The polarity of Christianity between Christmas and Easter exists, I maintain, on church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial terms … in relation to the nativity heathenism, so to speak, of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and the resurrectional or, rather, crucifixional Christianity of its northeast point, these points constitutive of a polarity between female-dominated and male-dominated contexts, the chemical/pseudo-physical southwest point and the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point, both of which adhere, in Catholic vein, to church-hegemonic axial criteria, as noted above.


Now if the Christ child on his mother’s knee, shall we say, is no better than an antichrist or, rather, the Pseudo-Son of Pseudo-Man, it has to be said that the elemental/pseudo-elemental contexts of chemistry and pseudo-physics, corresponding to purgatory and pseudo-earth, also embrace, besides free somatic aspects, bound psychic ones, which ought really to be described in terms of the Daughter of Woman (chemistry) and Pseudo-Man the Pseudo-Father (pseudo-physics), neither of which would strictly adhere to the ‘Mother/Son’ focus of the Christmas, or nativity-like, setting of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, if only because Christianity cannot afford to be too complex or even too logical, notwithstanding the curtailments and fudges imposed upon it as a mere extrapolative religion – and culture – from Middle Eastern precedent.


Be that as it may, the Easter polarity to this heathenistic relativity of ‘mother and child’ (son) is rather more male-hegemonic, as befitting what appertains to the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, and in any crucifixional scene in which a prone ‘Mother of God’ (sic), or Mary, the mother of Jesus, is distraughtly at the foot of the Cross … upon which her son is raised up to virtual Y-like independence … we have a relationship seemingly the reverse of the nativity-type one, a relationship, I mean, which seems to parallel that of St George and the Dragon, of a male hegemony, in metaphysics, over a pseudo-female subordination, in pseudo-metachemistry, the latter of which, duly neutralized, is effectively pseudo-dragon, akin to a pseudo-jet (jump jet) under a chopper, or pseudo-space under time.


Thus with a prone, distraught Virgin Mary, one has the equivalent, it seems to me, of the pseudo-dragon who or which has been neutralized by hegemonic male criteria, which towers over her in much the same way that the crucified Christ towers over the Virgin, who can only weep at her predicament … of no longer being a dominating mother-like figure but a distinctly subordinate one in the overall crucifixional context, in which Christ is by far the dominant figure.


But such a figure limply hanging on the Cross of course has a Y-like form emblematic, it seems to me, of male chromosomal selfhood, of a return to psychic self and indeed of independence of the female.  It is for this reason that one would tend to identify the Catholic crucifixional figure, whose arms are stretched Y-like towards the heavens while his body sags under its own weight, with the ‘true cross’, since without a Y-like intimation of male selfhood in metaphysics there is simply the thing, rectilinear and materialist, upon which Christ was crucified, and that is of little intrinsic religious, i.e. metaphysical, significance, being, if anything, opposed to such significance.


It is for this reason that both the ornate (Anglican) and plain (Puritan) crosses are mere abstractions from the concrete Y-intimating essence of the ‘true cross’, a religious and symbolic degeneration that would seem to parallel the ‘Star of David’ (a kind of cross, though that is not a concept or reality which would appeal to many Jews, given the number of Jews who were barbarously crucified upon crosses during Roman times) abstraction of two interlocking triangles from the more concrete representations of gender interlocking that characterized such older religious traditions as the Hindu and even Babylonian.


An abstraction from a concrete embodiment of self-affirmation, whether natural or human, pagan or christian, is always a degeneration or decadence which effectively symbolizes the rejection, puritanically, of natural (sexual) or human (spiritual) aspirations.  And, to be sure, the Cross is itself a kind of extrapolation from the interlocking triangles of the so-called ‘Star of David’ emblem, a further attenuation, as it were, of the gender interlocking between male (below) and female (above) organs, with the vertical beam analogous to the one and the horizontal beam to the other.


Hence both Judaism and Protestantism are parallel repudiations of concrete embodiments of natural and human aspirations, repudiations that lead nowhere but simply remain opposed to what preceded them in the older traditions from which they derive their almost puritanical fear of self, whether natural or human, sexual or (to use a conventional if misleading term) spiritual.


But we who stretch beyond humanity in our yearning for cyborgistic apotheosis and Y-like definitiveness in the most perfect and evolved metaphysics, we cannot be persuaded by such degenerate repudiations of self, even if we are not particularly enamoured of the more concrete traditions which precede them.  We must build away from the contemporary abstractions, which include cinema, towards a new concretism, a new reality, which will transcend human aspirations as they achieve a god-like or, rather, cyborgistic character in which heavenly experience will be the metaphysical rule rather than the puritanical exception, notwithstanding the necessary part that will have to be played by pseudo-metachemistry in pseudo-dragon-like vein if females are to be brought to a neutralized subordination analogous to the Easter relationship of the prone figure at the foot of the Cross to the limp Y-intimating body hanging upon it.


There can be no Heaven where there is not pseudo-Hell, and therefore no free male, risen Y-like ‘on high’, without the inescapable corollary of a bound and gagged (metaphorically speaking) female, whom we deem pseudo-female, and consider akin to a jump jet under a chopper.


Counter-damnation of females from chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry is the inevitable corollary of the salvation of males or, rather, pseudo-males from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, and in ‘Kingdom Come’, the context or society I have long defined in relation to the prevalence (democratically mandated) of religious sovereignty,  those who are now pseudo-physically low (and phenomenally meek) will be raised up to metaphysical highness (noumenal righteousness), while those who are now chemically high (and phenomenally pseudo-vain) will be cast down to pseudo-metachemical lowness (noumenal pseudo-justice), as the gender positions are axially reversed in favour of the male and his Y-like freedom from XX-chromosomal persecution through seduction, a seduction, going all the way back to Eve, that allows the free female to abandon the hell of metachemical vacuity for the purgatory of a chemical surrogate plenum, the child that Christmas celebrates through the Nativity in effectively heathenistic (female-dominated) vein, but which Easter opposes from the standpoint of the fully Christian, even proto-Superchristian, independent male, whose heavenly resurrection (to self) would be inconceivable without a Y-like crucifixional affirmation of psychic self, the true, or soulful, self that the ‘true cross’ cannot but symbolize through the concrete embodiment of the transfixed male.