…to us, that is. We published our first blogpost on this day a year ago.

Not absolutely certain all the celebrations are in our honour, though. So; Merry Christmas! Expect any further posts from myself today to be the slightly incoherent results of an attempt to mull wine…

Unfortunately, nothing happens on Boxing Day - or at least nothing in the news domestically. Everyone is either hungover, on holiday or shopping. That is, if they aren’t in the unlucky third or so of the population that has to cater to the other, more idle two-thirds.

Fortunately, and of course unfairly, I’m comfortably within the idle two-thirds. I’m also distinctly hungover. This, of course, is entirely my own fault, as is the traffic cone (and no, I don’t know where that came from). It’s also left me lamentably stranded in an anonymous London friend’s flat while I recover. Seeing as that’s probably not going to be for a few hours, and they’re out, I might as well do something productive - and seeing as how this blog needs posts, it might as well be writing.

I’m therefore going to continue with a Christmas special in my filler series for when there’s no news, Fear and Loathing on the Internet. We begin with The Christmas Conspiracy, a festive mix of conspiracy theory, religious fanaticism and bad web-design.

As is usual with websites designed by lunatics, the most striking thing about the Christmas Conspiracy site is almost just how badly designed it is. Conspiracy theorists seem to have a thing for long, scroll-down sites with no formatting and lots of bright colours. I’m not sure why. Maybe they think they have more important matters on their mind?

Perhaps they do. But even so, you’d think that some of them might realise that even fewer people will listen to them if they can’t actually read the bloody website, wouldn’t you? It’s just not rational. Then again, given the rationality of the average conspiracy theorist (or rather, the lack thereof), I suppose that’s not a real surprise. Could the lack of legible web-design simply be another facet of their total lack of logical thought?

With most extremist websites, once you’ve got past the awful layout, you’ll reach the awful views. The Christmas Conspiracy is no exception. Beginning with the warning that viewing their site is, “potentially illegal,” and may (heavens!) end up with you getting a tax audit, they then move onto the serious business of their website: the Christmas King.

You see, Christmas, “is neither an escape from society nor is it violent or evil.” Oh no. Christmas is the festival of, “the Christmas King,” a personage who is never explicitly identified. I suspect they mean Jesus, but they certainly don’t seem to say so.

They’re certainly Christian, or perceive themselves to be. But they’re not your traditional brand of Christian - and not even your traditional brand of fundamentalist Christian lunatic. They don’t want to stop the commericalisation of Christmas. They want it to carry on to its full extent. They want the, “Christmasisation of all commerce” - where Christmas is, quite literally, every day.

Great, I hear you say. Christmas every day would be wonderful, a utopia - one endless holiday. Never mind the impending economic collapse it would cause, or the services that don’t have that holiday anyway, or the starvation as the farms empty. It would be Christmas! Everyone would be happy (if, admittedly, dead)!

But their support for total Christmas has nothing to do with an eternal, if unlikely, utopia of eternal idleness. No. In their eyes, Christmas is the festival of Christ. If Christmas is the festival of Christ, and it is celebrated every day, then every day would be a festival of Christ. Christ could rule over mankind once more! It would be the, “Christocracy,” where, “Every facet of Law, Economics, Politics, Education, the Market, the Arts, and the Sciences will be Christmasized, brought under the jurisdiction of Christ the king.” The Book of Micah says so, as extensively quoted on the site.

The Christmas Conspiracy is, therefore, the prelude to a Christian Revolution - which is, “the greatest threat to “the government,” “the New World Order,” or “the establishment.” As is very common with religious extremists, the Christmas Conspirators aren’t very good at counting. Certainly, that’s the only explanation I can think of for their massively, “hopeful,” verdicts on their own threat to the establishment.

Oh, just so you know, the Conspirators’ view of the Establishment is as: “Secularism, Humanism, Anti-Family Sex, Hedonism, Autonomy, Totalitarianism, and Mass Death.” Translated, that’s actually a fairly standard list of neoconservative hate-figures: “Non-Christians, Nice People, Fun, Fun, Liberalism, Taxes, and Abortion.” That they haven’t worked out that autonomy, an anarcho-individualist buzzword, and totalitarianism, a fascist buzzword, are polar opposites probably speaks for itself.

So, that’s their view on Christmas, Christ and the Christmas Conspiracy. To be entirely fair, you can’t fault the Conspirators for their internal logic. If you accept their basic views on Christmas, commercialism, religious dictatorship, the Bible, Micah, the Nativity, government, sex, taxes, freedom, Christianity, and ultimately the world as the basis of your views, then what they’re saying flows perfectly well.

Unfortunately, as a basis for a worldview, theirs wouldn’t have made sense in the Seventeenth Century, let alone now. The conflation of capitalism with biblical literalism, theocratic dictatorship with economic liberalism and conservatism with revolution makes virtually no sense at all.

Except, perhaps, as a very extreme form of neo-conservatism. There’s a lot going for this assessment at the website, starting with their view of the, “Establishment.” Even early on in the website, it’s apparent: along with bible studies, a co-conspirator commits to, “study the economic and political superiority of laissez-faire capitalism over socialism.”

It gets more obvious, though. Not only do they view socialism as inherently tyrannical, they view taxes themselves as inherently tyrannical. All state-provision of service is tyrannical - even the postal service, which should be handed over to the control of, “volunteer capitalists.”

The 1776 Revolution was, they say, a revolt against taxes and tyranny, the spirit of which is betrayed by modern America. (Of course, the slogan, “No Taxation Without Representation,” meant nothing, and certainly didn’t refer to taxation being tyranny where there was no democratic contract between state and citizen). Taxation is, to them, socialism and a betrayal of the constitution.

At the same time, they are biblical literalists. They believe in, “biblical patriarchy,” and the religiously excused oppression of women, who should not, “work outside the home.” They defend, “traditional values.” And, perhaps most tellingly of all, “Jesus told us to.”

So, to recap: “traditional” Christians, intolerant, laissez-faire capitalists who think socialism always means Stalinism, and loathe all forms of humanism, atheism and secularism. That’s really not too far from some neocons.

Unfortunately, the theory has a number of holes. Quite a lot, actually. The Conspirators are pacifists, and think that the aggressive neocon foreign policy amount to, “mass murder.” They (rather contradictingly, given their indictment of taxation as a betrayal of it) condemn the 1776 Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

They also claim to be anarchists, opposing all forms of statism as Christ, in their view, opposed, “Empires.” It’s the old, “God made me do it,” excuse again. There is no rational or humanitarian reason for their opposition to oppression - only religious fanaticism.

Of course, they’re not anarchists, at all. They reject the concept of autonomy, atheism (or at least, the refusal to bow down to any god), equality of the sexes (biblical patriarchy, remember?) and both the withdrawal of the individual from the state and collective struggle. As such, they reject the basic building blocks of virtually all forms of developed anarchism. They may oppose a man-made state, but they aren’t anarchists.

Even beyond that, they can’t be anarchists. Some very prominent thinkers - Tolstoy is a famous example - have considered themselves religious anarchists. I don’t think such a thing can truly exist, certainly not in conventional Christianity, and certainly not in the sort practised by the Conspirators.

It’s all in a few phrases they use extensively: “the Sovereignty of God,” the, “Christmas King,” the, “Lord.” (Emphasis universally mine). Those aren’t anarchist slogans, are they? They’re all about the submission of the individual conscience to God. That’s what their form of Christianity is all about. Anarchism is all about the submission of the individual conscience to no-one.

The, “Sovereignty of God,” and the, “Sovereignty of the Individual,” aren’t compatible.

So, they look like neocons, but aren’t. They say they’re anarchists, but aren’t. What are they?

A bunch of self-contradicting twats reading the Bible upside-down?

Yes, that sounds about right.

I will do my level best to riposte Ali’s riposte to my piece of yesterday but I fear that our views on the utility and meaning of the festival will diverge for as long as our views on the truth behind the core of the Christian faith remain so opposed. I agree with him that little would be achieved by attempting to discard the date but would argue that it should not be a time for the remembrance of Jesus Christ’s salvation of our souls from sin any more March 13th should be one of L. Ron Hubbard’s salvation of our souls from Xenu’s genocidal by-product body-thetans. So long as I consider these two men’s contribution to the human soul, indeed for as long as I do not consider the human soul as existing at all, we are never going to enjoy united vision.

Accordingly I will instead address the points which I am able to without derailing this discussion entirely into one entirely deeper, more wide-ranging and less seasonal: firstly the depiction of a materialist Christmas as an “Annual money-worship festival demands a degree of extravagance” is what I would consider a strawman. Although a gift certainly requires expenditure of cash this is rather inherent in the economic system we live under and, as such, is effectively impossible to avoid. This does not, however, make it the focus. Indeed I suspect that my family is not alone in wishing that there was no money required to arrange such purchases.

In addition materialists do not necessarily consider more animate concepts such as the family as beyond notice, indeed many (myself amongst them) argue that it makes them of more importance than under other philosophies. If we receive only this life, only this world in which to find our pleasure then it becomes vital we enjoy the company of those closest to us as we will simply not receive another chance, another set of beings with which to rub shoulders. All we have are those around us and if we ignore them we await the void alone.

Secondly there are some details concerning the Gospels which I thought should be addressed. Firstly Ali claims that the Gospels were selected as they worked well together. I would accept this but put it to him that an addendum of “…For the Church”, should be added. When selecting those to be retained and rejected the early Church, as you would expect, opted for those most useful to their own ends above the ones that would prove problematic by diverging from their teachings.

Thirdly Christmas is an inherently poor time to celebrate the Word becoming Flesh. Even once we discard the date the fact remains that in celebrating his birth you are around eight months too late.

Furthermore the identity of Theophilus is uncertain, and as such we can not be certain of Luke’s specific intent. Most notably academics have argued that the title, which literally means Friend/Beloved One of God may not have been intended for any individual at all but instead as a term which would cover anyone who met this description. This would give his work a far larger intended audience.

Thus ends the dissent.

Here begins that clarification:

The more graphic language here is as unnecessary as it is inaccurate. It would be wrong to assume that there was any form of intercourse; just as God created Adam from nothing and Eve from Adam, so he can “become flesh” inside a human womb without the need for sperm, etc.

I was already aware of this and aware that Christian teaching tends to state that no actual sex occurs between the Holy Spirit and Mary. My wording was entirely for dramatic and comedic purposes. However the notion of Mary’s hymen being snapped open by the Messiah’s head on his way out remains fairly funny so I suppose that the conventional view has its opportunities as well.

Mary may well have been slightly confused by her pregnancy being announced by an angel rather than a little white stick covered in urine, but she was willing to serve God. The most important part of Mary’s role here is that she was a God-fearing girl, but she could have been any God-fearing girl. Mary was not special, which is why I find the Catholic obsession with her slightly peculiar.

Much as I am loath to defend Catholic dogma they argue that she is “Special” owing to her immaculate conception. The fact that she was born without sin was something which she had no control over and did not choose, although (according to them and their inexplicable attachment to the nonsense notion of Free Will) she could have elected not to serve him by carrying his child.

In my view, though, it was simply another attempt to capitalise upon the pagans. It is likely that her presence helped the religion’s progress immensely. A virgin birth is something verging on being a mainstay amongst non-Abrahamic belief systems, especially prominent amongst the Greeks who had them popping up in shells, being torn out of thighs and emerging from freshly smashed skulls.

But enough, I shall restrain myself from a rant about the often near total absence of originality within the Christian tradition and instead state the obvious: as Ali said himself that he agrees with “The majority of the article” and he seems to agree with me on one of the two main points (that it is not a Christian date he does, that it is perfectly legitimate for it to be claimed by materialists, he does not, at least as far as I can tell) and this seems satisfactory to me.

Yesterday, Editor Doug sent me an article from the esteemed R.E. Vamp to publish on this website.  I demonstrated my liberal credentials, happily publishing the piece but committing myself to challenge the elements which I disagree with.  I recommend you read the article in question first: A Christmas Message.

I agree with the majority of the article.  I say that as a Christian.

I agree that 25th December has nothing to do with Jesus.  Nor, indeed, do Christmas trees or mistletoe or wreaths.  The cultural traditions surrounding Christmas have nothing to do with the birth of my Lord and Savour.

In the same way, society seems to have added to the Biblical account of the nativity.  There is no set number of “wise men” - Magi - who were probably astrologers, and almost definitely not kings.  The number three is picked because of the three gifts they gave the baby.

Moreover, it is perfectly possible that the visit of the Magi took place some time after the birth.  At the very least, they saw Mary and the baby in “the house”, so one must presume this is after they found room to stay indoors.

There are several parts of the article that I must take issue with, however.

As you would expect from an effort which could use only the two from four Gospels that had nativity tales, one of which we know was aimed at the Jews rather than the pagans and another we are uncertain of the motivations for, the result was a theological mess.

This is entirely unfair.  Authors of childrens’ books write with children in mind.  Political philosophers write differently to A-level politics textbook writers.  Each of the four Gospels has a different audience in mind, but they correlate nicely and it is for this reason that they are all published alongside each other in the Bible.  Matthew’s gospel includes many quotations from Old Testament prophesy to prove to his Jewish readers that Jesus was their awaited Messiah - Christ.  Thus the Magi are told that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Micah 5:2 says he would be.

Luke wrote his Gospel (and the book of Acts) to Theophilus, probably a friend of his.  Luke’s “orderly account” was written so Theophilus may have eyewitness evidence of “what he had been taught”, and we can as a result.  The two narratives of the nativity do not contradict one another, even if they have different focuses.

As has been suggested, Mark does not mention Jesus’ birth, although John helpfully tells us simply that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”.  Does this mean that Mark didn’t believe in the fairytale nativity story?  More likely, he recognised that other parts of Jesus’ life were more important: half of Mark’s account covers a few days and hours before his death.  None of the Gospels detail Jesus’ life before about age 30: it simply wasn’t that important to them.

I also take issue with your summary of what Christians believe about Christmas.  I am loath to quote it, but feel that necessary:

According to them it would be simple: on Christmas 25th, just over two thousand years ago in a stable in Bethlehem, a small town in Judea, a baby born was born a mother who was both the only human to be born devoid of Original Sin (not counting Adam and Eve, who were of course created) and the only one to follow pregnant by being fucked by the Holy Spirit rather than a corporeal, carnal cock. The reason that this is so notable is that the infant would go on to save the world, or at least all humanity who accepted him, which is an event that is celebrated at Easter.

The more graphic language here is as unnecessary as it is inaccurate.  It would be wrong to assume that there was any form of intercourse; just as God created Adam from nothing and Eve from Adam, so he can “become flesh” inside a human womb without the need for sperm, etc.  Mary may well have been slightly confused by her pregnancy being announced by an angel rather than a little white stick covered in urine, but she was willing to serve God.  The most important part of Mary’s role here is that she was a God-fearing girl, but she could have been any God-fearing girl.  Mary was not special, which is why I find the Catholic obsession with her slightly peculiar.

The infant did go on to save the world, and conquered sin and death at the Cross thirty-odd years later.  In this, it is clear that Christmas is not simply about a baby being born; it is about a man being killed.  Indeed, there is some significance to the gifts brought by the enigmatic wise men: embalming perfume is not the most natural present for a new-born.

Christians have long been tied up about the hijacking of Christmas, having themselves hijacked a succession of earlier pagan festivals.  I think it is helpful for Christians to consider the incarnation once a year, and it is more helpful that they do it on the same day.  December 25th is as good a day as any.  But we cannot forget that Christmas is primarily a pagan festival, albeit one that is infused with elements of peace and love and generosity.  The huge personal debt taken on at Christmas is illogical and unnecessary, but the annual money-worship festival demands a degree of extravagance.  For Christians, Christmas is a time to remember the miracle of God becoming man, of the Word becoming flesh, of Immanuel - God with us.

Christians would do well to forget society’s influences and traditions.  Christmas trees are a celebration of “Winterval”, not Christmas.  Streetlights covered in glowing candles and snowflakes are not Christmassy, but buy into the Winter Festival.  Christians should spend Christmas thinking about God’s love, not about how pagans have nicked their nice holiday.

There is light at the end of the tunnel for Christians at Christmas, though.  At this time of year, Jesus is spoken about more openly.  Instead of telling the world about how “Christ is being taken out of Christmas”, Christians should be telling the world why they worship Jesus, and why this time of year means more to them.  It is a great shame that Christians argue about the “true meaning of Christmas” instead of telling people what that meaning is, and showing the world in more Christlike lives.

The editorial inbox has received a number of distinctly odd e-mails this month.  I’ve picked a couple of my favourites from a couple of names you may recognise which strike me as particularly instructive of two views on Christmas and the New Year.

Comrade Editor,

As I predicted earlier this year Putin has appointed himself as arch-autocrat over all of Russia, his party crushing freedom and liberty and making a mockery of the supposedly democratic process in its election. As usual the event was an exercise in foregone conclusionism which served effectively as a means to ensure that the rightist power base could claim some mockery of legitimacy. As I anticipated he has appointed the thug that will follow him, once again making a mockery of any allegations of democracy made by him and entirely in order to ensure that his powerbase is solidified and consolidated and that he can remain supreme overlord by any means possible Again, as I predicted the only faction which could resist this onslaught (indeed the only one which still has seats!) is the Communists, whose noble and steadfast resistance of the encroaching fascism upon every aspect of their existence is crippling the country marks them out as the greatest heroes of this decade, joint with the bold freedom fighters struggling in Iraq to drive the foul western pig from their lands.

So I hope in 2008 to see another violent uprising against the forces that bind, confine and oppress the worker, and hand his wealth over to a select few sociopaths who are deranged and brutal enough to ascend the ranks of industry to the wretched pinnacle. I hope that the blood of the plutocrats once again cleanses the streets of Moscow and that the command of the country returns to who it belongs: the Russian people. I hope that the fine principles of democratic centralism are put into place again and that the Soviet Empire is reborn, rising from the ashes to unite the divided, disenchanted people of the East and bringing them together under the unified, united aim of freedom and equality, with death to all and any who oppose it. I hope that the thugs are overthrown and given the death that their kind fears, I hope that pride and power is returned to Russia.

The Communists alone are the voice of the Russian People, all other alternative movements having either been submitted to the sickening dominance of the arrogant dog Putin. Only Communists refuse to be subordinate to his ego, only Communists have the stamina to resist.

But comrades, they are enough.

Vive la Revival!
Comrade A.P. Ologist

Dear Sir,

Given your publication’s poor record on religion, family and traditional values, I fear that your writers will waste no time in denying the existence of a true Christmas.  This will not do.  Christmas is an essential part of our rich island heritage, a bright and joyful thread in the tapestry of our great nation.  To remove it from our lives would seriously deprive not only us, but our children, and all those that come after us.

Even the die-hard atheist Richard Dawkins will admit that, “ours is historically a Christian culture, and children who grow up ignorant of biblical literature are diminished, unable to take literary allusions, actually impoverished.”  This is perhaps the most correct statement the man has ever made.  We – the British – are a historically Christian nation.  Our culture, our democracy, even our very speech is shot through with the blood of Christ.  If nothing else, how would you cope without being able to exclaim, “Good God!” at some random mishap? The fact is that you wouldn’t.  If you were born, bought up in and bred in majority in Great Britain, you couldn’t.  You wouldn’t have another expression of appropriately mild disbelief in your arsenal, as you wouldn’t have learned one.  It is part of your breeding, your culture and, ultimately, the identity that is formed by it.

And that identity is necessary.  We all need an identity.  What are we, without it?  Tiny.  A simple, lone, emotional individual in a hostile and alien world that, once you have cut yourself off from it as such, cares nothing for you.  You, meanwhile, will be set against it by its own hostility, and soon the only care you will feel for your fellow men is when it in your own interests.

This removal of collective identity will lead to an atomisation of society.  An atomisation of society will lead to selfish anarchy.  That will lead to extinction. This is why the traditional Christian Christmas is essential in the United Kingdom.  The steady secularisation of the festival represents the steady rise of atheism in this country – encouraged, I fear, by the government (Winterval, anyone?).  How many of those disgusting socialists in the Labour party are atheists?  Yes, that’s right.  Most of them.  It is, by and large, a godless creed.  And they have long sought to destroy our religious heritage – all this inclusion nonsense is, after all, little more than a steady assault on Christianity in the UK. They are bastardising our identity at the expense of others.  But from each of these other identities, they take only a tiny part – so we are left with a discordant, unwilling, ultimately ill-matched motley of traditions all pulling away in different directions.  The consequences could be dire. Secularising Christmas is only the first step.  Atheism is the next.  Anarchy is the last. We must defend our traditions, or face eradication.

Regards, 
C. Blimp.

Earlier this year I wrote about my encounter with an elderly bigot and used it as an opportunity to ruminate upon the nature of nationalism in contemporary Britain. Since then there have been two events that caused me to cast my mind back to that article. Firstly Gordon Brown, showing his usual capacity to evoke the cringingly unfortunate, announced that he was in favour of “British jobs for British workers”. Exactly what my bellowing bigot friend suggested when I met her.

I am not suggesting that Brown is of anything like the low intellect of that woman but this seems to suggest that he too is aware of the presence of nationalistic sentiment in our country, and is also interested in tapping into it. Perhaps this is unwise.

Secondly, and more hearteningly, the actual BNP has managed to survive Gordon’s courting of their vote only to tear itself to shreds, seemingly for no apparent reason.

The division runs between a group, judging by their title with a rather poor grasp of history, calling themselves the “Real BNP” and the party itself. Their website can be found here: (they have a more official one but at the moment it seems to be offline) while the response by the original racists can be found here. Meanwhile what a certain colleague of mine (or two) would probably consider the “Bastard bourgeois” view of events can be read here.

To summarise the BNP has seen 50 members defect and resign the whip to another outfit named the Real BNP (yes, this could get confusing) that, for some reason, seems to have a leadership mostly consisting of pregnant women. One of these, Sadie Graham, alleges that the BNP stole her computer and tapped her phone while they say that the computer was theirs and the lengthy transcript of a Real BNP conversation they posted on the official BNP website was recorded after she rang them accidentally and didn’t realise.

Which is still illegal, actually.

Enough is Enough also contains a lengthy account of the police staging a thorough search of one of its writers houses after a dodgy tip-off concerning a firearm. Perhaps it is natural for these fascists to wish the authorities to do their dirty-work for them in this way: until the BNP gives Britain an actual police state it is the closest they will get. Its author suggests that the person who made the claim should be charged with wasting police time while the same argument was made by the official BNP website about Sadie’s allegations concerning the stolen computer.

All in all rather like some twisted version of Eastenders where everyone is far-right, except without the Asians. Indeed the BNP’s website has perhaps best described events as a “Real life nationalist soap opera script” and, really, I doubt that that can be topped.

This is easily the largest feud that the BNP has ever faced and despite blasé claims from the party loyalists that it will all be over by Christmas (for a bunch who constantly hark back to a lost Britain they have a terrible grasp of history, don’t they?) the row shows no sign of dying down. Enough is Enough has a highly vocal community and I doubt that they will shut up and get into line simply because for a party hoping to make a break-through in the London elections next May it would be convenient.

Much though I admire this spirit it is important to bear in mind that this is still one set of venemous racists against another, a fact I seemed to find it easy to forget when researching this matter. All the same, this seems to be the political fringe equivalent of the Iran-Iraq war and as such I wish the Real BNP all the best in their efforts to damage and drain support from the Originals. Or rather, not all the best, but enough success that they receive precisely 50% support and split the nationalist vote neatly in two.

In 2008 I hope that this disunity does not end, that harmony does not ring out and that they end the year in at least as much of a mess as Respect started it. Actually, I suspect it won’t end. Extremist movements have a tendency to split like this every couple of decades. The opinions are just too strongly held, just too unusual (read: bizarre), and in this case, just too intolerant for even slight variations to survive together. If you believe racist bullshit, it might as well be your own particular brand of racist bullshit.

Although it will do nothing to rid our country of the prejudice that lingers within our country the longer the bigots spend aiming their caustic loathing at each other rather than entire races of British residents, the better. The worse state that their “Organisations” end up in the worse they will be for transmitting, promoting, advocating and pursuing their foul agenda and the further their divisive nonsense will be kept from the mainstream, which is quite reactionary, baffling and bizarre enough as it is.

On a more grounded note I have been informed that there is an inquiry into the legal status of cannabis being held by the government, which will report at some point in the next year. May I take this opportunity to say that I long for the shock finding that cannabis has not been downgraded enough and that it should be legalised immediately, along with all other drugs.

Less chance of it than a messy BNP schism, I’ll give you that, but a man can hope.

As gratifying as it was to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury admitting that copious details of the Nativity Tale are absolute nonsense or non-Biblical additions (stars don’t soar through the sky, that’s comets, there was definitely no snow in the Middle East, it was an unspecified number of Magi rather than kings and so on…) and as wonderful as the reaction it caused amongst the US Episcopals was* it seems unlikely that it will stem the standard torrent of Christians whining about the way that the festival is celebrated. People are “Forgetting the true meaning of Christmas!” they cry in a hackneyed manner that seems oddly to often be entirely unaware of its clichéd state, much like those people who cry “It’s political correctness gone mad!” without slitting their own throats on their unoriginality.

So, what is the true meaning of Christmas?

According to them it would be simple: on Christmas 25th, just over two thousand years ago in a stable in Bethlehem, a small town in Judea, a baby born was born a mother who was both the only human to be born devoid of Original Sin (not counting Adam and Eve, who were of course created) and the only one to follow pregnant by being fucked by the Holy Spirit rather than a corporeal, carnal cock. The reason that this is so notable is that the infant would go on to save the world, or at least all humanity who accepted him, which is an event that is celebrated at Easter.

The problem is that Christmas is not the date of his birth. It is, instead and much like Easter, simply the date of another celebration which both pre-dated Christianity and was entirely pagan.

Or rather celebrations, since this was a date that was enjoyed as a perfect day for a party by a good number of cultures and religions throughout history, most likely due to cosmology: the 25th of December is a date just beyond the winter solstice, showing that from the lowest ebb the sun rises again. It was known as the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” for this reason and the popularity of solar deities within pre-Christian societies can be demonstrated by the fact that there were at least three gods who bore the title of Sol Invictus: El Gabal, Sol and Mithras.

But this was not the only culture to celebrate the day and indeed letters exist where the evangelists aiming at Britain were told not to attempt to destroy existing festivals upon the 25th but instead to simply change it into a Christian celebration.

As you would expect from an effort which could use only the two from four Gospels that had nativity tales, one of which we know was aimed at the Jews rather than the pagans and another we are uncertain of the motivations for, the result was a theological mess. The blatancy of the Christian elements is actually so severe that effectively all of its symbols are pagan in origin: the Christmas tree was originally decorated with candles in order to let the sprites and elves of the forest find their way home, it ended up indoors as that allowed the heathens to evade persecution, the red colours and green are both permeated with connotations of fertility, the laurel wreath is a sign of the two-headed god Janus and evokes his prominence in the New Year thanks to his ability to look both forwards and back at once, the Yule log is purely pagan, the mistletoe promotes promiscuity and is certainly not found in any Gospel, let alone St. Paul’s letters!

Best of all, though, the reigning deity, the head compare, master of ceremonies and jolly patriarch of affairs has deeply dubious origins: perhaps the most convincing account I have read was made by e-comic genius e-sheep which shows him to be simply another manifestation of the randy goat-god Pan. Rather shockingly this website has currently been taken over by a holding company but thankfully it can still be accessed via the Wayback Machine and thus can be read here until the real site (hopefully) gets restored, while an equally hilarious but slightly less likely theory can be found here, courtesy of some fundamentalist Christians. Anyone who quotes The Onion for earnest purposes is someone inadvertently amusing.

So it is clear that neither in its roots or in its modern manifestation is the festival anywhere near entirely Christian. Both in origins and in practice it is instead perhaps the most prominent vestige of our pagan past. In fact, it could be argued that that was Christianity, being as it is a fusion of Hellenism and Hebrew, often with a mixture of whatever other local culture it came into contact with to make it more palatable. You could easily see this as highly parasitic, and it is, but in terms of success you need only consider the numbers that celebrate Channukah to Christmas to see the outcome. Christianity has adapted and altered himself and embraced just about anyone, regardless of their wealth, race or mental state while Judaism’s narrow cultural connections have tied it down and remain as much a hindrance to its growth in terms of numbers as its connection to birth by a Jewish mother.

Whereas Channukah is the celebration of the triumph of the segregationists over the Hellenists Christianity shows that through merging, mixing and reforming a religion can insert itself anyway. I recall here a feather portrait of Christ made by indigenous South Americans after the Conquistadors brutal influence upon their culture exerted itself, created by brightly coloured plumage of local birdlife plucked and displayed as it always had been for centuries.

However, just because a strategy is effective does not make it legitimate. Stabbing your foe in the back is usually immensely effective.

Therefore it is entirely appropriate and proper for the consumerists to take command, or at least as much so as it was for the Christians to crudely stitch the more cheerful elements of Christ to it. Indeed, it could be considered simply a continuation of the noble tradition of the most dominant philosophy of the present claiming the 25th of this month.

In addition the assumption that materialism should inherently involve the discarding of the importance of friends and family and the ascension of the tangible good above all else is unfounded: materialism argues that there is no world beyond but is entirely open to the possibility of a world within, simply emphasising that this is a construct of the mind. Love is a creation of the brain, therefore, but why should this diminish it? The brain has created gods and masterpieces over almost every medium. Love is simply another instance of its brilliance at creation. Christmas another.

So, forget the puritans who would have you and those close to you in a church and bored rigid rather than sitting around a table eating, drinking and making cheer. Instead focus upon those close to you, upon gifts for them and upon the time spent with them. Focus not upon some tiresome myths of magical occurrence lifted wholesale from Zeus’ descent to earth and insemination of a mistress as a shower of gold but instead upon the tangible, the real.

In short, Merry Christmas from Scribo Ergo Sum.

- - -
* Read it here, a personal favourite being “But he was disappointed by his description of the immaculate conception: “I was a little concerned that he was as soft as he was on the teaching of the doctrine of the virgin birth, which to me is an essential doctrine for Christians,” said Bishop George Langberg.” since the good bishop seems to have reached his high position without being able to distinguish between the Immaculate Conception, the supposed birth of Mary without sin in order to allow her to carry the Lord, and the Virgin Birth, the supposed hymen-snapping-good birth of Jesus to a virgo intacto mother. If this is the case then we have here a bishop who is both a hard-liner on Church doctrine and entirely ignorant of it, to the extent of having sub-GCSE standard knowledge.