26.  Granted that those who are reduced, as males, to being secondary in the State will continue to be secondary in the Church, which is no genuine church, it does not necessarily follow that, the hegemonic state being right wing and the subordinate church pseudo-Left, there is no such dichotomy within either the State or the Church; for of course there is, if with a bias favouring the Right in view of the extent to which soma prevails over psyche in consequence of female dominion.

27.  Contrariwise, granted that those who are reduced, as females, to being secondary in the Church will continue to be secondary in the State, which is no genuine state, it does not necessarily follow that, the hegemonic church being left wing and the subordinate state pseudo-Right, there is no such dichotomy within either the Church or the State; for of course there is, if with a bias favouring the Left in view of the extent to which psyche prevails over soma in consequence of male dominion.

28.  But when we speak of such a dichotomy in either the State or the Church we should be careful not to exaggerate it in relation to right/left or left/right polarity; for in neither case could there be any such polarity but, rather, a distinction between the primary and secondary manifestations of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria on the one hand, amounting to Right and quasi-Right in the political context and to quasi-pseudo-Left and pseudo-Left in the religious context, and between the primary and secondary manifestations of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria on the other hand, which amounts to Left and quasi-Left in the religious context and to pseudo-Right and quasi-pseudo-Right in the political context.  For in all such contexts the dominion of the one gender over the other ensures that nothing truly independent - and therefore contrary to - the prevailing ethos can expect to exist.

29.  Consequently in the case of the diagonally ascending axis of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate society it must follow that primary and secondary modes of bound or free psyche are as much of the Left as their somatic counterparts are of the pseudo-Right, nothing right wing, whether 'pseudo' or otherwise, having any more place in the hegemonic church than anything left wing, whether genuine or otherwise, could possibly have a legitimate place in the subordinate state, exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding.

30.  Likewise in the case of the diagonally descending axis of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate society it must follow, in complete contrast to the above, that primary and secondary modes of free or bound soma are as much of the Right as their psychic counterparts are of the pseudo-Left, nothing left wing, whether 'pseudo' or otherwise, having any more place in the hegemonic state than anything right wing, whether genuine or otherwise, could possibly have a legitimate place in the subordinate church, exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding.

31.  That said, it follows that neither type of society can really countenance deviations from its prevailing ethos, for the stability of each is premised upon the ability of the relevant upper-class free radicals to fashion the lower-class masses of bound conservatives after their own image, albeit in reverse psychic or somatic disposition, as the case may be, and thereby not only preclude worldly tyranny or anarchy, the former more likely to follow from untempered chemical hegemony over antiphysics in phenomenal sensuality, the latter from untempered physical hegemony over antichemistry in phenomenal sensibility, but simultaneously bolster and legitimize their own respective overworldly hegemonies - metachemistry over antimetaphysics in noumenal sensuality, metaphysics over antimetachemistry in noumenal sensibility - so that unrest or revolt on the part of the subservient gender is overruled, if not neutralized, in relation to the importance attaching to worldly stability in respect of either the antichemical subversion of physics from the standpoint of state-hegemonic criteria or the antiphysical subversion of chemistry from the standpoint of church-hegemonic criteria, neither of which lower-class paradoxes would be possible without the overall hegemonic control of their upper-class gender parallels.

32.  Therefore although it may be harsh on the antimetaphysical  and antimetachemical upended genders under the hegemonic control of metachemical rulers or metaphysical leaders, the metachemical/antimetaphysical complementarity constituting a 'vicious circle' in  noumenal sensuality and the metaphysical/antimetachemical complementarity a 'virtuous circle' in noumenal sensibility, their paradoxical fates have to be weighed against the benefit to the world that comes from worldly stability in compromise as, in the one case, the physical hegemony over antichemistry is precluded from anarchically leading, in male vein, to an undue emphasis on psychic freedom through being somatically subverted from below at the behest of metachemical freedom diagonally backwards 'on high', and, in the other case, the chemical hegemony over antiphysics is precluded from tyrannically leading, in female vein, to an undue emphasis on somatic freedom through being psychically subverted from below at the behest of metaphysical freedom diagonally forwards 'on high', with a consequence that, in the one instance, Christian anarchy becomes rather more the exception to the heathenistic rule and, in the other instance, heathen tyranny rather more the exception to the Christianistic rule, so to speak, insofar as in neither phenomenal case is freedom more than subordinate to binding and consequently ever in the shadow of the antithetical modes of conservatism which become the lower-class counterparts to the prevailing modes of upper-class radicalism, be they somatic in metachemistry or psychic in metaphysics.

33.  Considered dispassionately, as from the noumenal standpoint of an overview of the phenomenal world, you cannot encourage freedom in the masses, because, quite apart from the irrelevance of somatic freedom to antiphysical males and of psychic freedom to antichemical females, all large numbers of people have, like animals, to be herded or husbanded or otherwise corralled and shepherded in such fashion that they do least damage to one another and to themselves; for too many creatures wandering if not stampeding everywhichway can only lead to violence or confusion - something, alas, which does happen from time to time and in some societies or so-called civilizations more than others, whether because they have degenerated from axial sense or never really acquired any, with consequences that are all-too-predictably tyrannical or anarchic, as the case may be.

34.  But if the masses are to be protected from the consequences of too much freedom of one sort or another, depending on the prevailing gender disposition of any given people, then it is necessary that freedom should remain the principal concern of the few, the radical elites whose duty it is to control the masses both in their own and one another's best interests, insofar as worldly stability can only be guaranteed on the basis of axial consistency in either church-hegemonic or state-hegemonic fashion, and such stability is crucial if overworldly stability is to be assured and the hegemonic positions of females over males in noumenal sensuality or of males over females in noumenal sensibility stand the test of eternal validation - something it can only do in conjunction with the worldly masses and not independently of them, since the time-under-space subservient gender will protest its paradoxical secondary radicalism - somatic in the case of the antimetaphysical, psychic in the case of the antimetachemical - if the primary radicalism which controls it cannot justify itself in relation to the stability of the many in respect of worldly compromise between the nominally hegemonic and subservient genders in volume and mass achieved at the behest of the overall controlling influence of the metachemical in the case of noumenal sensuality or of the metaphysical in the case of noumenal sensibility, antichemistry only turning the gender tables on physics by dint of metachemical primacy, antiphysics only doing likewise to chemistry by dint of metaphysical primacy or, more correctly, supremacy - the former rooted in soma, the latter centred in psyche.

35.  Consequently the world is intensely problematic to the point of unworkable without these controlling agents, these ruling and/or leading authorities, and the paradoxical sufferings of that section of the few who are obliged to live at cross-purposes with their gender actualities under the hegemonic gender can be eternally justified only in relation to the benefits which accrue to the many in consequence of such 'world overcoming' as ensues from the overall hegemonic gender having its way at the expense of the nominally hegemonic gender via its lower-class gender parallel who establishes the axial link that binds the conservative to the radical, the bound to the free in reverse image of its Maker, be that Maker somatically evil or psychically graceful, of Devil the Mother or, in metaphysics, of God the Father, the under-plane corollary of the one being the Antison of Antigod and of the other being the Antidaughter of the Antidevil.

36.  Be that as it may, radicalism, like conservatism, can be either left or right wing, but will only be Left when psychic and Right when somatic, the progression from the conservative left to the radical left having to be weighed not only against the regression from the radical right to the conservative right but, in each case, against their respective subordinate complements in either soma or psyche, whose affiliations, ever at open or closed variance with their own, will remain 'pseudo' in both radicalism and conservatism.

37.  Where each of these primary and secondary positions are paradoxically equivalent, however, is in their status with respect to either vice or virtue.  For vice is not simply somatically free and virtue psychically so, although that is arguably the principal case.  That which is psychically bound is the vicious complement to whatever is somatically free and, conversely, the somatically bound has a virtuously free psychic complement. 

38.  But besides the need to know whether something is primarily or secondarily vicious or virtuous, hegemonic or subordinate, it could, with reason, be argued that the only really vicious positions are somatically free and the only really virtuous positions psychically free, so that anything that was psychically bound, whether in noumenal or phenomenal sensuality, would be less vicious per se than viciously neutral vis-à-vis its somatic complement, whereas whatever was somatically bound, whether in phenomenal or noumenal sensibility, would be less virtuous per se than virtuously neutral vis-à-vis its psychic complement.

39.  For just as there is a state/church distinction between free soma and bound psyche in noumenal sensuality, whether in respect of metachemistry or antimetaphysics, so there may well be a vicious/viciously neutral distinction between these upper-class representatives of radical freedom and pseudo-conservative binding which would contrast with the virtuously neutral/virtuous distinction, in phenomenal sensibility, between the antichemical and physical manifestations of conservative binding and pseudo-radical freedom, the axial antithesis between free and bound soma not simply one of vicious vis-à-vis virtuous immorality but, rather, of vicious immorality and virtuously neutral immorality or, more correctly in relation to an approximately neutral position, amorality; that between bound and free psyche not simply one of vicious vis-à-vis virtuous pseudo-morality but, rather, of viciously neutral pseudo-amorality vis-à-vis virtuous pseudo-morality.  For on this basis virtue is, strictly speaking, no less removed from the sphere of the State than vice from that of the Church, even if a neutrality that leans one way or the other, and is effectively amorally intermediate between immoral and moral alternatives, has to be allowed for in relation to the free conditioning factors, whether primary or secondary.

40.  Likewise just as there is a church/state distinction between bound psyche and free soma in phenomenal sensuality, whether in respect of antiphysics or chemistry, so there may well be a viciously neutral/vicious distinction between these lower-class representatives of conservative binding and pseudo-radical freedom which would contrast with the virtuous/virtuously neutral distinction, in noumenal sensibility, between the metaphysical and antimetachemical manifestations of radical freedom and pseudo-conservative binding, the axial antithesis between bound and free psyche not simply one of vicious vis-à-vis virtuous morality but, rather, of viciously neutral amorality and virtuous morality; that between free and bound soma not simply one of vicious vis-à-vis virtuous pseudo-immorality but, rather, of vicious pseudo-immorality vis-à-vis virtuously neutral pseudo-amorality.  For on this basis vice is, strictly speaking, no less removed from the sphere of the Church than virtue from that of the State, even if a neutrality that leans one way or the other, being amorally intermediate between immoral and moral alternatives, has to be allowed for in relation to the free conditioning factors, whether primary or secondary.

41.  Consequently we must distinguish the viciously neutral amorality of antiphysical and chemical bound psyche from the vicious pseudo-immorality of antiphysical and chemical free soma in phenomenal sensuality, distinguishing each of these from the virtuous morality of metaphysical and antimetachemical free psyche and the virtuously neutral pseudo-amorality of metaphysical and antimetachemical bound soma in noumenal sensibility, so that as one progressively ascends, in church-hegemonic vein, from the viciously neutral amorality of sin and pseudo-crime to the virtuous morality of grace and pseudo-punishment, so one counter-regressively ascends, in state-subordinate vein, from the vicious pseudo-immorality of folly and pseudo-evil to the virtuously neutral pseudo-amorality of wisdom and pseudo-good.

42.  Contrariwise we must distinguish the vicious immorality of metachemical and antimetaphysical free soma from the viciously neutral pseudo-amorality of metachemical and antimetaphysical bound psyche in noumenal sensuality, distinguishing each of these from the virtuously neutral amorality of antichemical and physical bound soma and the virtuous pseudo-morality of antichemical and physical free psyche in phenomenal sensibility, so that as one regressively descends, in state-hegemonic vein, from the vicious immorality of evil and pseudo-folly to the virtuously neutral amorality of good and pseudo-wisdom, so one counter-progressively descends, in church-subordinate vein, from the viciously neutral pseudo-amorality of crime and pseudo-sin to the virtuous pseudo-morality of punishment and pseudo-grace.

43.  Taking the diagonally ascending axis of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria first, it should be evident that the ascent, in progressive vein, from bound to free psyche, is equivalent to salvation from negative amorality to positive morality, anti-blessedness to pro-blessedness, whereas the counter-descent, in counter-regressive vein, from free to bound soma, is equivalent to counter-damnation from positive pseudo-immorality to negative pseudo-amorality, positive pseudo-cursedness to negative pseudo-cursedness, the 'pro' and 'anti' forms of pseudo-cursedness.

44.  Where, on the other hand, the diagonally descending axis of state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria is concerned, it should be evident that the descent, in regressive vein, from free to bound soma, is equivalent to damnation from positive immorality to negative amorality, pro-cursedness to anti-cursedness, whereas the counter-ascent, in counter-progressive vein, from bound to free psyche, is equivalent to counter-salvation from negative pseudo-amorality to positive pseudo-morality, negative pseudo-blessedness to positive pseudo-blessedness, the 'anti' and 'pro' forms of pseudo-blessedness.

45.  For whereas that which is positive is either somatically free or psychically free, that, by contrast, which is negative is either psychically bound or somatically bound, and therefore the biased amoral complement to either an immoral (if somatic) or a moral (if psychic) order of freedom.

46.  Hence whilst it is logical, on the diagonally descending axis, that positive immorality and negative pseudo-amorality should live together as two sides of the same noumenally sensual coin, a coin divisible between metachemically primary and antimetaphysically secondary manifestations of each type of vice, it is just as demonstrably logical that negative amorality and positive pseudo-morality should live together as two sides of the same phenomenally sensible coin, a coin divisible between antichemically primary and physically secondary manifestations of each type of virtue.

47.  Likewise whilst it is demonstrably logical, on the diagonally ascending axis, that negative amorality and positive pseudo-immorality should live together as two sides of the same phenomenally sensual coin, a coin divisible between antiphysically primary and chemically secondary manifestations of each type of vice, it is just as logical that positive morality and negative pseudo-amorality should live together as two sides of the same noumenally sensible coin, a coin divisible between metaphysically primary and antimetachemically secondary manifestations of each type of virtue.

48.  Verily, vice and virtue are only absolute antitheses in respect of free soma and free psyche, but in no case is there a parallel axial antithesis between vicious immorality and virtuous morality, but either between vicious immorality and virtuous amorality in state-hegemonic society or between vicious amorality and virtuous morality in church-hegemonic society, vicious pseudo-amorality being the church-subordinate antithesis to virtuous pseudo-morality and vicious pseudo-immorality the state-subordinate antithesis to virtuous amorality.

49.  Consequently morality and immorality will never be found in church/state juxtaposition but only either morality or immorality of one kind or another and its complementary mode of amorality, amorality leading to morality no less surely than immorality to amorality on both primary and secondary terms in either church-hegemonic and state-subordinate or state-hegemonic and church-subordinate societies, given the requisite distinctions between 'authentic' and 'pseudo' modes of each.

50.  But in every case where there is a moral/amoral or an immoral/amoral complementarity, whether in such fashion or the other way round, there will be either a virtuous correspondence between positivity and negative neutrality or a vicious correspondence between negativity and positive neutrality; for in no axial position can there be two positives or two negatives in any given class/gender juxtaposition but only a distinction between free and bound or bound and free, the free always being positive, whether viciously or virtuously, and the bound ... negative, whether viciously or virtuously.