Monday, December 18, 2006


I have always maintained that Social Theocracy should only strive for a position of ideological influence through the democratic process, albeit in relation to countries where, like Eire, a majority Catholic tradition would make the prospect of a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria feasible, if only because the people concerned have been accustomed to such an axial reality and, in some cases, remain acquainted with it even in the face of a quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate lapsed Catholic decadence commensurate with Anglo-American - and particularly American - secular influence. But such a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria could only be Social Theocratic and therefore strictly revolutionary in character, extending the axis in relation to a post-worldly and therefore effectively global age. The paradoxical utilization of the democratic process to counter the contemporary paradox of quasi-state-hegemonic/quasi-church-subordinate deference by those at the southwest to those at the northwest of the intercardinal axial compass would be intended to foster a desire, in the people, for a return to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria on the basis of a Social Theocratic revolution such that could only transpire in the event - however unlikely at present - of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, which I have been advocating for several years as the desirable alternative to political sovereignty and its worldly concomitants and implications. Therefore I am no advocate of republicanism, neither on the liberal basis of the Irish Republic nor on the radical basis of a more totalitarian approach to politics such that would lead to a socialistic/fascistic polarity in Eire analogous to that which prevailed, in the inter-war years, between Sinn Fein and the Blue Shirts. For me, the Republic is something that, in Nietzsche's memorable phrase, 'should be overcome', and the only way that this can happen is if a majority mandate for religious sovereignty were to transpire from a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process with a view to 'world overcoming' in relation to the prospect of 'otherworldly' criteria taking precedence over anything else. Then what I have called the Social Theocratic Centre would be born, and it would be akin, in my judgement, to 'Kingdom Come', insofar as it would be designed to accommodate the rights of a religiously sovereign people, including the right to be free from religious superstition and tyranny, with its basis in netherworldly tradition. For until the people are religiously sovereign they will not be free from the last bastion of tyranny, which is that of Jehovahesque Creatorism in respect of Old Testament criteria and the notion - no matter how nonsensical or infantile - of a cosmic Creator Who, in metaphorical parlance, was or remains responsible for everything that followed. But free from is not, as Nietzsche would doubtless agree, the same as free for, and more important than being free from religious superstition and tradition would be being free for religious self-realization through self-transcendence of a synthetically artificial character, the sort of character that would be necessary not only to global civilization as a synthetic actuality in the process of development, but to the defeat, through potent alternatives, of contemporary American-dominated synthetic artificiality such that more often than not takes a celluloid form in its associations with the film industry and camera-based media in general. But of course this could not transpire without recourse to a correlative process of what I have in the past called 'cyborgization' such that would enable the religiously sovereign people (earmarked for supra-human transmutation) to have recourse to enlightenment of a synthetically artificial character without fear of natural repercussions such that are only too prevalent on the human plane. For 'man is something that should be overcome' from the standpoint of godliness, call it superman or superbeing if you will, since godliness, when properly understood, could only be dangerous to man and we wouldn't want man to suffer from trying to play God without actually undergoing the necessary transformations that would render him, or his evolutionary successor, godly and thus capable of living on a properly or fully godly plane with virtual impunity. However, I am merely scratching the surface of the overall complexity of the problem in this blog - which is not a substitute for my works in general (see, for example, OPERA D'OEUVRE) - and therefore I have not mentioned the antimetachemical corollary of metaphysical godliness which, as an antifemale reality, would be antidevilishness, and therefore something that needs to be addressed as a quite separate category germane less to the Celestial City, to use Bunyanesque terms, than to what I have tended to equate with Anti-Vanity Fair. Unfortunately, conventional Western thinking is too inclined to subsume the sexes into one another rather than to differentiate between them in such fashion that criteria applying to the one sex are not applied to the other. All this will have to change in the more fully developed global future, once universality gets properly under way on a basis that requires an anti-polyversal corollary if it is not to be subversively undermined.


Post a Comment

<< Home