A leader leads the People towards

                                The goal or goals he has set for them.

                                He doesn't consult them,

                                Like a People's Representative,

                                Because he isn't politically accountable to them

                                On account of sovereignty being vested

                                In himself instead of in the masses.

                                He leads by 'Divine Right', and is, in effect,

                                The embodiment of the Holy Spirit,

                                Free from earthly bourgeois attachments.

                                Thus he is the antithesis of a monarch,

                                Whose sovereignty derived from

                                A very different kind of divinity -

                                Namely, that of the Father - and whose status

                                Was accordingly autocratic rather than theocratic.

                                The monarch ruled, he didn't lead;

                                He upheld natural determinism, not free will;

                                Respect for the Creator,

                                Not an aspiration towards an Ultimate Creation.

                                A leader, appertaining to an antithetical absolutism,

                                Has nothing in common with a ruler

                                Other than his absolute sovereignty.

                                There is no point of contact

                                Between the two extremes.

                                The Father and the Holy Ghost must remain separate

                                And indifferent to each other,

                                The former symbolic of pure instinct,

                                The latter ... of pure spirit;

                                The one reflecting a proton-proton reaction,

                                The other an electron-electron attraction;

                                The former before matter, the latter beyond it.

                                Whereas Christ, Who was said (with reason)

                                To signify the 'Three in One', was man

                                And therefore material,

                                A combination of protons and electrons,

                                A synthesis of instinct and spirit in the atomic flesh,

                                Closer to the proton-biased atomicity of

                                The Mother in the Catholic context,

                                A diluted Father and Holy Ghost, relative to

                                The compromise between state and church,

                                The one stemming from the autocratic Kingdom,

                                The other aspiring, no matter how indirectly, towards

                                The theocratic Centre,

                                A democratic materialism the mean,

                                Though never more so than in

                                The preponderating intellectuality of

                                The Protestant Christ, Who fights shy

                                Of both proton and electron extremes,

                                And Whose neutron bias accordingly elevates Him

                                Above the biased atomicity of the Mother in

                                A uniquely purgatorial materialism

                                Which is its own lunar end.

                                Thus as the 'Son of God',

                                The second, or democratic, deity in

                                The evolution of religion

                                From autocratic beginnings towards

                                A theocratic culmination, Christ symbolized

                                An atomic relativity appropriate to

                                A materialist age.  Since relativity is ever

                                A compromise between disparate interests,

                                Whether state and church

                                Or party within the State

                                And denomination within the Church,

                                There can be no absolute sovereignty on

                                The Christian level of evolution.

                                Sovereignty is accordingly relative,

                                Which is to say vested in the masses,

                                Who are broadly divisible

                                Between bourgeois and proletarian interests,

                                And entitled to elect representatives

                                To govern on their behalf.

                                As Christ taught that all men were equal

                                (Irrespective of their elemental bent),

                                No one man can rule or lead in

                                A democratic society, though

                                The representation of the People's sovereignty by

                                One man, functioning as prime minister or president,

                                Is obviously permissible.

                                And this no less in a radical democracy

                                Than in a liberal one.

                                Only with the emergence of a Messianic equivalent,

                                Appropriate to the absolutism of the Holy Ghost,

                                Does this notion of human equality and its

                                Political concomitance (of democratic sovereignty)

                                Become questionable, subject, in the event of

                                His attaining power, to refutation and abandonment.

                                Those on the side of theocracy

                                Will approve of an absolute sovereignty.

                                Those on the side of democracy

                                Will reject and try to prevent it.

                                He will know how and where to succeed, dividing

                                The minority democratic chaff from

                                The majority theocratic wheat, as he banishes

                                The former and leads the latter into

                                His 'Kingdom', in accordance with

                                The theocratic principles of a Last Judgement.

                                Only the wheat shall be saved,

                                To enter the 'Kingdom of Heaven'

                                At its lowest level, which is to say,

                                The Cent(e)rist society of Social Transcendentalism,

                                The Centre succeeding both state and church.