The Diminishment of Christmas

 As I gaze on the scene depicted above, presumably a painting of Victoria and Albert and a gaggle of children arrayed around what seems to be a large Norfolk Island Pine festooned (my word of the day) with ornaments, I find myself inclined to wonder whether Christmas has, or should, become unimportant.

Soon Albert would be dead, and the children parented, if one can call it that, by the grim Queen who it seems wasn't at all fond of them or of children generally.  Some or for all I know all of the children shown or their cousins would soon enough hurl the world into a horrific war.  And each year they would gather around some other tree to celebrate Christmas, as we do still, wars or no wars.  Usually wars, as they've been fairly constant since the First World War, which was supposed to end them.

If this post is noted by anyone Christian and conservative in the vulgar sense the word now has in our Great Republic, they would likely consider it part of the fabled "War on Christmas."  But it isn't.  The celebration of Christmas is perfectly fine with me.  Nor do I have any problem with those who wish to do so keeping Christ in it.  It's interesting that Christians themselves may have waged war on Christmas more effectively than non-Christians.  I refer to the Puritans, or Roundheads, who banned the celebration of Christmas (along with other things) during Oliver Cromwell's reign as Lord Protector of England, and the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who made celebrating Christmas punishable by fine.

Of course, Christmas as celebrated has little to do with Jesus.  But for the manger scenes one sees in homes or rather ostentatiously in public, there's nothing in the appearance of Christmas celebrations which evokes him.  The Christmas tree, the Yule log, the laurels, all are pagan in origin.  There's nothing whatsoever even suggesting Jesus was born on December 25th, though we know that date was associated with pagan deities who were said to be born at that time or around the winter solstice, and born by a virgin mother.  The date was selected as his birthday several centuries after he is said to have lived, to coincide with pagan celebrations of the birth of Sol Invictus, to name one such god, and the season of celebrations connected with the winter solstice by pagans, such as the Roman Saturnalia to name one of them.

There's also nothing of substance supporting the claim he was born in Bethlehem.  Two of the canonical Gospels say nothing regarding his birth.  The claim that that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem for purposes of a census ordered by Augustus also lacks credibility.  There's no record of such a census, and the Romans were prodigious record-keepers.  And why the Imperial government would have required people to travel to their birthplaces to be counted, with the resulting chaos in travel, housing and administration, is unexplained.  Though it may be explained because Bethlehem is where David was born, and it was necessary for Joseph to be among the House of David.

All this is well-known, though not very often noted.  Perhaps then, following Aristotelian or Thomist metaphysics, the claim is that keeping Christ in Christmas refers to the substance of Christmas rather than its appearances.  

But in what sense are the teachings of Jesus followed or celebrated, even on Christmas day or during the holiday season, let alone the rest of the year?  There's a good amount of lip service to that affect, but even that seems to be declining.  Maudlin Christmas movies, TV shows or stories continue to be shown or read, but this seems to be due to a sense of obligation rather than due to any popularity, and those seem to be declining as well.  It may be because of the fact Christmas this year fell on a Sunday, but I saw far more football than I did dramatisations of Dickens and even of Capra's work we all know far too well.

The fact that families are more widespread than in the past has led to a decline in familial celebrations; traveling home for Christmas seems onerous in many respects, now more than ever.

Finally, let me put my (Christmas?) cards on the table.  I suggest that there is less Christmas cheer or spirit than there has been in the past because people have become less and less likable.  Our public figures in politics, the media, entertainment (name them) are craven and selfish, crabbed, mean, angry, rude, boorish, hypocritical, self-righteous...one runs out of derogatory words when trying to describe them.  So are most of us if social media is any guide.  There is less and less good will being given.  There's less and less comfort and joy available. 

One has to wonder whether there will come a time when Christmas will seem surreal to most of us.  Perhaps Christmas in time will seem so different from our reality that we'll be unable to accept it anymore.

One Little Hitler

I haven't been able to determine who drew the editorial cartoon gracing this post, but it was apparently made in 1942.  I think we're safe in believing that it isn't, in fact, a self-portrait.

It presents an interesting take on Hitler's popularity with the German people at that time.  The slavish figure genuflecting to Der Fuhrer gives thanks that Hitler has saved him from democracy, which is called a scourge.

The belief that democracy is if not a scourge then a decadent failure as a form of government which should be discarded was a popular one among the intelligentsia of the time, including that disgusting Nazi toady, Heidegger.  It continues to be the belief of various right-wing intellectuals in Europe currently, for much the same reasons.  Those reasons seem to have their bases in nationalism, the preservation of cultural if not biological purity, resentment and the desire to be safe and secure followers of a national or cultural hero-figure.  Democracy is seen as chaotic and too favorable to opposing and unusual views and people.

One can't help but wonder if that's how many feel about it here and now.  Not that our Great Republic has ever been a democracy, properly speaking.  But such as it is, it may be that we have come to a point where a significant number of us are not comfortable with it, for reasons similar to those supporters of fascism in the past.  

Others have already wondered whether our Glorious Union is becoming similar to the version of America in Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, published in 1936.  Comparisons have been made between current political figures (one in particular) and Buzz Windrip, the American dictator in the novel.  Buzz was probably modeled on Huey Long, but his personality traits are similar to those of other men better known now than the Kingfish, a Louisiana populist.  Buzz incarcerated political opponents, denigrated women and minorities, was anti-immigrant; he was vulgar, vain, outlandish, and a prolific liar, and very popular.  The American fascism described in the novel was a great friend to big business.  It had more in common with Mussolini's version of corporate fascism than with Hitler's Nazis.  Hitler wasn't all that well known in America at that time.

In these times when political figures declaim, to acclaim, that immigrants are poisoning our blood and are vermin, as are political opponents, the assertion that what took place a hundred years or so ago in Europe can't take place here is less than credible.  It's apparent that elections and the rule of law mean nothing to many here in God's Favorite Country.  What's next?

It's interesting that in Lewis' novel, the opponents of Windrip and his regime took refuge in Canada.  We hear Canada being praised often in these dark times, for a number of reasons.  Was Lewis prescient in that respect as well?

The Dangers of Free Expression

Ah, the halcyon days of the House Un-American Activities Committee ("HUAC").  See the giants of HUAC above, Senator Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn, hard at work.  Have those days returned, or are they returning?

The People's House, as it is called by some without apparent irony, or at least certain of its members, recently took the opportunity to posture for us by interrogating high officials of certain Ivy League schools regarding anti-semitic speech and conduct if not in the halls of academia then on campus.  As a result, certain of them have resigned or are on the cusp of doing so, and the professionally outraged and great donating individuals and corporations are gunning for their jobs.

It's always amusing when politicians strike attitudes for the cameras and exercise their relatively limited powers of expression on most any topic.  But this is particularly the case when self-righteousness is what is on display.  To be frank, the very idea of members of Congress inquiring into free expression isn't merely amusing; it's alarming.  Their tendency is to regulate, as regulation involves the exercise of powers that, unfortunately, are given them, and except for the acquisition of money it is the exercise of power which gives them the most joy.

So, any meeting of a committee of Congress for the purpose of exploring issues which may be impacted by First Amendment concerns, or questions of morals, is prima facie disturbing.  What seems to be motivating the head hunting now taking place, though, is itself disturbing, as it seems that the sad recipients of Congressional attention had difficulty affirming that advocating the extermination of the Jewish people would violate the codes of their institutions relating to bullying and harassment. 

Calling for genocide would seem objectionable per se.  Ambivalence on whether it is in the case of Jews in particular is especially objectionable at this time, given increasing instances of anti-semitism, which is what evidently led to this latest salle by Congress into higher education.  One would think that it would only make sense to confirm that calling for genocide of a people is bullying and harassment even in Ivy League schools.

Just what caused the hesitance and equivocation isn't entirely clear, but it seems to be motivated by the belief that, at least in the academy, there should be few if any limits on expression.  Just why this would be believed is also unclear, to me at least.  To a certain extent, I tend to blame John Stuart Mill, the author of On Liberty.  On the question of freedom of speech, he remains something of an idol.  Mill is thought by today's version of conservatives to be a liberal, and therefore evil, but the truth is he was very much a Classical Liberal, which is what conservatives were in many instances in the days when conservatism was a legitimate point of view.  He is perhaps more accurately called a Libertarian.

Regardless, though, when it comes to free expression Mill was unfortunately something of an absolutist.  Thus, according to him--"if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

There is danger in absolutism.  In the case of free expression, claiming that all expression must be free requires the suspension of intelligent judgment.  It requires that we accept the view that all speech be treated as equal in value and merit.  That simply is not the case, and no appeal to a mythical "marketplace of ideas" justifies such an irresponsible position.  In fact, as we should know to an increasingly reasonable degree of certainty, people will believe anything, no matter how stupid, no matter how insensible, no matter how irrational, and once believing won't be persuaded not to believe.

This is not to say that there's anything seemly or worthy in the histrionics being engaged in by certain politicians and the wealthy as they seek to outdo each other in their self-righteous demands for academic blood.  But it is to say that free expression can be dangerous, and isn't always to be allowed.

The "Me" Century

The late, great and (by me at least) lamented Tom Wolfe wrote a book, or perhaps more properly an essay, called The "Me" Decade and the Third Great Awakening.  The decade he referred to was that of the 1970s.  The "Third Great Awakening" he proclaimed was a jest he was making based on the (first) Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening, sadly real episodes in American history of Christian revivals led by Protestant Evangelical leaders.  Besides the preaching of hellfire and brimstone, our sinful nature and the need for redemption, the fear of divine retribution and protestations of piety, the Awakenings resulted in the creation of new sects and denominations and social movements and, in the case of the second one, the YMCA, later to be lauded so vigorously by the Village People.

As the quote at the head of this post reveals, Wolfe claimed that in the Third Great Awakening "Me" took the place of Jesus, and we became fervent in the worship our ourselves.  He provided various examples of our religious self-love.  

The argument can be made that we continue to worship ourselves, and in fact that we've always done so.  Since the 1970s, though, our ability to engage in self-worship has increased spectacularly.  Even more importantly, we now each possess the means to serve as our own missionaries, proclaiming our godhood and spreading our good news throughout the world.  We may expect that our technology will allow us to do these things more and more effectively.  

Each of us may transmit our thoughts, and expose our bodies and even souls to the view of all, and many of us do so.  Such is our self-regard that there is no practical limit to what we're willing to do or say, though we know in the back of our minds that all can be seen regardless of the fact that we seem alone in our room.  And it appears we don't care.  We feel neither shame nor concern; we have no responsibility, we're not answerable to anyone or anything when it comes to our opinions or our actions which we incessantly broadcast--or at least that seems to be the case.  There's no one to question our conclusions or rebut our claims unless we allow them to do so, except in the relatively few cases where law enforcement or those interested in shaming have reason to take notice of us.  The number of those of us interested in shaming is no doubt increasing, however.  It will be interesting to see whether this will lessen our exhibitionism.

That this is the result of our self-love, and even self-imposed godly status, is established by the fact that our unfailing efforts to expose and expound our every thought, opinion or feeling on any subject to everyone and anyone can only be explained by our sense of our own importance.  What reasonable person would assume that these must be made available to the world at large?  A god might do so; also a lunatic, or egomaniac.  

Or can this be explained by another kind of religious or quasi-religious feeling?  Might we sons and daughters (or whatever we might think ourselves to be) of Adam and Eve, knowing that we're tainted by Original Sin, aware of our sinfulness, wretchedness and insignificance, be desperately seeking validation and redemption through use of the vast confessional of the Internet?  Are we Tommies, like the hero of The Who's rock opera, crying "See me, feel me, touch me, heal me" in the World-Wide Web?  Our PCs become pin-ball machines.  Do we think ourselves saviors of ourselves or others?

If we're not gods, we possess the tools to act as gods.  We're capable of making proclamations and expressing opinions on every subject, regardless of our abilities, education, experience and knowledge.  In a very real sense it doesn't matter whether our beliefs have been critiqued, verified, or made subject to peer review in order for them to be made available (so much more efficaciously than through publication) by use of a keyboard or camera.  We don't need such review of or limitations on our expression to be read, seen or heard, and therefore believe them unneeded.  

We can appear to be all-knowing, and act as if we're omniscient, always and with ease.  One doesn't have to be a god in order to act like one.