26.  Of course, the above coital dichotomy is not to be taken too literally, whether in relation to females or to bent males, or males who effectively function as females by dint of a bureaucratic and/or plutocratic disposition which puts them 'suckingly' at loggerheads with their meritocratic and/or democratic counterparts.  With slang, no matter how gender- or element-conditioned, there is always an element of illogicality, of irrationality, which defies logical symmetry on any but a provisional or approximate basis such that has, by more objectively philosophical standards, to be taken with a considerable pinch of salt!

27.  However that may be, one can believe that 'fuck*** cunts' are as much the exception to the rule as 'suck*** pricks', since it is in the nature of 'cunts' to suck (coitally squeeze) and of 'pricks' to fuck (coitally breeze or, rather breach), whether with a female (suck on) or antifemale (suck off) bias in the one case or with a male (fuck on) or an antimale (fuck off) bias in the other case, so that a dialectical relationship is established between that which 'sucks on' and 'fucks off' on the one hand, and that which 'fucks on' and 'sucks off' on the other hand. 

28.  For the existence of hegemonic 'cunts' in chemistry spells the correlative antiphysical reality of 'antipricks', who will be sinfully orientated in anti-self behaviour of a 'fuck off' nature, whereas the existence of 'pricks' in physics spells the correlative antichemical reality of 'anticunts', who will be punishingly orientated in anti-notself behaviour of a 'suck off' nature, and therefore as contrary to pro-notself crime as their 'antiprick' counterparts to pro-self grace.

29.  All of which brings us back to the upper-class contexts of autocratic females and theocratic males, the former slangfully identifiable with 'frigg*** jerks' and the latter with 'snogg*** bums' - the 'jerk' being an upper-class 'cunt', the 'bum' an upper-class 'prick'.

30.  On a corresponding basis to the above it can be maintained that only 'jerks' frig (onanistically squeeze), and they frig either as 'frigg*** jerks' in relation to metachemistry or as 'frigg*** antijerks' in relation to antimetachemistry, the former somewhat autocratically criminal in their pornographic fieriness and overly diabolic bias, the latter somewhat technocratically pseudo-criminal in their pornography-disdaining antifieriness and willingness to engage with theocratically hegemonic males on terms which may well lead to airy expansion and, hence, breathiness in respect of the stimulation provided by vibrators and other massaging devices of a sexual nature.

31.  Once it has been ascertained that only 'jerks' and 'antijerks' frig, it should be possible to infer what 'bums' and 'antibums' do; for they are the categories of male who are either metaphysically hegemonic in sensibility or antimetaphysically subordinate in sensuality, and we can be sure that they, by contrast, snog (oralistically breach), whether as 'snogg*** bums' in relation to metaphysics or as 'snogg*** antibums' in relation to antimetaphysics, the former somewhat theocratically graceful in their inflatable-oriented airiness and overly divine bias, the latter somewhat aristocratically pseudo-graceful in their inflatable-disdaining anti-airiness and willingness to engage with autocratically hegemonic females on terms which may well lead to fiery expansion and, hence, oral sex.

32.  As before, the above should not be taken too literally, whether in relation to females or to bent males, or males who effectively function as females by dint of an autocratic and/or technocratic disposition which puts them at 'frigging' loggerheads with their aristocratic and theocratic counterparts. 

33.  Be that as it may, one can believe that 'snogg*** jerks' are as much the exception to the rule as 'frigg*** bums', since it is in the nature of 'jerks' to frig (onanistically squeeze) and of 'bums' to snog (oralistically breach), whether with a female (jerk off) or an antifemale (jerk on) bias in the one case or with a male (snog on) or an antimale (snog off) bias in the other case, so that a dialectical relationship is established between that which 'jerks off' and 'snogs on' on the one hand, and that which 'snogs off' and 'jerks on' on the other hand. 

. 

34.  For the existence of hegemonic 'jerks' in metachemistry spells the correlative antimetaphysical reality of 'antibums', who will be pseudo-gracefully orientated in pro-notself via compromised self behaviour of a  'snog on' nature, whereas the existence of 'bums' in metaphysics spells the correlative antimetachemical reality of 'antijerks', who will be pseudo-criminally orientated in pro-self via compromised not-self behaviour of a  'frig on' nature, and therefore as contrary to anti-self via compromised anti-notself pseudo-punishment as their 'antibum' counterparts to anti-notself via compromised anti-self pseudo-sin.

35.  I have maintained that 'pricks' and 'bums' correspond to physics and metaphysics and their 'antiprick' and 'antibum' counterparts to antiphysics and antimetaphysics, whereas 'cunts' and 'jerks' correspond to chemistry and metachemistry and their 'anticunt' and 'antijerk' counterparts to antichemistry and antimetachemistry. 

36.  Forgetting for the moment the anti orders of 'prick', and 'bum', we can maintain that since both 'pricks' and 'bums' are male they are the lower- and upper-class manifestations of a subjective orientation which we could subsume under the overall epithet 'prick', provided we recognize that lower-class 'pricks' are the per se order of 'prick' and upper-class 'pricks' what would more usually be described, in the British Isles, as 'bums'.

37.  Likewise, forgetting for the moment the anti orders of 'cunt' and 'jerk', we can maintain that since both 'cunts' and 'jerks' are female they are the lower- and upper-class manifestations of an objective orientation which we could subsume under the overall epithet 'cunt', provided we recognize that lower-class 'cunts' are the per se order of 'cunt' and upper-class 'cunts' what would more usually be described, in the British Isles, as 'jerks'.

38.  Hence, for the sake of simplification, we can distinguish the subjectivity of 'pricks' from the objectivity of 'cunts' in terms of democratic physics and theocratic metaphysics from bureaucratic chemistry and autocratic metachemistry, as though to distinguish those of the Left from their right-wing counterparts or even, in equally general terms, communists of one persuasion or another from fascists - something that boils down, like so much else in life, to a gender distinction between males and females, radicals and conservatives, psyche and soma, with the former divisible between form and contentment, ego and soul, and the latter between glory and power, spirit and will.

39.  However, in practice, democracy is subverted by plutocracy, which is feminine or, rather, antifeminine, when autocracy is free to rule in the interests of diabolic crime, making for a punishing retort to crime which sidelines masculine grace, whilst, in parallel though contrary vein, bureaucracy is subverted by meritocracy, which is masculine or, rather, antimasculine, when theocracy is free to lead in the interests of divine  grace, making for a sinful retort to grace which sidelines feminine crime, so that far from having, as I initially argued, an autocratic-democratic axis on the one hand and a bureaucratic-theocratic axis on the other, what one effectively finds is an autocratic-plutocratic axis of crime and punishment in respect of state-hegemonic criteria in the one case and a meritocratic-theocratic axis of sin and grace in respect of church-hegemonic criteria in the other case, the case not of an upper-class female (diabolic) rule, but of an upper-class male (divine) lead of society.

40.  Thus whereas the diagonally descending autocratic-plutocratic axis subordinates the Church to itself in respect of aristocratic and democratic criteria, the diagonally ascending meritocratic-theocratic axis subordinates the State to itself in respect of bureaucratic and technocratic criteria, thereby ensuring the hegemony of either state criteria, in the one case, or church criteria, in the other, such that precludes effective compromise between these two types of society, the female-ruled society characterized by crime and punishment and the male-led society characterized by sin and grace, the former of which can only retain punishment in the interests of crime, the latter of which only retain sin in the interests of grace, since crime and grace are the respective upper-class ideals, the diabolical female ideal of a metachemically free soma commensurate with autocracy on the one hand, and the divine male ideal of a metaphysically free psyche commensurate with theocracy on the other hand - alpha and omega of the beginning of civilization in barbarity and the end of civilization in culture, with the subordinate corollaries of a psychically-bound philistinism in the one case and of a somatically-bound civility in the other.

41.  Therefore each civilization, or type of society, posits freedom as the ideal, but they relate to diametrically opposite kinds of freedom - the somatic freedom of free females on the one hand, and the psychic freedom of free males on the other hand - diabolic and divine approaches to freedom which necessarily exclude each other from the overall frame, since autocratic freedom, which is somatically impressive, can only thrive with the absence of theocratic freedom and theocratic freedom, which is psychically expressive, with the absence of autocratic freedom, and thrive, paradoxically, with the assistance of either plutocratic or meritocratic factors which, depending on the context, subvert the democratic and bureaucratic alternatives to autocratic and theocratic freedom by ensuring that grace remains subordinate to punishment in relation to a hegemonic crime and, conversely, that crime remains subordinate to sin in relation to a hegemonic grace, crime and grace being, to repeat, the respective ideals of each type of society.

42.  Therefore we have to contrast Devil-the-Mother's society ruled by crime in freely autocratic fashion with God-the-Father's society led by grace in freely theocratic fashion, as one would contrast black with white or the dark with the light or free soma with free psyche or fire with air or ugliness with truth or hatred with joy, and so on, never forgetting their bound psychic and bound somatic corollaries which enable us to bring terms like evil and wisdom into the frame as pseudo-expressive and pseudo-impressive adjuncts to the prevalence of either somatic impressiveness or psychic expressiveness, as the case may be.

43.  For evil follows from crime, or is that which appertains to acquiescence in crime, which has barbaric consequences, whereas wisdom follows from grace, or is that which appertains to acquiescence in grace, which has civil consequences. 

44.  Certainly civil consequences in respect of wisdom are no less preferable to barbaric consequences in respect of evil than is grace to crime; for crime appertains to free soma, not least in the autocratic context of metachemistry, whereas grace appertains to free psyche, not least in the theocratic context of metaphysics, and in that distinction one has all the difference not merely in the world but, more pertinently, above the world in the 'overworldly' contexts which either rule, in free female vein, or lead, in free male vein, 'the world', as the case may be, causing, in the one case (autocratic), that which is female to take precedence, even 'down below', over male criteria and, in the other case (theocratic), that which is male to take precedence, even 'down below', over female criteria, with implications for punishment or sin in respect of either a plutocratic subversion of democracy in autocracy's criminal interests or a meritocratic subversion of bureaucracy in theocracy's graceful interests.

45.  Such, then, are the class and gender ramifications of either autocratic or theocratic control of society, with diametrically antithetical axes which either fall diagonally from crime to punishment, as from autocracy to plutocracy, or rise diagonally from sin to grace, as from meritocracy to theocracy, as both democracy and bureaucracy are undermined to complement, from contrary perspectives, the aristocratic subordination of the Church to the State in the one context and the technocratic subordination of the State to the Church in the other context.

46.  One could - as I'm sure many people would - employ such standard terms as 'evil' and 'good' to distinguish the one type of society from the other.  But frankly such an oversimplification is a waste of philosophical time, since evil and good are merely bound complements, in psyche and soma respectively, to criminal freedom (primary) of soma on the one hand and to punishing freedom (secondary) of psyche on the other hand, both of which are female actualities which have to be distinguished from their male counterparts, whether in terms of graceful freedom (primary) of psyche or sinful freedom (secondary) of soma or their bound complements, in soma and psyche respectively, of wisdom and folly.

47.  Clearly, reducing the world or life to something so narrow as 'good' and 'evil' hardly does justice to its full gender spectrum in which not merely 'good' and 'evil' or, for that matter, punishment and crime have to be considered but, on the male side of the gender fence, folly and wisdom coupled, in free soma and free psyche, to sin and grace.

48.  Therefore we can safely conclude that those who reduce life to 'evil' and 'good' are no less guilty of gender partisanship within a given system or type of society than those for whom 'folly' and 'wisdom' are sufficient to the purpose of defining life, although both sets of terminology would fall rather short of addressing freedom from contrary gender standpoints, which, in contrast to bound psyche or soma, appertains to free soma or psyche, and which rather calls to mind such pairings as crime and punishment on the one hand and sin and grace on the other - the respective types of freedom which obtain in relation to autocracy-plutocracy as a female-conditioned state-hegemonic descending axis and meritocracy-theocracy as its male-conditioned church-hegemonic ascending counterpart.

49.  Therefore both plutocracy and meritocracy appertain to contrary approaches to freedom under the aegis of either an autocratic control of society in the case of plutocracy or a theocratic control of society in the case of meritocracy, the former making for crime and punishment as manifestations of female freedom, the latter for sin and grace as manifestations of male freedom, with democracy bound to plutocracy in the interests of autocratic crime and bureaucracy bound to meritocracy in the interests of theocratic grace, neither of which are free to become either democratically graceful or bureaucratically criminal, as the case may be, but get sidelined into being either democratically pseudo-sinful or bureaucratically pseudo-punishing, as church subordination to the plutocratic State or state subordination to the meritocratic Church obtains in the overall interests of autocratic state freedom in the one case, that of the autocratic-plutocratic axis, and theocratic church freedom in the other case, that of the meritocratic-theocratic axis.

50.  Such antithetical concepts of and commitments to freedom obviously mean that in the female-dominated case of autocracy-plutocracy life is characterized, somewhat somatically, in terms of pro-notself and anti-notself patterns of behaviour relative, in state-hegemonic vein, to crime and punishment, whereas in the male-dominated case of meritocracy-theocracy life is characterized, from a psychic bias, in terms of anti-self and pro-self patterns of behaviour relative, in church-hegemonic vein, to sin and grace, so that we find an objective/subjective dichotomy between that which diverges, in metachemistry, from a vacuum and that which converges, in metaphysics, towards a plenum, or that which devolves, falling diagonally, from alpha to 'the world' conceived in largely antiwatery (antipurgatorial) terms and that which evolves, rising diagonally, from 'the world' conceived in largely antivegetative (anti-earthly) terms towards omega - all the difference, in a word, not merely between the Devil and God or Hell and Heaven but, more specifically, between Devil the Mother and Heaven the Holy Soul, photonic elemental particles and protonic elemental wavicles, or something to that alpha/omega effect.