the bent-arm extended-hand salute, since it would be no less objectively lower-class than the raised-arm clenched-fist salute of Social Theocracy subjectively upper-class, being significant of a kind of sinful, if not relatively criminal, retort to the absolutely graceful nature (or, rather, nurture) of religious communism.
104. Where, exactly, such an arch-conservative reaction, necessarily extreme right-wing on phenomenal rather than noumenal terms, would come to pass, one cannot say for certain; though one can hazard a guess that nominally Catholic countries with large ethnic populations that were less than antihumanistic or transcendentalist but nonconformist, if not fundamentalist, in character would be among the countries most likely to reject Social Theocracy in the event of enhanced grace being regarded as an ethnic threat rather than a mode of salvation from sin which necessarily lifted life to a higher plane.
105. I do not say that such countries will wage war, in Nazi-fashion, upon any country upholding the religious form of communism, but I would expect them to oppose it in their own sphere of influence or simply not wish to embrace it for fear that it might lead to social unrest among those sections of the masses who, in a manner of speaking, prefer sin to grace and might grow disillusioned with the Church to such an extent that they back the sort of state totalitarianism which I have characterized, in politically fascist vein, as Social Bureaucratic. For it is only from Social Bureaucracy that the relative crime of phenomenal war would emerge, as though in consequence of a want of sinful respect for grace in the event of the rejection of theocracy.
106. Frankly, I think such a scenario is unlikely to happen even in the most nominally Catholic of countries; for the Church cannot be swept away or repudiated just like that, as if it were of small account and of no universal significance. However, for the sake of argument, I have spelt out the terms of what would constitute a politically fascist reaction to religious communism, and outlined for this form of reaction a salute that would stand in a diametrically contrary relationship to the raised-arm clenched-fist salute of Social Theocracy, thereby constituting the lower-class mode of fascist reaction to upper-class communism, the axial antithesis of the relationship between Nazism and Bolshevism as upper-class fascist and lower-class communist adversaries.
107. Certainly if you go forward on a given axis you can expect some kind of reaction sooner or later, whether criminal to punishing on the descending axis of Social Autocracy-Social Democracy or sinful to graceful on the ascending axis of Social Bureaucracy-Social Theocracy. For the female side of life can always be expected to conservatively react to male radicalism, whether regressive or progressive, falling or rising, devolutionary or evolutionary, as compromise between liberal means is seemingly undermined and even torn asunder in the interests of enhanced subjectivity, whether of an underground or an overground character of post-worldly, if not otherworldly, proletarianism.
108. It is not that 'the world' is torn asunder so much as that 'the world' either reacts against otherworldly progress which threatens the right of sin to conservatively or meritocratically exist or netherworldly reaction ensues upon a regressive 'worldliness' which threatens the right of crime to conservatively or autocratically exist. Hence reaction is not necessarily against progress alone, but can and more usually has been against 'worldly' regress such that takes a Social Democratic form at the expense of liberal democratic and constitutional autocratic norms, where reaction is most violent because criminally appertaining to an upper-class ideal which, traditionally, is the seat of most if not all state power.
109. I believe that violent reaction to the regressive mode of People's radicalism, much as I would never support or condone it, is always more to be expected in view of the extent to which Social Democracy signifies the nadir of things state hegemonic, beneath even the more liberal forms of punishment and pseudo-sin to which the fallen are sentenced and/or damned, as explained above, in consequence of the extents of their departure from the autocratic ideal of unlawful crime and the aristocratic ideal, or pseudo-ideal, of ungodly pseudo-grace. For that which is Social Democratic is even further down the autocratic-plutocratic and/or aristocratic-democratic axis than the parliamentary and puritan representatives of plutocratic punishment and democratic pseudo-sin, and can only appear all the more contemptible to upper-class conservatives in consequence.
110. However, a violent reaction to the progressive mode of People's radicalism would be no less contemptible in view of the extent to which, to turn things around, Social Theocracy would signify the apex of things church hegemonic, beyond even the more liberal forms of grace and pseudo-crime by which the unholy are saved and the unjust released, in consequence of the sincerity of their regret and/or remorse in respect of meritocratic sin and/or bureaucratic pseudo-punishment, something that, if rejected from a less than Catholic standpoint, a heathenistic standpoint of state totalitarianism (which has been characterized as politically fascist), would reduce life to the lowest-common-state-denominator of Social Bureaucracy, and thus to a relative type of crime which would appear all the more contemptible to upper-class radicals in consequence of its repudiation of church-hegemonic criteria in favour of the lowest form of barbarism.
111. Therefore whilst it could be said, if with regret from a left-wing standpoint, that the counter-regressive reaction of 'the more conservative above' to the regressive action of 'the more radical below' in respect of the notself-oriented descending axis of crime and punishment made some logical sense, it would be difficult if not impossible to logically condone any reaction, necessarily counter-progressive, of 'the more conservative below' to the progressive action of 'the more radical above' in respect of the self-oriented ascending axis of sin and grace, particularly in the event of a less than sinful and effectively criminal displacement of meritocracy by bureaucracy which, in terms of a state-totalitarian repudiation of the Church, would signify the social-bureaucratic nadir of things fascist and, hence, criminal.
112. I do not, myself, believe that any self-respecting Catholic nation would tolerate such a heathenistic aberration, and therefore I do not see the future as repeating, along fascist/communist lines, the dreadful events of the past, when a low mode of communism invited reaction from a high mode of fascism in relation to an axis which descends from crime to punishment, and can never, under any circumstances, culminate in anything remotely resembling genuine grace and, hence, heavenliness, not least since its autocratic inception, wherein the criminal ideal sits unlawfully enthroned, plays host to an ungodly form of religiosity which, in church-subordinate vein, woefully proclaims its Anglican loyalty to pseudo-grace.
113. Therefore it is with some well-founded optimism that I proclaim, by contrast, the desirability of genuine grace from a more radically theocratic point of view than anything appertaining to the theocracy which crowns the Roman Catholic Church in the liberal halo of a transcendentalized humanism stemming from Christ. I do not say that 'the world' should not be overcome; for that is precisely what anything genuinely godly strives to do, not merely defer to it, world-without-sinful-end, but actively and honourably engage upon the noble process of overcoming it, so that what transpires is a shift in power from 'the below' to 'the above', as God 'calls the shots' at the expense of man or, rather, the antihumanist antiman, the antimasculine 'antipricks' who pertain to the meritocratic subversion, church-hegemonically, of bureaucracy, and therefore sinfully condition the terms of reference at the expense of such relative crime as would otherwise prevail in relation to woman, the feminine 'cunts' whose volumetric hegemony over massive mass would be all the more influential in the absence of an overall theocratic control of society, situated in or at least deferring to spaced space, from 'On High'.
114. There is already a 'world-overcoming' achievement and tendency at large in respect of this meritocratic-theocratic axial paradox, which displaces bureaucracy from what would otherwise be - and in political fascist terms can revert to becoming - a feminine-female control and direction of society in the interests of relative crime, the phenomenal or lower-class type of crime which freely appertains to 'suck*** cunts' as opposed to their 'frigg*** cunt' ('jerk') upper-class counterparts in the rather more naturally female-hegemonic context of metachemical freedom of soma which, as we have seen, has autocratic implications.
115. There is even, it must be said, a kind of 'world overcoming' achievement and tendency at large in respect of the autocratic-plutocratic axial paradox, which displaces democracy from what would otherwise be - and in economic communist terms can aspire to becoming - a masculine-male control and direction of society in the interests of relative grace, the phenomenal or lower-class type of grace which freely appertains to 'fuck*** pricks' as opposed to their 'snogg*** 'prick' ('bum') upper-class counterparts in the rather more unnaturally or, as it were, 'nurturally' male hegemonic context of metaphysical freedom of psyche which, as we have seen, has theocratic implications.
116. However, such 'world overcoming' as characterizes the autocratic-plutocratic axis in state-hegemonic primary terms and the aristocratic-democratic axis in church-subordinate secondary terms, is designed to prevent the supersession of crime by punishment and of pseudo-grace by pseudo-sin, since, in reality, the justice of punishment only supersedes the unlawfulness of crime as a sentencing down, and the devil of pseudo-sin only supersedes the ungodliness of pseudo-grace as a damning down, neither of which can or would lead to relative grace when you do not have the conditions for a masculine democratic hegemony to begin with, since such an interpretation of democracy is profoundly puritan and church-hegemonic in character without being in any sense associated with the true church, and grace based or, rather, centred in physical criteria merely confirms, through 'the word' and hence knowledge, the governance of man, not of God, and reduces religion, as indeed life, to narrow earthly parameters wherein the fundamentally false notion of 'heaven on earth' has its misguided place and religion soon revolves around nature and closeness to nature as a neo-Edenic interpretation, necessarily false, of paradise.
117. I despise and repudiate such a mundane reduction of religion to the earthly parameters of man and of human knowledge, which is, after all, 'forbidden fruit' in any paradise which stands closer to God, as to Truth, and for the simple reason that it makes that which is physical take on more importance, in the eye of its beholder, than what is metaphysical and therefore germane to a higher order of knowledge which, in its infinite scope, is commensurate with truth and thus the overcoming of ego, as of man.
118. Therefore any religion which is genuine and thus true ... will reject the world, including the relative grace of physical knowledge, in the interests of the otherworldly knowledge which, centred in the absolute grace of God, of Truth, leads to Joy and, hence, Heaven. The 'earthly paradise' is a false trail which leads nowhere but down, further and deeper into worldly delusion and, ultimately, despair, torment, pain - in a word, the diabolical justice of punishment!
119. One could not reasonably advocate such a trail whilst adhering to genuine religion, to theocracy, and if the autocratic opponents of democracy, of democratic religion, do not advocate such a trail it is not because they are in favour of genuine religion (their aristocratic acquiescence in pseudo-grace demonstrates that fact adequately enough!), but rather in favour of protecting and advancing their own criminal interests which, no matter how incredibly it may seem to those 'down below', appertain to an ideal, the unlawful ideal of state-hegemonic crime.
120. Of course, one would like both that and them not to exist, but that is another matter, and one which cannot be addressed without reference not only to what also exists as sentenced/damned down the autocratic-plutocratic and aristocratic-democratic axis of the diagonally descending type of society (which must be held back, as far as possible, from Social Democratic descent into the dark depths of earthly hell) but, more significantly from a moral standpoint, to what exists as saved/released up the meritocratic-theocratic and bureaucratic-technocratic axis of the diagonally ascending type of society, wherein it might be hoped that the sinful unholy and pseudo-punishing unjust were destined to be finally 'overcome' in the interests of a higher order of grace and pseudo-crime, an order commensurate with a new and more advanced stage of 'world overcoming' in which the godly and lawful, now radically progressive, 'called the shots' to the end of eternal universality and the development, within a framework of religious sovereignty, of 'Kingdom Come'.
121. For in that theocratic and technocratic way of progressively developing life to ever-greater evolutionary heights lies the true and ultimate justification of 'world overcoming', not merely on relative Christian terms, but on absolute transcendentalist terms, the Messianic terms of Social Theocracy, such that would lead life beyond 'the world' ... of sinful stain and pseudo-punishing guilt ... to a 'Kingdom of God' centred, for ever more, in the purity of grace and the innocence of pseudo-crime, the partnership of an ultimate church/state symbiosis which transmutes the terms of church and state from relative co-existence to an increasingly centralized absolutism which I have in the past termed Centrist and identified, contrary to any political moderation, with 'the Centre', as that which, in overhauling church/state relativity, would stand as the omega-oriented antithesis to the Kingdoms of autocratic antiquity, when theocracy, to the extent it existed, was more often than not subsumed into autocracy and the godly, or what pertains to God, effectively subordinated if not to the Devil, in the he-devil earthly sense we have identified with a 'damning down' the church-subordinate axis of aristocracy-democracy, then certainly to Devil the Mother, as the unlawful 'first mover' of cosmic primacy.
122. Consequently 'Kingdom Come' is anything but a Kingdom in that more authentic sense wherein religion is subverted by science and the Devil or, rather, Devil the Mother gets to play God the Father or even to preclude God the Father through an undue emphasis upon the Satanic Antison of Antigod, roughly corresponding, in sequential time, to a solar 'fallen angel', which enacts somatic emphasis, contrary to male gender reality of psyche preceding and predominating over soma, under hegemonic female stellar pressures from spatially 'on high', where even at this cosmic stage of life it could be said, in no uncertain terms, that soma precedes and predominates over psyche.
123. Our coming 'Kingdom', to repeat, will be Centrist in the way that, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty following a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process by a people given to church-hegemonic criteria who could be expected to favour such a paradoxical utilization of the State to a higher church end, it would serve the religiously sovereign People from the standpoint of an executive presidency that was responsible for bearing the 'sins and/or pseudo-punishments' of the meritocratic/bureaucratic 'world' in order that the People, as electorate, could be delivered from them to the context of religious praxis which has, in previous texts, been identified with the triadic Beyond, including, below the transcendentalist tier, both modified humanist and nonconformist tiers for persons of, in general terms, Anglican and Puritan denominational descent who would be entitled to take their predestined place beneath those of Catholic descent in the overall hierarchical structure, necessarily pluralist to begin with, of 'the Centre'.
124. Initially this can only happen, as previously explained, in countries like Ireland (both South and North) and, hopefully, Scotland and Wales, along the lines of a kind of Gaelic federation which would facilitate, democratically and peaceably, the break-up of the United Kingdom and thus of the chief obstacle to theocratic progress that comes, in England, from autocracy and, as described in an earlier text, drives England further into the crime-obsessed arms of the perpendicular triangular culture of autocratic America at the expense of Europe, including countries like France and Germany.
125. Hopefully, such countries, together with Russia, will come to an accommodation with Social Theocracy in due course; for it is important that Europe comes together and stands firm against Anglo-American opposition and reaction to radical progress, since such reaction, although more usually and understandably directed at radical regress in the form of Social Democracy, owes more to autocratic factors than to anything else and only when autocracy has been sufficiently undermined in Britain in consequence of the democratic dismantlement of the United Kingdom via the development, bit by bit, of a Gaelic federation (of Ireland, Scotland, etc.) will there be any possibility of England ceasing to be a problem both for Europe and the wider world in general, as the prospects for a republic and a rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church as a precondition of subsequent moral progress grow increasingly likely, not least in respect of a disestablished Anglican Church that would cease to simply exist in the shadow of autocratic state freedom, but become more open to meritocratic and theocratic options in pro-Catholic vein.
126. All that is rather to anticipate the future, or, at any rate, to conceive of a outcome to evolution which is more than simply liberal theocratic in character but radically theocratic, Social Theocratic, and capable of holding its own in the face of that regressive radicalism which owes more, in relation to the descending axis, to devolution than to evolution and would reduce life to the state-economic parameters of Social Democracy, not to mention be capable of standing up to reactionary conservatism from 'below' on its own axis and showing sceptics that 'the world' can be 'overcome' in the interests of greater religious freedom, which means the enhanced grace of soulful redemption.
127. For that is the only way that life can progress, up from sin to grace in church-hegemonic terms and up from pseudo-punishment to pseudo-crime in state-subordinate terms, the godly/lawful combination of which will make for the religious communism of 'Kingdom Come' in which the raised-arm clenched fist signifies the higher order of subjectivity which leads not down to Hell, as from antiheaven on earth, but from heaven on anti-earth up to Heaven per se, and thus to a kind of synthetically artificial afterlife-type experience which will signify, beyond even space-centre mortuaries, the ultimate interpretation of 'resurrecting the dead' when once life becomes sufficiently eternal, sufficiently cyborged, to permit of any such longevity, a longevity which must ultimately be sited in space centres, where it would overhaul the more conventional afterlife-type experience of those who had actually died and been encouraged, as never before, to go to Heaven, in spinal-cord pure light, rather than remain bound to the earth, in brain-stem visionary experience, through conventional burial.
128. Verily the Way to Eternal Life has been truly stated, and it presupposes the overcoming of temporal life and its birth-life-death and rebirth-relife-redeath of that 'eternity' which does not last for ever but succumbs, eventually, to the pattern already laid down by the mortality of the flesh as the brain-stem/spinal-cord self, too, decomposes into the darkness of burnt-out nothingness, of ashes and dust, the other side of eternity.
129. Therefore, at the end of the day, as of the world, there is only one way forward, the progressive radicalism of the religious form of communism which has been called Social Theocracy and which leads ever more onwards and up towards the most perfect eternity of that communal cyborgization which, indicative in its centro-complexification of the transcendence of the many in the One, will permit the saved individual to lose his ego and find his soul as often and for as long as he wants within a framework which will not only be truly but ultimately universal.
LONDON 2003 (Revised 2004-12)