26. Of course, one could argue that it is better to be virtuously immoral than viciously immoral, better to be good than evil, but that would accord with the ordeal, from a female standpoint, of somatic binding as opposed to the ideal, from an identical standpoint, of somatic freedom, and would amount to the endorsement of anti-notself behaviour at the expense of pro-notself behaviour, of cruelty to antichemical soma as against kindness to metachemical soma, and though its more numerous upholders would doubtless maintain that they were in the right and the others, the evil, in the wrong, such a sensible standpoint, according with virtue, would still be immoral and no better than a lower and plebeian way of being right not only from the free somatic ideal of an upper-class female standpoint but, contrary to that axis, from the upper-class male standpoint of psychic freedom.

27. In contrary vein, one could - and should - argue that it is worse to be viciously moral than virtuously moral, worse to be sinful than graceful, for that would accord with the ordeal, from a male standpoint, of psychic binding and would amount to the endorsement of anti-self behaviour at the expense of pro-self behaviour, of cruelty to antiphysical psyche as against kindness to metaphysical psyche, and though its more numerous upholders would doubtless maintain that they were in the wrong and the others, the graceful, in the right, such a sensual standpoint, according with vice, would still be moral and no worse than a lower and plebeian way of being wrong not only from the free psychic ideal of an upper-class male standpoint but, contrary to that axis, from the upper-class female standpoint of somatic freedom.

28. Therefore if it is right, or virtuous, to be good and just, given to the punishment of crime, it is nevertheless only so in relation to immorality, not as a mode of morality.

29. And if, by contrast, it is wrong, or vicious, to be sinful and foolish, given to the temporary rejection of grace, it is nevertheless only so in relation to morality, not as a mode of immorality.

30. For goodness can no more be moral than civility, since civility exists, like goodness, in opposition to barbarity, to evil, and thus as the counterweight, down the descending axis of state-hegemonic criteria, to the ideal of somatic barbarity, in which the not-self is free to please itself.

31. Likewise, sin can no more be immoral than philistinism, since philistinism exists, like sin, in opposition to culture, to grace, and thus as the counterweight, down the ascending axis of church-hegemonic criteria, to the ideal of psychic culture, in which the self is free to please itself.

32. You cannot have a greater contrast than between the immorality of barbarity and civility on the one hand, that of evil and good, crime and punishment, and the morality of philistinism and culture on the other hand, that of sin and grace, folly and wisdom. Such a contrast is not merely between right and wrong, virtue and vice, but between opposite approaches to the ideal of freedom - the somatic approach of state-hegemonic criteria premised upon a female domination of society, as in Britain and, particularly, England, and the psychic approach of church-hegemonic criteria premised upon a male domination of society, as in Ireland and, particularly, Eire.

33. Therefore this distinction goes to the heart of the question as to whether civilization be ruled by barbarity or led by culture, and the answer is of course that it will be ruled by barbarity, in freely somatic terms, when state hegemonic, and led by culture, in freely psychic terms, when church hegemonic, neither type of civilization being possible to the same society or country but tending to characterize opposite types of societies or countries in which the definition of civilization as the guardian of freedom will be interpreted in diametrically antithetical ways - either in relation to the rule of barbarity or in relation to the lead of culture. For there is no other definition of freedom than that in which barbarity or culture are uppermost, civility being the bound somatic retort to the one and philistinism the bound psychic retort or, rather, shortfall from the other.

34. Obviously, in the distinction between Britain as state-hegemonic and Ireland as church-hegemonic, one has two diametrically antithetical approaches to civilization, the immoral approach in objectivity of Britain and the moral approach in subjectivity of Ireland, the former characterized by somatic emphasis in female vein, the latter by psychic emphasis in male vein, neither one of which is, or ever could be, compatible with the other and both, at this point in time, nationally independent, as in the distinction between the largely Protestant United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the largely Catholic Republic of Ireland, or Eire.

35. But both immorality and morality, vacuous objectivity and plenumous subjectivity, have virtue and vice, right and wrong, on their side, even though in relation to two entirely different ideals - the evil ideal of somatic freedom which is vicious and therefore wrong from the standpoint of the good ordeal (with regard to females primarily) of somatic binding, and the graceful ideal of psychic freedom which is virtuous and therefore right from the standpoint of the sinful ordeal (with regard to males primarily) of psychic binding.

36. Thus, in overall terms, one must contrast the vicious ideal of somatic freedom with the virtuous ideal of psychic freedom, as one might contrast the alpha of freedom with the omega of freedom, the Devil or, more correctly, Devil the Mother with God or, more correctly, God the Father, not to mention Hell or, more correctly, Hell the Clear Spirit with Heaven or, more correctly, Heaven the Holy Soul.

37. Thus civilization divides itself, as in the British Isles, between that which is fundamentally evil in its commitment to somatic freedom and that, by contrast, which is transcendentally graceful in its commitment to psychic freedom - in sum, between the female-dominated descending axis of state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria, and the male-dominated ascending axis of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria.

38. For just as we must distinguish primarily between barbarity and civility in respect of the evil of metachemical somatic freedom and the goodness of antichemical somatic binding, coupled, in subordinate vein, to the crime of metachemical psychic binding and the punishment of antichemical psychic freedom, so, as hinted at above, we cannot omit, in secondary terms, to distinguish between pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture in respect of the pseudo-folly of antimetaphysical somatic freedom and the pseudo-wisdom of physical somatic binding, coupled, in subordinate vein, to the pseudo-sin of antimetaphysical psychic binding and the pseudo-grace of physical psychic freedom.

39. And just as we must distinguish primarily between philistinism and culture in respect of the sin of antiphysical psychic binding and the grace of metaphysical psychic freedom, coupled, in subordinate vein, to the folly of antiphysical somatic freedom and the wisdom of metaphysical somatic binding, so, once again, we cannot omit, in secondary terms, to distinguish between pseudo-barbarity and pseudo-civility in respect of the pseudo-crime of chemical psychic binding and the pseudo-punishment of antimetachemical psychic freedom, coupled, in subordinate vein, to the pseudo-evil of chemical somatic freedom and the pseudo-good of antimetachemical somatic binding.

40. Therefore while the descending axis presents us, in state-hegemonic and church-subordinate terms, with a primary distinction between barbarity and civility and a secondary distinction, relative to the subordinate and subverted (male) gender, between pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture, the ascending axis, by contrast, presents us, in church-hegemonic and state-subordinate terms, with a primary distinction between philistinism and culture and a secondary distinction, relative to the subverted and subordinate (female) gender, between pseudo-barbarity and pseudo-civility.

41. In general terms, this of course means the comparative absence of philistinism and culture from the descending axis, and the comparative absence of barbarity and civility from the ascending one, since pseudo-philistinism and pseudo-culture (in relation to barbarity and civility) are as poor a substitute for genuine philistinism and culture as are pseudo-barbarity and pseudo-civility (in relation to philistinism and culture) for genuine barbarity and civility.

42. This explains the immense disparity between the British and the Irish, not least the English and the Southern Irish, since despite their claims to cultural freedom the British remain a people for whom such psychic freedom as exists in physics as a masculine mean in relation to a nominally hegemonic position is subverted by antichemical bound soma acting under duress of metachemical free soma and in opposition to such evil and crime as effectively call the metachemical shots and condition the antichemical subversion of physics in the interests of a somatic polarity characterized, in principal state-hegemonic vein, by good and evil, and in subordinate state-hegemonic vein by punishment and crime, to the detriment of anything foolish and wise, let alone sinful and graceful in the principal and subordinate modes of church secondariness.

43. Therefore psychic freedom is not the principal characteristic of the physical, much less antichemical, 'below' ... of the descending axis, but exists in subordination on both male and female terms to the somatic binding which, though indubitably following from a male hegemony in physics over antichemistry, becomes the principal manifestation of state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria there due to the countervailing pressures and influences on both antichemistry and physics alike of metachemical free soma and bound psyche in evil and crime and, secondarily, of antimetaphysical free soma and bound psyche in pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin which, appertaining to the ideal only as far as free soma is concerned, take precedence on both a class and an elemental basis over the virtuous forms of immorality which we have characterized in terms of good and punishment on the one hand, and pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace on the other hand.

44. In complete contrast, the Irish remain a people for whom such somatic freedom as exists in chemistry as a feminine mean in relation to a nominally hegemonic position is subverted by antiphysical bound psyche acting under duress of metaphysical free psyche and in opposition to such grace and wisdom as effectively call the metaphysical shots and condition the antiphysical subversion of chemistry in the interests of a psychic polarity characterized, in principal church-hegemonic vein, by sin and grace, and in subordinate church-hegemonic vein by folly and wisdom, to the detriment of anything criminal and punishing, let alone evil and good in the principal and subordinate modes of state secondariness.

45. Therefore somatic freedom is not the principal characteristic of the chemical, much less antiphysical, 'below' ... of the ascending axis, but exists in subordination on both female and male terms to the psychic binding which, though indubitably following from a female hegemony in chemistry over antiphysics, becomes the principal manifestation of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria there due to the countervailing pressures and influences on both antiphysics and chemistry alike of metaphysical free psyche and bound soma in grace and wisdom and, secondarily, of antimetachemical free psyche and bound soma in pseudo-punishment and pseudo-good which, appertaining to the ideal only as far as free psyche is concerned, take precedence on both a class and an elemental basis over the vicious forms of morality which we have characterized in terms of sin and folly on the one hand, and pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil on the other hand.

46. When one has such diametrically antithetical approaches to civilization, to the ideal of freedom, it is no small wonder if the majority of Irish people differ so markedly from their British - and in particular English - counterparts, not only in respect of the controlling elites but in terms of the broad attitudes of the generality of persons accustomed to either a philistine and/or pseudo-barbarous (if Irish) or a civil and/or pseudo-cultural (if British) mean principally in respect of sin and good, bound antiphysical psyche and bound antichemical soma, and secondarily in terms of pseudo-crime and pseudo-wisdom, bound chemical psyche and bound physical soma.

47. For the chief characteristic of the masses, whether philistine or civil, pseudo-barbarous or pseudo-cultural, is binding, such freedom as exists being subordinate, whether on primary or secondary contextual terms, to the respective modes of binding - the folly of free antiphysical soma subordinate to the sin of bound antiphysical psyche in the context of philistinism, the pseudo-evil of free chemical soma subordinate to the pseudo-crime of bound chemical psyche in the context of pseudo-barbarity, whilst, on the opposite side of the worldly fence, so to speak, the punishment of free antichemical psyche remains subordinate to the good of bound antichemical soma in the context of civility, the pseudo-grace of free physical psyche subordinate to the pseudo-wisdom of bound physical soma in the context of pseudo-culture.

48. Only the elites are truly free, whether barbarous or cultural, pseudo-philistine or pseudo-civil, such binding as exists being subordinate, whether on primary or secondary contextual terms, to the respective modes of freedom - the crime of bound metachemical psyche subordinate to the evil of free metachemical soma in the context of barbarity, the pseudo-sin of bound antimetaphysical psyche subordinate to the pseudo-folly of free antimetaphysical soma in the context of pseudo-philistinism, whilst, on the opposite side of the overworldly fence, so to speak, the wisdom of bound metaphysical soma remains subordinate to the grace of free metaphysical psyche in the context of culture, the pseudo-good of bound antimetachemical soma subordinate to the pseudo-punishment of free antimetachemical psyche in the context of pseudo-civility.

49. Therefore the civilized ideal, the freedom of either soma or psyche, depending on the context, is the prerogative of the ruling and/or leading elites, of the respective manifestations of the Few, and would not exist, least of all to any credible extent, were the Many entirely or even largely independent of such elites. For physical freedom is as problematic from a descending axial point of view as chemical freedom from the standpoint of the ascending axis, neither of which would amount to anything genuinely graceful and wise nor, across the gender divide, evil and criminal.

50. Physics, whilst it may lay claim to a degree and type of grace and wisdom, is singularly incapable of taking such virtues to their logical and, indeed, metaphysical conclusions; for at the end of the day man remains masculinely adrift in an egocentric shortfall from the divine heights of that godliness which, in its eagerness to achieve heavenly redemption in joyful soul, would alone justify grace and wisdom to any authentic extent, his nominal hegemony over what has been called antifeminine females incapable of attaining to anything like a truly free standing by dint of the inevitability, in that ego-centred elemental context, of axial intercourse with females of a genuinely free elemental disposition whose metachemical hegemony over anything antimetaphysical guarantees that, sooner or later, and rather sooner than later, they will have sufficient leverage on their lower-class counterparts to be able to immorally turn the tables, as it were, on the physically hegemonic males and ensure that not wisdom, still less grace, but goodness first and punishment afterwards become the antichemical retorts to the prevalence, diagonally backwards 'on high', of evil and crime, the free somatic and bound psychic aspects of that civilized ideal which bears ample testimony to the rule of barbarity at the expense not only of civility but, more pertinently here, of such culture as accrues, in inauthentic guise, to the presumption of psychic freedom on physical terms by, in the main, masculine males.