Free Cross and Bound Star. I have never liked stars. Perhaps part of the reason for that is that they remind me of my experience at infants’ school of being awarded a star according to how one performed in one’s lessons or play or tasks or whatever. The stars were of course different colours in order to allow for grading, and one was presented by teacher – usually female - with a particular colour star whenever one’s activities warranted reward. But that would not be the whole answer to this problem of my dislike, bordering on intense aversion, to stars. Doubtless I have come to see them in relation to heathenistic as opposed to Christianistic norms, as something more sensual than sensible, more ‘once born’ than ‘reborn’, in the Christian lingo, and therefore as unworthy of anyone who, especially when male, prides himself on being sensible and somehow removed from the glittering superficiality of show business and barbarous ideologies and political leftism and religious fundamentalism and all those things one would normally associate with the proximity of stars of one kind or another. I don’t even like the Cosmos, which is so full of stars, and regard my own ideological standpoint as being antithetical to anything cosmic, pretty much as civilized mankind would be antithetical, lower down in the realm of phenomenal relativity, to nature and even, in an ethnic sense, to what could be called the ‘subhumanity’ of natural mankind. However that may be, I take no pleasure in stars, least of all when used as an emblem for a political tendency or movement, and look forward to a time when a new kind of cross, call it centrecross or even supracross, will become more universally prevalent, as though on a basis of Social Theocratic Centrism or with regard to an ideological standpoint that was more transcendentalist than humanist and therefore committed to the development of metaphysics and, for females, antimetachemistry to their logical conclusions in what could be regarded as the closest approximation to ‘Kingdom Come’. Such a ‘centrecross’ would signify psychic freedom more than somatic binding and would consequently differ quite demonstrably from the Christian cross, especially that upon which the ‘Son of God’ is depicted as though in illustration of bound soma, and not as a precondition so much as a consequence of free psyche which, in metaphorical terms, would appertain to the ‘Father’, albeit to a ‘Father’ who properly precedes the ‘Son’, as psyche precedes soma in male actuality, and has nothing whatsoever to do with an anterior Creator extrapolated out, in Old Testament vein, from some Jehovahesque ‘first mover’ in the Cosmos who, with Christianity, becomes a kind of ‘Father’ to a ‘Son’ who is successive to him like some kind of worldly mean to a netherworldly alpha, the root creative force behind everything else. No such ‘Devil the Mother’ hyped as God could ever make it as God for me, and therefore what properly appertains to God can only be first in the sense of psyche preceding soma in metaphysics, which is rather like the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass as opposed, with Judaic Creation, to its northwest point, being, in elemental terms, closer to the last element (air) than to the first (fire). Even the Romans, appertaining to civilization this side of the Mediterranean, had, as Europeans, more cosmic sensibility about them than would have been compatible with peoples more under the influence of its stellar and solar aspects in patently sensual fashion, and when the apostate Paul brought Christianity back across the Mediterranean from the Middle East, from ancient Palestine, it was as though with the one worldly, temperate step forward of the ‘Son’ one had to endure two netherworldly, untemperate steps back with a ‘Father’ who was less Jupiterian, much less Saturnian, than an extrapolation, arguably, from some stellar primacy more congenial to desert and arid lands than to anything West European. Be that as it may, the populism of worldly succession to a primal creative force identified, falsely, with God is simply not relevant to any kind of religious transcendentalism, being a humanistic extrapolation from a more fundamentalist approach to religion, and we may be confident that Christianity has failed, even in Roman Catholicism, which, as the name might suggest, owes more to sensibility than to sensuality, to achieve anything like a consistently transcendentalist approach to religion that would lead to a repudiation, unequivocally, of all religious fundamentalism, including that which anchors humanism and is not even unequivocally Old Testament in character. Such a repudiation can only be achieved, I have argued, with Social Theocracy following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in paradoxical elections held in certain nominally democratic countries which are yet, like Eire, more bureaucratic than democratic and, especially, heir to a Catholic tradition, and thus less economically of man and antipolitically of antiwoman than politically of woman and anti-economically of antiman, thereby being less given to humanistic freedom (which, at bottom, is the only freedom which Western civilization has really achieved … in puritanical defiance of Old Testament criteria) than to faith in the possibility of transcendentalist freedom and, for females, antifundamentalist freedom coupled, more especially, to antimaterialist binding, the state-subordinate corollary of idealist binding, in soma, for males. Hence, in differentiating between metaphysics and antimetachemistry, transcendentalism/idealism and antifundamentalism/antimaterialism in this gender-based way, one would be allowing for a distinction between the free centrecross, or Social Theocratic emblem, and the bound star, between a cross that was not contiguously encircled and a star that manifestly was contiguously encircled, thereby signifying an antimetachemical retort to the un-encircled freedom of metachemical stars, under which, I fear to say, one can envisage the contiguously-encircled CND emblem as exemplifying the antimetaphysical subordination to a metachemical hegemony so typical of the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and therefore of every form of sensual subservience of males to females on the noumenal planes of space and time or, more correctly in this instance, antitime. Thus the northeast point of the said compass, wherein metaphysics and antimetachemistry have their respective positions, is the exact opposite of this heathenistic state-of-affairs, being one in which the male is free (in psyche) and the female, though also free in psyche, bound (in soma), this latter contrary to her gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche. Thus, in general terms, the ascension of the free cross requires the subordination of the bound star. Classless metaphysics is only possible so long as it is accompanied, subordinately, by anti-upperclass antimetachemistry, the female counter-damned and counter-cursed through being at cross-purposes with her gender actuality under male hegemonic pressures, in metaphysics, such that constitute for males both the salvation and blessedness of being in sync with their gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma. Only in metaphysics is this possible to the male; for in physics, which is the freedom of man (not God), such psychic freedom as exists is undermined by an emphasis on bound soma under duress of the antichemical (female) subversion of physics at the behest, diagonally back up the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, the antithetical link between metachemistry and antichemistry constituting primary state-hegemonic and even church-subordinate criteria on what are patently female terms. Therefore only in salvation from antiphysics to metaphysics will the male achieve the blessedness of gender sync, obliging the female to be counter-damned from chemistry to antimetachemistry in the counter-cursedness of free psyche and bound soma for a creature who, left to her natural devices, is the other way around. Such is the logical conclusion to the gender war which, at this point in time, is a long way from being won by males! For even in antiphysics under chemistry, the male is upended to the extent of having to go along with free soma and bound psyche under an equivocal female hegemony, being foolish in the one and sinful in his consciousness of such folly in the other – at any rate, so long, traditionally, as Catholic criteria obtained with some kind of link between antiphysics and a degree, no matter how imperfect, of metaphysics such that, in male vein, permitted the emphasis at the southwest point of the axial compass to be switched from soma to psyche, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of unadulterated heathenism. For such a switch would also affect females, as a chemical link with antimetachemistry established secondary church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria in terms of bound to free psyche and free to bound soma respectively. But such terms, contrary to Catholic male-led reductionism, were not from sin to grace in the one context and from folly to wisdom in the other but, on the contrary, from pseudo-crime to pseudo-punishment in respect of church-hegemonic criteria and from pseudo-evil to pseudo-good in respect of state-subordinate criteria, thereby retaining a gender differential which characterizes both this and the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis at every turn, even if, as was evidently the case, such a differential was seldom recognized or institutionally upheld, much less acknowledged. Therefore even the notion that we are born in sin is fallacious insofar as sin and, more pertinently to sex, folly, are contrary manifestations, bound psychic and free somatic, of antiphysics, the mass male catholic elemental position, and cannot be applied to females, for whom the pseudo-evil of chemical free soma and the pseudo-crime of chemical bound psyche would logically oblige us to infer some other stigma than that of sin – namely, that of pseudo-crime or, in somatic terms, pseudo-evil, not forgetting that what is pseudo on the one axis is genuine on the other and vice versa, so that genuine sin and folly in antiphysics and pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil in chemistry have to be contrasted with genuine evil and crime in metachemistry (female) and pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin in antimetaphysics (male), due attention being paid to the switch of emphasis from psyche to soma which characterizes state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria. However that may be, whether born in sin or pseudo-sin, folly or pseudo-folly, males differ demonstrably from females in this respect, since while it is foolish for a male to be at cross-purposes with his gender actuality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma under female hegemonic pressures in sensuality, whether in phenomenal relativity or noumenal absolutism, the female in such a context is by no means acting foolishly but, rather, in keeping with her gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche, which is to say in terms of evil and/or pseudo-evil in free soma and crime and/or pseudo-crime in bound psyche, the difference again being one of class, since whereas metachemistry is unequivocally hegemonic over antimetaphysics, chemistry, as noted, is only equivocally hegemonic over antiphysics and is therefore subject, at least traditionally in Catholic countries, to psychic subversion at the behest of such metaphysics and antimetachemistry as can be religiously and anti-scientifically mustered to thwart heathen impulses and render spurious the forms of evil and crime that chemically obtain. Such spurious forms of evil and crime, which we have equated with pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime, end up playing second fiddle, so to speak, to folly and sin or, more correctly within church-hegemonic/state-subordinate parameters, to sin and folly, being, as pseudo-crime and pseudo-evil, the secondary church-hegemonic and state-subordinate corollaries of that which leads to salvation, in grace and wisdom of metaphysics, for males and to counter-damnation, in pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness of antimetachemistry, for females, the counter-cursed counterpart to a blessed hegemony which is the rule of transcendentalism and idealism over the anti-infinity of antifundamentalism and antimaterialism for all eternity.