1.   Jesus is reported to have said: 'Blessed are the meek'.  But the meek, conceived in relation to the weak and ignorant at the foot of the diagonally rising axis that culminates in some degree of beauty and truth, are really anti-blessed; for they exist in a negative relationship to the metaphysically and antimetachemically elect, whom we may call, without equivocation, the blessed.

2.   For just as I maintained, in my previous text, a distinction between the anti-peace sinful and pseudo-criminal within phenomenal sensuality and the pro-peace graceful and pseudo-punishing within noumenal sensibility, salvation being conceived as deliverance, if as a rule temporary and intermittent, from the one to the other, so we may distinguish, on a like basis, between the anti-blessed and the pro-blessed, conceiving of the former in relation to bound psyche and the latter in relation to free psyche, whether, according with gender, on primary or secondary terms.

3.   For we have established, beyond any question of a doubt, that the diagonally rising axis from phenomenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility, from sin and pseudo-crime to grace and pseudo-punishment, only exists because of the antiphysical subversion of the nominal chemical hegemony of feminine females over antimasculine males at the behest of the metaphysical hegemony of divine males over their antidiabolic female counterparts in antimetachemistry, so that while the lower-class context of phenomenal sensuality bears witness to the conditioning of males towards free soma and bound psyche in response to the female hegemony (females being by definition creatures for whom soma both precedes and predominates over psyche), the emphasis on psyche at the expense of soma paradoxically follows from the overall hegemonic influence of divine males in metaphysics on their lower-class male counterparts, who are able to subvert the feminine female position accordingly, thereby ensuring that not free soma but bound psyche becomes the principal characteristic of phenomenal sensuality, as in respect of sin for the antiphysical context and of pseudo-crime for the chemical context. 

4.   For the male gender actuality of psyche both preceding and predominating over soma ensures that a psychic emphasis in phenomenal sensuality will follow from the free existence, in noumenal sensibility, specifically with regard to metaphysics, of psyche in consequence of a divine male hegemony over the antidiabolic female context of antimetachemistry.

5.   Therefore a bound-psychic precondition, in both sin and pseudo-crime, of graceful and pseudo-punishing free psyche is demonstrably germane to a church-hegemonic context in which metaphysics is free to condition the antiphysical subversion of chemistry at antimetachemistry's expense, and the result, logically enough, is a distinction, according with  gender, between two types of peace, blessedness, morality, righteousness, which can be defined in terms of anti-peace vis-à-vis pro-peace, anti-blessedness vis-à-vis pro-blessedness, negative, or vicious, morality vis-à-vis positive, or virtuous, morality, and so on, in this distinction between bound psyche and free psyche, anti-self and pro-self, which distinguishes the phenomenally sensual sinful and pseudo-criminal from the noumenally sensible graceful and pseudo-punishing.

6.   Therefore although antimasculine ignorance and feminine weakness are not exactly blessed, any more, in truth, than are the meek, they are far from cursed, being, to all intents and purposes, anti-blessed, since given, in the bound psyche of anti-self, to sin and pseudo-crime, coupled, in subordinate free soma, to folly and pseudo-evil, this latter actually having to do with weakness rather than, in bound psyche, with a weak approach to ignorance, which would be the chemical, or secondary, mode of bound psyche as opposed to its antiphysical, or primary, counterpart.

7.   Be that as it may, the psychic emphasis of a church-hegemonic society has less to do with cursedness than with contrary approaches to blessedness, the exact opposite of the somatic emphasis which tends to characterize state-hegemonic societies, and which follows from an overall female domination of society upon what, in previous texts, has been described as a diagonally descending axis, descending, that is, from noumenal sensuality to phenomenal sensibility, as from evil and pseudo-folly to good and pseudo-wisdom.

8.   For just as in an earlier text I have previously insisted upon a distinction between the pro-war evil and pseudo-foolish within noumenal sensuality and the anti-war good and pseudo-wise within phenomenal sensibility, damnation being conceived as a descent, whether temporary and intermittent or otherwise, from the one context to the other, so we may distinguish, on a like basis, between the pro-cursed and the anti-cursed, conceiving of the former in relation to free soma and the latter in  relation to bound soma, whether, according with gender, on primary or secondary terms.

9.   For we have established, beyond any question of a doubt, that the diagonally falling axis from noumenal sensuality to phenomenal sensibility, from evil and pseudo-folly to good and pseudo-wisdom, only exists because of the antichemical subversion of the nominal physical hegemony of masculine males over antifeminine females at the behest of the metachemical hegemony of diabolic females over their antidivine  male counterparts in antimetaphysics, so that while the lower-class context of phenomenal sensibility bears witness to the conditioning of females towards free psyche and bound soma in response to the male hegemony (males being by definition creatures for whom psyche both precedes and predominates over soma), the emphasis on soma at the expense of psyche paradoxically follows from the overall hegemonic influence of diabolic females in metachemistry on their lower-class female counterparts, who are able to subvert the masculine male position accordingly, thereby ensuring that not free psyche but bound soma becomes the principal characteristic of phenomenal sensibility, as in respect of goodness (somatic modesty, or binding) for the antichemical context and of pseudo-wisdom for the physical context. 

10.  For the female gender actuality of soma both preceding and predominating over psyche ensures that a somatic emphasis in phenomenal sensibility will follow from the free existence, in noumenal sensuality, specifically with regard to metachemistry, of soma in consequence of a diabolic female hegemony over the antidivine male context of antimetaphysics.

11.  Therefore a free-somatic precondition, in both evil and pseudo-folly, of good and pseudo-wise bound soma is demonstrably germane to a state-hegemonic context in which metachemistry is free to condition the antichemical subversion of physics at the expense of antimetaphysics, and the result, logically enough, is a distinction, according to gender, between two types of war, cursedness, immorality, unrighteousness, which can be defined in terms of pro-war vis-à-vis anti-war, pro-cursedness vis-à-vis anti-cursedness, positive, or vicious, immorality vis-à-vis negative, or virtuous, immorality, and so on, in this distinction between free soma and bound soma, pro-notself and anti-notself, which distinguishes the noumenally sensual evil and pseudo-foolish from the phenomenally sensible good and pseudo-wise.

12.  Therefore although antifeminine strength and masculine knowledge are not exactly cursed, any more, in truth, than are the just, they are far from blessed, being, to all intents and purposes, anti-cursed, since given, in the bound soma of anti-notself, to goodness and pseudo-wisdom, coupled, in subordinate free psyche, to punishment and pseudo-grace, this latter actually having to do with knowledge rather than, in bound soma, with a knowledgeable approach to strength, which would be the physical, or secondary, mode of bound soma as opposed to its antichemical, or primary, counterpart.

13.  Nothing could be more dissimilar, therefore, than the blessedness, both 'anti' and 'pro', of the diagonally rising axis of church-hegemonic criteria and the cursedness, both 'pro' and 'anti', of the diagonally falling axis of state-hegemonic criteria, the former axis progressively ascending, under an upper-class male lead, from the sin and pseudo-crime of phenomenal sensuality to the grace and pseudo-punishment of noumenal sensibility, the latter axis regressively descending, under an upper-class female rule, from the evil and pseudo-folly of noumenal sensuality to the good and pseudo-wisdom of phenomenal sensibility.

14.  Just as the ascending axis offers salvation from vicious morality to virtuous morality, the anti-blessedness of bound psyche to the pro-blessedness of free psyche, as from the ordeal, from a male standpoint, of the one to the ideal, likewise, of the other, so the descending axis suffers only damnation from vicious immorality to virtuous immorality, the pro-cursedness of free soma to the anti-cursedness of bound soma, as from the ideal, from a female standpoint, of the one to the ordeal, likewise, of the other.

15.  Life, whatever one may say or believe about it, has to be qualified in relation to gender; for the one gender only prevails at the other gender's expense, and criteria applicable to the prevailing gender are demonstrably not applicable to the subordinate gender, even though an apparent or seeming complementarity between the two genders can be - and more usually is - established in the interests of societal stability, whether on the basis of somatic freedom where civilization is at its worst or, conversely, on the basis of psychic freedom where civilization is at its best and therefore less a matter of barbarity and pseudo-philistinism vis-à-vis civility and pseudo-culture on the descending axis than of philistinism and pseudo-barbarity vis-à-vis culture and pseudo-civility on the ascending one, the axis in which not female primacy but male supremacy obtains in relation, not least, to church-hegemonic criteria.

16.  Let us examine these two axes in greater detail, bearing in mind that we do not simply have an ascent from, say, the earth to Heaven in the one case and a descent, by contrast, from Hell to purgatory in the other, as might at first seem to be the case, but, rather, an ascent from what may be called anti-earth and purgatory to Heaven and Antihell on the ascending axis and a descent from Hell and Antiheaven to antipurgatory and earth on the descending axis, which could also be described, more in relation to ego and will than to spirit and soul, as an ascent from antiman and woman to God and the Antidevil on the ascending axis and a descent from the Devil and Antigod to antiwoman and man on the descending axis, the axis not of church-hegemonic but of state-hegemonic criteria.

17.  Therefore antiphysics and chemistry are as much a precondition of metaphysics and antimetachemistry on the righteous axis of church-hegemonic criteria, the axis upon which things rise from bound to free psyche, as metachemistry and antimetaphysics are a precondition of antichemistry and physics on the unrighteous axis of state-hegemonic criteria, the axis upon which things fall from free to bound soma. 

18.  And, as the reader may have divined by now, that which diagonally rises does so from anti-self to pro-self, anti-peace to pro-peace, anti-blessedness to pro-blessedness, anti-light to pro-light, anti-right to pro-right, as from the vicious morality of sin and pseudo-crime to the virtuous morality of grace and pseudo-punishment, whereas that which diagonally falls does so from pro-notself to anti-notself, pro-war to anti-war, pro-cursedness to anti-cursedness, pro-darkness to anti-darkness, pro-wrong to anti-wrong, as from vicious immorality to virtuous immorality.

19.  In the past I have described these contrary fates as attesting to either a progression or a regression, according to axis, from conservatism to radicalism, as though one progressed, on the ascending axis, from psychic conservatism to psychic radicalism, bound psyche to free psyche, and regressed, on the descending axis, from somatic conservatism to somatic radicalism, free soma to bound soma, and whilst I am still confident that the description of the former fate is profoundly correct, I have to question my presumption of correctness in respect of the latter, where it now seems to me that a descent from free soma to bound soma would be more in the order of a regression from somatic radicalism to somatic conservatism, so that, far from the sensual positions being conservative and the sensible ones radical, it can be maintained that freedom is always radical and binding conservative, and that the progression from psychic conservatism to psychic radicalism on the ascending axis has to be juxtaposed with a regression from somatic radicalism to somatic conservatism on the descending axis, in consequence of which there is a marked contrast between salvation from conservatism to radicalism on the one hand, and damnation from radicalism to conservatism on the other hand.

20.  For how can one not argue that freedom, whether somatic or psychic, is radical and binding, whether psychic or somatic, conservative?  That the controlling Few, whether evil or graceful, are alone radical and the controlled Many, whether meek or just, conservative, with the conservatism, it could be said, of a flock or sheep which must be made subject either to the barbarous predations or the cultural guidance of free radicals of radically contrary persuasions?

21.  Hence conservatism, applying in the main to the bound Many, implies a certain restrictiveness of thought or action which easily lends itself to equation with a certain mediocrity, in contrast to that radicalism which, applying in the main to the free Few, implies a certain unrestrictiveness of action and thought which suggests an exceptional if not distinguished disposition.

22.  Be that as it may, the sense of ascent from a vicious type of conservatism in the antiphysical/chemical Many towards a virtuous type of radicalism in the metaphysical/antimetachemical Few should be contrasted, on an axial basis, with the sense of descent from a vicious type of radicalism in the metachemical/antimetaphysical Few towards a virtuous type of conservatism in the antichemical/physical Many, as things ascend, in the one instance, from the bound psyche of sin and pseudo-crime to the free psyche of grace and pseudo-punishment, which is salvation on primary and secondary, male and female, terms, and descend, in the other instance, from the free soma of evil and pseudo-folly to the bound soma of good and pseudo-wisdom, which is damnation on primary and secondary, female and male, terms.

23.  And yet hope of salvation from vicious morality to virtuous morality, bound psyche to free psyche, must be contrasted with fear of damnation from vicious immorality to virtuous immorality, free soma to bound soma, as the Many of the ascending axis live in hope of a better deal 'on high', should they be brought to otherworldly justice (judgement) in consequence of what they say or confess being made subject to a graceful response to sin and a wise response to folly, not to mention, in secondary terms, to a pseudo-punishing response to pseudo-crime and a pseudo-good response to pseudo-evil, and, by contrast, the Few of the descending axis live in fear of a worse deal 'down below', should they be brought to worldly justice in consequence of what they do or profess being made subject to a good response to evil and a punishing response to crime, not to mention, in secondary terms, to a pseudo-wise response to pseudo-folly and a pseudo-graceful response to pseudo-sin.

24.  Hence there is a certain expectation of radicalism by the conservative Many of the ascending axis, and a certain rejection of conservatism by the radical Few of the descending axis, the terms of each axis being so contradictory as to be fairly antithetical and subject to completely different sets of criteria.

25.  Even the progressive struggle between the conservative Many and the radical Few for salvation from the vicious world to the virtuous otherworldly overworld has to be contrasted with the regressive struggle between the radical Few and the conservative Many for damnation from the vicious netherworldly overworld to the virtuous world, each 'overworld' being as mutually antithetical as their worldly, or 'underworldly', counterparts.