411. Both Britain and America, those principal allies in the cause of objective freedom, or the freedom of objectivity, are countries in which the spirit, symbolized by 'Britannia', and the will, symbolized by the 'Liberty Belle', are hegemonic over the ego and the mind/soul, to the greater glory, in Britain's case, of the feminine (and basically Heathen) spirit of giving, and to the greater power, in America's case, of the superfeminine (and basically Superheathen) will of doing.


412. In neither country is subjective binding, or the binding to subjectivity, taken all that seriously; for binding presupposes self, and where the self is denied or, rather, subordinated, in secondary fashion, to the not-self and selflessness, there will be an entrenched opposition to ego and mind/soul, particularly when the latter are sensible and supreme.


413. For sensual ego and mind/soul will be subordinated to the prevailing will and/or spirit which, being primal, reflects the secular ascendancy of materialism over fundamentalism and of realism over nonconformism, whereas sensible ego and mind/soul will simply be regarded as a threat, potential if not actual, to freedom, and thus to the rule, in negativity, of secular primacy.


414. For sensible ego and mind/soul cannot properly exist within a free society, but presuppose the rejection of freedom and concomitant achievement of binding, the binding of ego to Christian humanism in the one case, and the binding of the mind/soul to Superchristian transcendentalism in the other case.


415. Thus in a bound society, which can only be subjective, and hence male, either humanism will have gained the ascendancy over nonconformism, sensible masculinity in the brain over sensible femininity in the womb, in due Christian vein or, alternatively, transcendentalism will have gained the ascendancy over fundamentalism, sensible supermasculinity in the lungs over sensible subfemininity in the heart, in due Superchristian vein, neither of which could have any truck with the subordination of humanism to nonconformism in Protestant fashion, i.e. of Anglicanism to Puritanism/Dissenterism, or, worse again, the subordination of transcendentalism to fundamentalism, of Satan to Jehovah, in Judeo-Oriental fashion, since both would presuppose sensual and therefore 'once-born' modes of supremacy such that fly in the face of Christian/Superchristian orders of 'rebirth'.


416. Yet religious freedom (of conscience and/or the First Mover) isn't only not Christian and/or Superchristian, humanist and/or transcendentalist, it is vulnerable, as history has shown, to the encroachments of secular freedom, and thus to the eclipse of Protestant nonconformism by realism and of Judeo-Oriental fundamentalism by materialism, with consequences all-too-familiarly political and scientific, to the detriment of both economics and religion, since such economics and religion as could be accommodated, in Protestant and/or Judeo-Oriental terms, to nonconformism and to fundamentalism respectively are necessarily of the 'once-born', or sensual, varieties of humanism and transcendentalism, and it is in relation to them, rather than to anything genuinely Christian and/or Superchristian, that the naturalism and idealism of secular primacy have come to the fore and been obliged to take a no-less subordinate position vis--vis the prevailing secular freedoms of realism and materialism.


417. Thus such economic and religious sensuality as acquiescently co-exists, in suitably subordinate fashion, with political and scientific freedom ... is not of the supreme, or Protestant and/or Judeo-Oriental varieties, but is decidedly primal itself, being but a negative counterweight, in male subjectivity, to the hegemonic negativity of political freedom in parliamentary realism and the scientific freedom of constitutional materialism.


418. Thus do negative modes of economics and religion co-exist with the negative modes of politics and science which characterize the secular freedoms of societies in which primacy has gained the upper hand over supremacy, with such supremacy as still survives - more usually on a sensual, or 'once-born', basis - very much under the shadow of sensual primacy.


419. Thus while primacy does not exclude supremacy - at least not in its sensual manifestations - it inevitably subordinates supremacy to the prevailing norms - fundamentalism duly subordinated to materialism and nonconformism to realism, with transcendentalism duly subordinated to idealism and humanism to naturalism on the subjective, or male, side of what is, in any case, a predominantly objective, and hence female, society.


420. Of course, the dominance of humanism by nonconformism and of transcendentalism by fundamentalism in sensual supremacy would still have attested to a female hegemony, albeit not the worst possible, or secular, modes of female hegemony such that currently rule and/or govern the free roost, so to speak, wherever realism and materialism have come into the open in defiance of sensual supremacy, as is indubitably the case with both Britain, land of political freedom par excellence, and America, land of scientific freedom par excellence.


421. Thus do both 'Britannia' and the 'Liberty Belle' stand out as symbols of sensual primacy, as Britain and America stand together as principal allies in the cause and defence of secular freedom not only at the expense of secular binding but, more generally, to the detriment if not exclusion of ecclesiastic binding, as one might call the binding to sensible supremacy which characterizes both Christian and Superchristian dispositions.


422. For neither realism nor materialism can become hegemonic in societies in which either humanism (if Christian) or transcendentalism (if Superchristian) is paramount, but only in societies which have fallen away from sensible supremacy into sensual supremacy, wherein nonconformism and fundamentalism are hegemonic, and from which the sensual primacy of hegemonic realism and materialism was able to emerge in due degenerative course, signalling the eclipse of positivity by negativity and, consequently, of the organic by the inorganic.


423. Thus did religious or, as I prefer to call it, ecclesiastical freedom lead to secular freedom in countries like Britain and America, as nonconformism was eclipsed by realism and fundamentalism by materialism, each of them dragging such humanism and transcendentalism as was compatible with sensual supremacy down with it to the naturalist and idealist depths, in primacy, of that which, ever subjective, can only be subordinate to an objective hegemony.


424. And such a hegemony is the worst of all possible worlds and/or societies; for beneath sensual primacy it is impossible to go, and sensual primacy, corresponding to secular freedom, is now - and has long been - the yardstick in both Britain and America of what is contemporary.


425. Thus secular selflessness in Britain's case and secular not-selfhood in America's case are the prevailing norms, with ecclesiastic selflessness, epitomized by Puritan nonconformism, and ecclesiastic not-selfhood, epitomized by Judeo-Oriental fundamentalism, existing in the historic shadow of sensual primacy.


426. For the spirit and the will are very much in their primary manifestations in these countries, while the ego and the mind/soul exist in their secondary manifestations, and not simply as historical shadows to the prevailing secularity but, more particularly, as subordinate modes, in realism and materialism, of sensual primacy.


427. Even where the ego and the mind/soul are primary, as in naturalism and idealism respectively, such a primary manifestation of selfhood will be subordinate to the prevailing primacy of selflessness and not-selfhood, since in neither case can that which is subjective assert itself over the primal objectivity of realism and materialism, not to mention (from a humanist and/or fundamentalist standpoint) over the supreme objectivity of nonconformism and fundamentalism, in sensual contexts.