1.   I wrote in an earlier text, viz. Revolutionary Afterthoughts [see, for instance, ‘The Free Testament Quartet’], of conservatism being right-wing and radicalism left, as the following extract will show: 'One could - and I'm confident many people would - identify conservatism with being right wing and radicalism with being left wing, and therefore it should be maintained that salvation from moral conservatism to moral radicalism, bound psyche to free psyche, is commensurate with a progression from the moral right to the moral left, as from the vicious morality of sin and (for females) pseudo-crime to the virtuous morality of Grace (and for females) pseudo-Punishment, all of which would diametrically contrast with damnation, on the descending axis, from immoral radicalism to immoral conservatism, free soma to bound soma, as being commensurate with a regression from the immoral left to the immoral right, as from the vicious immorality of Evil and (for males) pseudo-Folly to the virtuous immorality of good and (for males) pseudo-wisdom.'  Frankly, I do not now believe that I was correct to do so, and for the following reasons.

2.   Whether one is viciously or virtuously moral or immoral is a different issue, it now seems to me, from whether one is to be adjudged left or right; for one can be vicious or virtuous in either psyche or soma, and therefore moral or immoral according to whether one is adjudged to be psychic or somatic - something which, in any case, is not about being virtuous or vicious but, on the contrary, about being either left or right, left in psyche, right in soma, as the following paragraph will attempt to demonstrate.

3.   The radical, we had established, are always free, but this is equally true of both types of hegemonic radicalism, viz. metachemical and metaphysical, and both types of subservient radicalism, viz. antimetaphysical and antimetachemical, except that the latter are free contrary to their respective gender actualities and therefore on the paradoxical terms of either soma for the antimetaphysical or psyche for the antimetachemical in consequence of the hegemonic gender's primary influence being either somatic in the case of metachemistry or psychic in the case of metaphysics. 

4.   But no mode of radical freedom exists independently of a subordinate mode of radical binding, whether in respect of psyche in the noumenally sensual context of metachemistry and antimetaphysics or of soma in the noumenally sensible context of metaphysics and antimetachemistry.  For either the State is hegemonic and the Church subordinate, as in the former context, or the Church is hegemonic and the State subordinate, as in the latter context, and in neither is the State to be associated with anything other than soma or the Church with anything other than psyche.

5.   In contrast to this, the conservative, we found, are always bound, but this is equally true of both types of nominally hegemonic conservatism, viz. chemical and physical, and both types of nominally subservient but  - at the behest of their respective overall hegemonic gender parallels - subversive conservatism, viz. antiphysical and antichemical, except that the latter are bound contrary to their respective gender actualities and therefore on the paradoxical terms of either psyche for the antiphysical or soma for the antichemical in consequence of the nominally hegemonic gender's primary influence being either somatic in the case of chemistry or psychic in the case of physics. 

6.   But no mode of conservative binding exists independently of a subordinate mode of conservative freedom, whether in respect of soma in the phenomenally sensual context of chemistry and antiphysics or of psyche in the phenomenally sensible context of physics and antichemistry.  For either the Church is hegemonic and the State subordinate, as in the former context, or the State is hegemonic and the Church subordinate, as in the latter context, and in neither is the Church to be associated with anything other than psyche or the State with anything other than soma.

7.   Granted, then, an axial disparity between an ascent from conservatism to radicalism in the case of church-hegemonic society and a descent from radicalism to conservatism in the case of state-hegemonic society, this is not, contrary to the extract from Revolutionary Afterthoughts quoted above, equivalent to a progression from the moral right to the moral left on the one hand and to a regression from the immoral left to the immoral right on the other hand, despite the indubitable distinctions between vice and virtue which characterize the contrary fates in such diametrically antithetical terms, but is, rather, equivalent to a progression from the conservative left to the radical left in respect of church-hegemonic criteria and, conversely, to a regression from the radical right to the conservative right in respect of state-hegemonic criteria, so that what finally determines whether something is 'left' or 'right' is not its class status in relation to radicalism or conservatism, the free few or the bound many, but its moral or immoral significance in relation to psyche or soma.

8.   Thus an axial ascent, within church-hegemonic society, from the vicious morality of the psychically bound to the virtuous morality of the psychically free is commensurate with a progression from the conservative left to the radical left, as from anti-self to pro-self, anti-peace to pro-peace, whereas an axial descent, within state-hegemonic society, from the vicious immorality of the somatically free to the virtuous immorality of the somatically bound is commensurate with a regression from the radical right to the conservative right, as from pro-notself to anti-notself, pro-war to anti-war.

9.   Therefore in representatively hegemonic terms each axis is either of the Left or of the Right, psychically left in church-hegemonic terms or somatically right in state-hegemonic terms, but each of these principal positions is divisible between 'anti' and 'pro' manifestations of psyche or soma which distinguish the many from the few, the conservative from the radical, since those who are viciously and virtuously moral, or psychic, stand to those who are viciously and virtuously immoral, or somatic, as the conservative/radical Left to the radical/conservative Right.

10.  One cannot, however, leave this axial disparity in representative terms, as between the hegemonic factors already described; for there are also subordinate factors to be considered, whether state subordinate in relation to the axis diagonally ascending from phenomenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility or church subordinate in relation to the axis diagonally descending from noumenal sensuality to phenomenal sensibility, both of which complicate the overall picture.

11.  In the case of the diagonally ascending axis, it should be maintained that, correlative with the salvation of the moral from bound to free psyche, comes the counter-damnation of the pseudo-immoral from free to bound soma, and that this is commensurate with a counter-regression from the pseudo-radical right to the pseudo-conservative right, as from the 'pseudo' modes of pro-notself to anti-notself, pro-war to anti-war, whereas in the case of the diagonally descending axis it follows that, correlative with the damnation of the immoral from free to bound soma, comes the counter-salvation of the pseudo-moral from bound to free psyche, which is commensurate with a counter-progression from the pseudo-conservative left to the pseudo-radical left, as from the 'pseudo' modes of anti-self to pro-self, anti-peace to pro-peace.

12.  Therefore in what could be called unrepresentatively subordinate terms each axis is either of the pseudo-Right or of the pseudo-Left, somatically right in state-subordinate terms or psychically left in church-subordinate terms, but each of these subordinate positions is divisible between 'pro' and 'anti' manifestations of soma or psyche which distinguish the many from the few, the conservative from the radical, since those who are viciously and virtuously pseudo-immoral, or somatic, stand to those who are viciously and virtuously pseudo-moral, or psychic, as the radical/conservative pseudo-Right to the conservative/radical pseudo-Left.

13.  There is as considerable a difference, however, between the hegemonic and subordinate modes of church morality as between the hegemonic and subordinate modes of state immorality, and therefore one cannot suppose that the pseudo-Left, whether viciously or virtuously of psyche, are anything like as unfreely or freely psychic as their hegemonic counterparts on the axis that diagonally ascends from phenomenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility, or that the pseudo-Right, whether viciously or virtuously of soma, are anything like as freely or unfreely somatic as their hegemonic counterparts on the axis that diagonally descends from noumenal sensuality to phenomenal sensibility. 

14.  Moreover the pseudo-Left are as fated to remain in the shadow of the genuine Right in state-hegemonic society as the pseudo-Right in the shadow of the genuine Left in church-hegemonic society.  And this applies equally to both genders, whether in relation to the primary and secondary manifestations of church subordination vis-à-vis their state-hegemonic counterparts on the diagonally descending axis or in relation to the primary and secondary manifestations of state subordination vis-à-vis their church-hegemonic counterparts on the axis that diagonally ascends.

15.  Therefore there is no sense in trying to hype or exaggerate the significance of either the pseudo-Left or the pseudo-Right vis-à-vis the more representatively Right or Left of each type of society, any more than there would be much sense in trying to exaggerate the significance of the pseudo-Left at the expense of the Left or of the pseudo-Right at the expense of the Right across the axial divide which distinguishes those led by morality in church-hegemonic fashion from those ruled by immorality in state-hegemonic fashion. 

16.  What really matters is not the standing of Left to pseudo-Left or of Right to pseudo-Right, or vice versa, but the deference of pseudo-Right to the Left, whether in sensuality or sensibility, and of pseudo-Left to the Right, likewise whether in vice or virtue, in the interests of axial stability and overall accountability; for there is no more a situation in which the Left can exist independently of the pseudo-Right than one in which the Right can exist independently of the pseudo-Left, radicalism and conservatism hanging together almost as two sides of the same phenomenal or noumenal coin even as one either progresses/counter-regresses or regresses/counter-progresses, according to axis, from the one to the other on both genuine and 'pseudo', hegemonic and subordinate,  terms in both primary and secondary gender contexts.

17.  Therefore along with the progressive axial ascent in male salvation from sin to grace of the antihumanistically antiphysical to the, as it were,  transcendentalistically metaphysical and in female salvation from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment of the nonconformistically chemical to the antifundamentalistically antimetachemical, as from conservative Left to radical Left on both primary and secondary psychic terms, must go the counter-regressive axial ascent in male counter-damnation from folly to wisdom of the antinaturalistically antiphysical to the idealistically metaphysical and in female counter-damnation from pseudo-evil to pseudo-good of the realistically chemical to the antimaterialistically antimetachemical, as from pseudo-radical Right to pseudo-conservative Right on both primary and secondary somatic terms.

18.  Conversely, along with the regressive axial descent in female damnation from evil to good of the materialistically metachemical to the antirealistically antichemical and in male damnation from pseudo-folly to pseudo-wisdom of the anti-idealistically antimetaphysical to the naturalistically physical, as from radical Right to conservative Right on both primary and secondary somatic terms, must go the counter-progressive axial descent in female counter-salvation from crime to punishment of the, as it were, fundamentalistically metachemical to the antinonconformistically antichemical and in male counter-salvation from pseudo-sin to pseudo-grace of the antitranscendentalistically antimetaphysical to the humanistically physical, as from pseudo-conservative Left to pseudo-radical Left on both primary and secondary psychic terms.

19.  In the case of the ascending axis, therefore, that which is authentically Left will be accompanied by a pseudo-Right the somatic nature of which stands in state subordination to a church hegemony, whether the triumph of psyche over soma to which that hegemony appertains be vicious or virtuous, bound or free, conservative or radical, sensual or sensible, whereas in the case of the descending axis that which is authentically Right will be accompanied by a pseudo-Left the psychic nature or, rather, nurture of which stands in church subordination to a state hegemony, whether the triumph of soma over psyche to which that hegemony appertains be vicious or virtuous, free or bound, radical or conservative, sensual or sensible.

20.  Obviously the overall distinction between church-hegemonic/state-subordinate society and state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society owes much if not everything to gender, since the former can only prevail under a male lead of society as a reflection of the male gender actuality of psyche both preceding and predominating over soma, whether on the absolute terms of most wavicles/least particles which characterizes the metaphysical male as a sensible upper-class noumenon or on the relative terms of more (compared to most) wavicles/less (compared to least) particles characterizing the antiphysical male as a sensual lower-class phenomenon, whereas the latter only prevails in consequence of a female rule of society as a reflection of the female gender actuality of soma both preceding and predominating over psyche, whether on the absolute terms of most particles/least wavicles which characterizes the metachemical female as a sensual upper-class noumenon or on the relative terms of more (compared to most) particles/less (compared to least) wavicles characterizing the antichemical female as a sensible lower-class phenomenon.

21.  Ironically, whereas the absence of a noumenally sensible upper-class control of society in respect of the diagonally ascending axis would make for a heathenistic state of worldly freedom in which the hegemonic chemical sought their own freely somatic advantage at the expense of the antiphysical, feminine females conditioning society, after their own relative somatic bias, towards free soma and bound psyche in such fashion that the emphasis could only be on the former, the presence of a noumenally sensual upper-class control of society in respect of the diagonally descending axis is what makes for a heathenistic state of worldly binding in which the nominally hegemonic physical are unable to seek their own psychic advantage at the expense of the antichemical because the latter are able, at the behest of the overall metachemical hegemony, to subvert the masculine male conditioning of society, after their own relative psychic bias towards free psyche and bound soma, in such fashion that the emphasis does not fall on the former but on the latter, in paradoxically female fashion.

22.  Consequently while the absence of a noumenally sensible control of society would be heathenistically bad for the phenomenally sensual, not least for males, it is the presence of a noumenally sensual control of society that is heathenistically good for the phenomenally sensible, with particular reference to females, since in all but a small minority of cases males are precluded from being anything like as psychically free as they would otherwise be, no matter how morally desirable such freedom may happen to seem from a physical standpoint, and are rendered psychically subordinate to a somatic emphasis and overall control of society which guarantees axial stability on state-hegemonic terms and ensures that the Church - and hence Christianity - will never be more than subordinate and effectively pseudo-moral, primarily concerned not with sin in antiphysics and grace in metaphysics but, in paradoxical vein, with crime in metachemistry and punishment in antichemistry, neither of which have any bearing on ecclesiastic authenticity whatsoever but testify, in counter-progressive fashion, to counter-salvation from the female manifestation of noumenal sensuality to its phenomenal counterpart in sensibility, the male psychic equivalents in antimetaphysical pseudo-sin and physical pseudo-grace being merely secondary in the overall female-dominated integrity of church subordination.

23.  For you cannot be secondary in the State and primary in the Church in such circumstances.  Such primacy, were it to materialize, would be independent of the antichemical subversion of physics at the behest of an overall metachemical controlling power and therefore contrary to the heathenistic integrity and interests of state-hegemonic society.  It would, in fact, amount to a more pedantic approach to Christianity that made a God out of Man and elevated the Word, as an intellectual medium for the transmission of knowledge, out of all proportion to its actual worth, reducing religion from metaphysics to physics in such fashion that salvation or redemption, as you prefer, became falsely commensurate with intellectual knowledge rather than with the transcendence of ego in soul - something that can only happen in relation to metaphysics, and therefore in terms, for mankind, of a respiratory repudiation of cerebral knowledge from the standpoint of Truth and of pleasure from the standpoint of Joy, so that universality prevails at the expense of personality or, more correctly, personality is transcended by universality, as vegetation by air.

24.  There are, however, several reasons why certain persons should prefer personality to universality, not least in relation to a lower-class disposition conditioned, in no small measure, by lowland criteria in a temperate region of the world which conduced towards what some might consider an unduly humanistic bias, but such reasons would not stand up to metaphysical logic where such logic was possible by dint of a more upper-class disposition stemming from or appertaining to airy environments that were comparatively otherworldly in consequence of a highland orientation that airily 'flew in the face' of temperate nature, with its verdant vegetation. 

25.  Truth is not susceptible to being other than what it is, and those who are capable of Truth will always 'see through' the lie of lesser or contrary allegiances, such as knowledge and strength or even beauty, not to mention weakness and ignorance or ugliness and illusion, posing as Truth.   Even if they can be justified for a time, such allegiances cannot expect to prevail in lieu of Truth for ever; for time, in a manner of speaking, catches up with them and their pretensions and impostures are exposed, to stand nakedly bereft of credibility before the cool inner light of Truth, whose airy spirit should have no difficulty in blowing them away.