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.