AN ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY
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.