The racist origins of the Christmas myth

Organization of this page by topic

The persecution of the Jewish people in the service of protecting Christian myths
The doctrine of Biblical infallibility in the Gospel of Matthew
The pattern of falsifications present in the Gospel of Matthew
Racism in ancient Israel
The racism hidden in the Christmas myth
The Non-Jewish family history of Joseph
The rejection of King David in Matthew's gospel
Why did the Messiah's family live in Harlem?
How inspiring truth can be hidden by cute myths
Links to related material

The persecution of the Jewish people in the service of protecting Christian myths

In its original form, the Christmas story as we have come to know it was born of a racist ideology, and was invented in the hopes of satisfying the objections raised by racists to the original Christian message. Because it was impossible for these racists to accept that the Messiah was 'a Samaritan' it was neccesary to invent a fictional history. In the end, the Christmas story drove a wedge between the Jewish people, among whom the Christian religion was born, and the surrounding nations. To this day, Jewish people are repelled by the dishonesty involved in falsifying the historical records and by the lack of truth telling in what some would assure us is the ‘truly inspiring' (not to mention cute) Christmas tall tales and fairy stories which have become the very core elements of Christian doctrine and Christian theology. Jewish protests against the falsified history embodied in the Christmas legend led directly to the bad tempered anti-Semitic attacks of such figures as Martin Luther, and one can understand that Jewish people have been so viciously persecuted because the Jewish people have consistently rejected Christianity, protesting against its phony, perjured historical record.

As Luther put it, their rejection of Christian myth made the Jewish people,

"an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ... a disobedient, evil people and as the vilest whore ... this subject is beyond the ken of the blind and hardened Jews. Speaking to them about it is much the same as preaching the gospel to a sow. They cannot know what God's commandment really is, much less do they know how to keep it ... where you see or hear a Jew teaching, remember that you are hearing nothing but a venomous basilisk who poisons and kills people ... it would have seemed incredible to me that the earth should harbor such base people who knowingly fly in the face of open and manifest truth, that is, of God himself. For I never expected to encounter such hardened minds in any human breast, but only in that of the devil. However, I am no longer amazed by either the Turks' or the Jews' blindness, obduracy, and malice ...

What do you hope to accomplish by engaging an obstinate Jew in a long dispute on this? It is just as though you were to talk to an insane person in accord with their conceit and boast, regardless of the one true faith.

It will not do for them to say at this point: "We Jews care nothing about the New Testament or about the belief of the Christians." ... or we will have to resort to other measures. These incorrigible rascals know very well that the New Testament deals with our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son ... For it is incumbent on all to know God's book. He did not reveal it to have it ignored or rejected; he wants it to be known, and he excuses no one from this ... The king would be obliged to take these people by the nape of the neck and throw them into a dungeon and entrust them to Master Hans, who would teach them to say, "We are willing to acknowledge it." The alternative would be to keep them incarcerated forever, lest they contaminate with their refractory attitude others who do want to learn it ... Their great slothfulness and malice prompt these blasphemous scoundrels to mock Scripture ... what can we expect of these degenerate Jews who haughtily disdain to know anything about this story? ... No, you vile father of such blasphemous Jews, you hellish devil, these are the facts: God has preached long enough to your children, the Jews, publicly and with miraculous signs throughout the world.

Indeed, why have they heard it for fifteen hundred years and yet refused to learn or understand it? Therefore such lack of understanding cannot help or excuse them, nor us Christians if we tolerate this any longer from them ... they proceed, impelled by the devil, to fall into this like filthy sows fall into the trough, defaming and reviling what they refuse to acknowledge and to understand

Yes, vile devil, just mock and laugh your fill over this now; you will still tremble enough for it ... The Jews still persist in such doctrine to the present day. They imitate their fathers and pervert God's word. They are steeped in greed, in usury, they steal and murder where they can and ever teach their children to do likewise ... there is no remission of sin for these Jews, no prophet to console them with the assurance of such forgiveness, no definite time limit for their punishment, but only interminable wrath and disfavor, devoid of any mercy ... We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming ...

Jews were persecuted because the Christmas story is an historical falsehood (which is obvious, by the way). Jews were persecuted, and even went straight to the fires of the holocaust because Christians throughout history could not deal with the cognitive dissonance that results when they are trying their hardest to believe in myths. This can only create bigots, which, as psychologists tell us, is the type of personality that results when people believe in falsehoods that fly in the face of the facts (cognitive dissonance is the result, and this leads to dogmatism and intolerance, and explains why Christians have so often been dogmatic, intolerant bigots - Christian believe in myths and fairy stories and this personality style results).

Truth is compelling in a way in which myth is not. The fact that myth is by definition impossible to really believe explains why Christians often use such violent force and ruthless compulsion, the very cruelest threats of the most long lasting and vicious torture in an attempt to make believing a little more compelling (the beliefs themselves are falsehoods and myths, and thus not compelling on their own merits, which of course will require the use of force, and the violent imagery of eternal tortures employed by Christians as this measure of force are equal in proportion to just how unbelievable Christian myth and the resulting doctrines really are - it will require psychological violence and spiritual violation to overcome that natural human tendency to believe the truth and reject that which is false.) The clearest expression of Christian dogma in practice is found in considering the Hellish Fires of Auschwitz, which after all, mimic the Christian Hell on earth and after centuries of persecution finally consumed the unbeliever.

None of this is particularly inspiring, with the one result, the mass murder of Jewish people who didn't find it palatable, and still don't, being particularly uninspiring, as well as being a road sign, a pointer to the inherent dangers of believing in myths, even cute ones like the Christmas myth.

The doctrine of Biblical infallibility in the Gospel of Matthew

There are two factors that must be considered to understand the origins of the story of the Virgin Birth. The first is the history of the family who are the main characters in the tale, and the second is the doctrine of Biblical infallibility. The virgin birth story originated in Matthew's gospel and this gospel also extols the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Jewish Bible - the Torah and the prophets in particular (the Jewish Bible was formally created towards the end of the first century, by a council of rabbis at Jamnia, but Matthew's declaration of the infallibility of both the Torah and the prophets demonstrates that a canon already existed informally before this time.)

The declaration of infallibility, including both Torah and prophets, states, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17) Later the author gives an interpretation of the law which states that "whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12) There are two obvious problems with this formulation.

First the Torah and the prophets are impossible to ‘fully keep', with certain doctrines in the prophets being mutually exclusive in regards to the Torah, and the Torah itself being inconsistent and morally confused. For example one can wonder if anyone would wish to have murder, plunder or rape ‘done to them', and the law, the perfect Torah, from which not one dot over one letter ‘i' can be reversed demands that one do to others what you certainly would not want someone else doing to you. This is obvious, and while it is quite common for Christian apologists of a sort to extol what is supposed to be ‘the lofty interpretation of the law' or ‘the deeper spirituality' supposedly advocated by the Matthew Gospel's author, the doctrine is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical.

As well we read certain things in prophets that suggest, contrary to the Matthew gospel, that the Torah, far from being perfect, rather consisted of forgeries and that the belief that Torah was thus divine and inspired was a superstition that prompted at least one prophet to cry out, ‘how can you say that?' (which summarizes my thinking when reading the declaration of infallibility in the Matthew Gospel, and what is supposed to be the interpretation of the Torah (the Golden Rule) - ‘how can anyone say such things', given that these are obvious falsehoods.)

A good part of the Torah is dedicated to presenting a mythological history which supposedly explains the origins of the animal sacrifice ritual, which can be traced back to supposedly divine orders given to Moses (for example a good part of the book of Leviticus is devoted to spreading this myth). Therefore it is interesting to read the protest writings in the book of Jeremiah, where, we read, ‘Burn your whole offerings, and eat the flesh yourselves, for in the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I gave them no instructions or commands concerning whole offerings or sacrifice ... How can you say, ‘we are wise, for we have the Torah, when, actually the lying pen of the scribes has had it falsified? Their leaders are dismayed, for they have been trapped and snared, but they rejected the Word of YAHWEH, so what kind of wisdom did they have." (Jeremiah chapters 7 and 8).

The theme of these chapters is an attack on the mythology of the Torah, and the author continues his critique, by, ironically, using the same argument that the Matthew Gospel attempts to use in favor of the law - you should only be treating other people the way you would want to be treated. The polemic against the Torah continues, with the prophet insisting that ‘therefore God will give your wives to others, and your fields to new owners, for everyone, both high and low is out for ill gotten gain. They should be ashamed because they have practiced abominations, but they don't even know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall with a tremendous crash, they shall be overthrown."

There are many other examples of inconsistencies between prophet and Torah, but this one is a true classic, and one of my favorites, and the Torah itself is terrible enough to justify criticism and condemnation of its inhumane religious dogmas based only on its own lack of merits, even if it were not the case that such criticism is to be found in the Bible itself (which it is). What we can say here is that the author of the Matthew Gospel was aligned with a very conservative tradition within the early church, and the author was inclined, as still seems to be the case today among such conservative thinkers, to practice perjury, to indulge in illogical and unreasonable speculation, to preach doctrines that are obviously riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, and also not averse to ignoring inconvenient facts while manufacturing convenient facts as the moment might demand. All this turns out to be of particular importance in analyzing the origins of the Christmas tale, since the same intellectually bankrupt willingness to falsify and invent ‘facts' out of thin air were in play in the creation of this myth, and as in the inconsistencies evident in the approach to the law indicated above, the creation of the story of a God-baby born of a virgin was also driven by the same fundamentalist impulses, the same determination to preserve the ‘infallibility' of scripture.

The pattern of falsifications present in the Gospel of Matthew

The gospel of Matthew presents edited versions of parables that appeared originally in the gospel of Mark, and it is interesting to note that these editorial revisions reveal a consistent ideological pattern. Time and time again the author of the Matthew gospel revises and edits the earlier record to make it consistent with the doctrine of ‘Biblical infallibility' and consequently also to bring the earlier stories in line with the racism of the Torah. Indeed, in this respect the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew are polar opposites, since it is held as a doctrinal truth in the Gospel of Mark that the Torah is flawed, and that to dispute this fact is to ‘nullify the prophets for the sake of your traditional doctrines', a statement that seems to indicate that the author of Mark was indeed familiar with the anti-Torah polemics found in the manuscripts of the Jewish prophets, and the ideological slant of this work indicates that, unlike Matthew, the author of the Gospel of Mark approved of this position, and this ideology pervades the manuscript.

Study of the consistent pattern of revisions found in the Matthew manuscript suggests that this document was written for the express purpose of refuting the rejection of Biblical infallibility that informs the Gospel of Mark, and the author achieves this goal by simply changing the prior record. And, as becomes evident when studying the invented history of the God-baby story that opens the book, the author is inclined not just to edit stories to bring them into line with the conservative doctrines of inerrant scripture, but is just as nimble when it comes to falsifying the historical record, but then, should this personality characteristic really be seen as somehow surprising (the falsifying of earlier stories being, after all, entirely consistent with the mind set that would falsify historical facts, after all.)

There are many examples of Matthew's nimble pen that could be discussed. They are, after all, well known, notorious really, in the world of Biblical scholarship, and the obvious agenda of the Matthew gospel is also well understood, given the consistent pattern that emerges when doing some simple page flipping between the two versions which purport to explain such and such an event. Really, one need not be a Biblical scholar, and today, with computerized Bibles available, it is an even simpler matter for a reader to flip back and forth between the two documents and with a little time spent the nature of the revisions reveals the ideology which inspired the doctored versions of earlier tales which are found in the Matthew gospel.

Of the greatest interest, for the purposes of this discussion, is the way in which Mark's stories are altered to destroy their original intent, since the original intent in Mark's gospel was to critique the Torah. One classic example is Mark's attack on the ‘clean - unclean' regulations found in Leviticus. To summarize the argument, ‘there is nothing from the outside that can make a person unclean' and therefore ‘he declared all foods to be clean'. According to Mark, when anyone preaches the regulations on ‘clean and unclean' from documents such as Leviticus, ‘you nullify the teachings of the prophets for the sake of your religious traditions, and you do many other things just like that.' You might recall the discussion above of how prophets questioned the legitimacy of Leviticus, condemned it as a forgery, and you can understand that the author of the Gospel of Mark was no doubt familiar with this tradition, and is attempting to link another attack on Leviticus, in this case against the ‘clean - unclean' regulations with the earlier attacks on the animal sacrifice regulations found in the same document. The author's argument is subversive, in that he is suggesting that it is not those who reject such documents as Leviticus who are ‘rejecting the word of God' but rather those who nullified the prophets who were guilty of substituting mere habit and tradition for those things that were really sacred and which thus really mattered.

The many food regulations and regulations about ‘clean and unclean' behaviors or practices or situations were also questioned and rejected by others in the earlier church (clean, in this case referring to a kind of ritual religious purity). For example in the book of Romans there is a line that states, ‘all that I know has convinced me that there is nothing that in and of itself is either clean or unclean, but only if someone should get the idea into their head that a thing is unclean, then for them it becomes unclean.' The doctrine of rejecting the ritual purity regulations of the Torah was, obviously, not something that originated with Mark, but rather this doctrine was common in the early church, and given the source of such beliefs, it is obvious that the only way that someone could ‘get the idea into their head' that some situation or behavior or food was ‘unclean' was by reading such books of the Torah as Leviticus or Deuteronomy, and having done so, for them such things now become unclean, impure and therefore come under the ban.

For Matthew, however, given how one cannot reject even so much as one comma in Leviticus, Mark's story must be edited, and thus we find that the big argument is not about ‘unclean foods' (thus being an attack on the infallible Torah) but is rather about ‘hand washing' before one eats. No, the Messiah tells us, you don't have to wash your hands before you eat. This is a fine example of how Matthew goes about altering the meaning of earlier events while at the same time it fits into a consistent pattern of such deletions and substitutions in the service of propping up the doctrine of the inerrant Torah, and such a consistent pattern is no coincidence (the ideology of the book is made explicit in the declaration of infallibility found in the document, and the pattern of deletions and alterations made in service of this doctrine only confirm, therefore, what we already know).

What can be established upon consideration of these matters is that the author of the Matthew gospel is not the type who can be counted upon to give a reader the ‘real inside story, the unvarnished truth' but rather the truth in this document is going to consist of manufactured tales engineered to support a very conservative ideological dogma concerning the infallibility of the Bible.

Racism in ancient Israel

It is particularly interesting, especially at this time of the year, to reflect on how a racist story somehow transformed itself into the ever so cute and cuddly Christmas pablum everyone is so familiar with in our culture. It would be instructive to consider all this for on reflection it does reveal how nimble a thing religion really is, in that in the spinning of myths and tales that are characteristic of human systems of religion, it is possible to even make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and that is certainly well illustrated when one contemplates how a particularly unappealing collection of lies designed to appeal to racists, would, after some kneading of the bread dough of course, be transformed into that ever so palatable and sweet Christmas cake we are all so familiar with. But then, as I said, religious myth making and spinning and weaving is a very creative, not to mention nimble, thing.

In order to understand how a racist tall tale became the foundations of the Christmas story, it is necessary first to travel back to a time close to a millennium before the birth of the alleged God- Baby took place, for the Christmas story is deeply rooted in the earlier Jewish traditions, and a mixed bag they truly prove to be. The Jewish tradition is not monolithic, in spite of the belief among a certain sect of very bigoted Jews that the books were ‘infallible' and thus one would assume, consistent as well. The Jewish tradition is actually a kind of quilt, made of many different patches of cloth, some of which, quite frankly, should have been sent to the outhouse where they could have proved useful, being employed for the wiping of backsides after all, instead of turning up in a book of supposedly ‘Divine Wisdom' such as the allegedly ‘Holy Bible'. You see some of those patches of clothe that went into that crazy quilt are some of the most harmfully, virulently racist, obscene, genocidal things ever written. The world has been the worse for having read them, more so for having read them in what hoary old myth would have us believe is a Divine Book, a Holy Bible, not to mention a supposed ‘gift of God'.

No matter what one might think of all its serious flaws and ugly warts, the Bible is nonetheless one of the most important books ever written, since it is impossible to understand the slavery and brutish racism of colonialism, or the imperialist religious ideology that was the well spring of colonialism, not to mention the rigid patriarchal society that was feudalism, without understanding the imperialist racism of the Bible, and it is impossible to understand the religious intolerance practiced by colonial priests and preachers, without understanding the religious racism and violent intolerance boldly preached and advocated on the pages of that book renowned as ‘the Holy Book'.

Yes how can one read the Bible, that morally confused crazy quilt, that defective moral compass, without having every ‘family value' one possesses deeply, profoundly offended time and time again by the virulent and disgusting rubbish to be found on its pages. In order to make peace with such a book one must be willing to accept that genocide is morally acceptable, if practiced against an obviously inferior race (and also required if you want to live on their land).

"Devour the nations the lord your god delivers over to you. Show them no pity." Deut. 7:16

"Annihilate the nations you are dispossessing and make your home in their country." Deut. 12:29 "Put the inhabitants to the slaughter without giving any quarter and burn their town down." Deut. 13:15

"God, you gave over these nations and these peoples and allotted these as our regions. They occupied the land. You multiplied their sons and daughters and led them to the land you had told them to possess. Their sons invaded and conquered the land and humbled the natives when you gave into their hands the natives of the land to be treated just as they pleased. They captured their towns and the fertile countryside, took possession of their goods, cisterns already dug, vineyards and olive groves and fruit trees in profusion." Neh. 9

"Drive out all the natives before you. You shall take possession of the land and settle it, for I, the Lord, have given it to you as your property. Divide it up among your clans." Num. 33:52

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you ... and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must completely destroy them; you shall make no peace treaties with them, and show no mercy to them." Deuteronomy 2:1

"And you shall destroy all the peoples that the LORD your God will give over to you, you will who them no pity ... If you say in your heart, ‘These nations are greater than I; how can I dispossess them?' you shall not be afraid of them ... until those who are left and hide themselves from you are destroyed." Deuteronomy 7:16

"This is what you shall do; every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins who had not known man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan." Judges 21:11

"Kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man and kill every male among the little ones, but keep the virgins for yourselves ... divide them up evenly." Numbers

To celebrate the Bible one must be prepared to compromise deeply held beliefs and assent to the persecution and degradation of women. One must celebrate the military and become positively hawkish in the belief in the rightness of violence as a solution to human social problems, since perhaps as much as one half of the first half of the Bible is dedicated to celebrating the military prowess of conquerors and disparaging those who lost wars (obviously because they were not saintly enough to receive the blessings of the war god and thus emerge victorious in what was just one more of those endless, endless wars celebrated (if they were victories) on the pages of the Bible). One must accept such offensive and stupid notions as the doctrine which teaches that the poor are poor because they are morally defective.

"I was young, and I am old now, and in all that time I have never seen one righteous person in poverty, or his children out begging for bread." Proverbs

"Mere words will not keep a slave in order. He may understand, but he will not respond. Pamper a slave and he will be ungrateful. A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of a fool. Folly is rooted deep into the hearts of children. A good beating will drive it out of them. Do not withhold discipline from a child. Do not be a partner in their eternal damnation. Better to be a nobody, and yet have a slave, then to play the grandee on an empty stomach. Under three things the earth shakes, four things it cannot bear: a slave becoming king, a fool gorging himself, a hateful woman dressing for a wedding, and a slave overthrowing his master." Proverbs

"When a man beats a slave so hard that he dies in a day or two, he shall not be punished, for the slave is his property." Ex. 21:20

At the end of it all what can one say, except that the Bible delivers a truly alarming message, in that it testifies that, given a choice of a world of books, somehow a thing like that became the ‘official document of the official state religion'.

Infants are not born that way after all. Racism is a matter of nurture, not nature. A little white baby will play quite happily with a little black baby. Nurture creates racists, and in this case it is indisputable that the racism of these Jewish people developed as a direct consequence of sucking on the teat of the Bible, and was created and nurtured by the Bible, as was their belief in the innate superiority of the pure Jewish people, a doctrine which is taught again and again in various places throughout the Bible upon which they rested. Connecting their racism and the arrogance that went along with it to the Bible which nurtured it is as easy as connecting two dots with a straight line.

The racism hidden in the Christmas myth

It is ironic that the fairy tale of Christmas really wasn't as cute in its origins as it has become today. It was first invented in an attempt to answer the criticisms of a small sect of Jewish racists, who just could not accept that the supposed messiah was ‘a Samaritan' (as they called him in those days, or, to use more modern terminology, to make the meaning crystal clear, they just were not prepared to accept that some ‘nigger' could be Messiah). So then, in its origins the tall tales of virgins having sex with ghosts and giving birth to fatherless God-babies is not really all that inspiring as to its original intent, since you might say that it was written to encourage more of those racist southerns to go to church and they just hated ‘niggers', and let's face it, that wouldn't really improve church at all. You see there was no way to get those southern racists to go to church when it was a well known fact that the father of the alleged God-Baby was part ‘nigger', but if he didn't have a father maybe they would let go of their racist objections and go to church. And then there was the other problem, in that his family was actually living up north, in ‘nigger country', and this was a well known fact, and so more pure inventions, more fairy tales and some whopping big historical falsehoods would have to be created to make it seem as though the racially pure Messiah was only living in Harlem out of necessity, and actually, as far as his birth went, had impeccable Master Race credentials.

The attitude of these racists is exemplified in the Matthew gospel story of an unfortunate ‘nigger' who comes begging Christ for some help, only to be told that ‘he doesn't throw food to the nigger dogs.' The woman then answers that even a dog and a nigger like herself could eat the crumbs that fall off the table, and the Pure Bred Messiah then decides that since she lowered herself into the dirt, maybe he would make an exception this one time. This is one not very inspiring gospel story not dredged up in time for Christmas, and its easy to understand why (it really is not inspiring, and if that version of ‘Jesus Christ' were alive today he would be in much more hot water than Trent Lott). In addition to being virulent racists, this particular sect of Jewish bigots were also fundamentalists, believing as they did that the Jewish version of the Bible as it existed at that time, was ‘infallible and without error' and, to quote ‘not one dot over one i could ever be mistaken or changed or go unfulfilled.' It turns out that this fundamentalist belief in the divine credentials of Jewish scripture was the seed bed of their racist ideology, and thus the driving force behind the creation of those peculiar lies and falsehoods concerning the pedigree of the pure blooded Messiah which then became the bed rock of Christian doctrine in the age to come.

It is worth noting here that not all the Jewish people were racists. The genealogy that opens the book is particularly subversive, making a point of mentioning that the Messiah was a descendant of both a prostitute from Jericho and a Moabite woman, which leaves one to wonder just what nerve he must have had, given his lineage, in calling this woman a dog and regarding her as some kind of a nigger. This genealogy appears to have been a later addition to the manuscript, as an examination of the book reveals that it was heavily edited itself and does not come to us in its original form.

The Non-Jewish family history of Joseph

In order to understand why it would be the case that the author of the Matthew Gospel would create a fictional tale of a God-baby born of a virgin it is necessary to go back in time by many centuries. The Bible tells a story of a woman named Ruth, who was not Jewish, but rather a Moabite. Ruth was the great-grandmother of King David, and thus it turns out that she was for that reason the maternal founder of the Royal Dynasty of ancient Israel. The book, understandably, portrays her as a perfect saint, and given the considerations of Royalty that lie just below the surface of the manuscript it can be understood that this not just a charming tale of a perfect saint, who, as luck would have it, just happened to be the grandmother of the Royal Dynasty (a kind of lovely little Cinderella tale) but rather the book is a type of political propaganda, and is not just simply ‘pro-Monarchy' but rather also functions a polemic which attempts to justify the enthronement of a family of foreigners sitting as rulers upon the throne of a Jewish state.

For a modern parallel you could consider the story of a Palestinian grandmother, a true saint, not to mention the matriarch of a clan of Palestinians who, to complete the parallel, were ruling over the entire modern Jewish state. The existence of this family which could not claim pure Jewish roots as the rulers of the Jewish state would be the source of much angry political agitation and discontent, and the story of the saintly Palestinian Queen Grandmother would be recognized then for what it so obviously is, an attempt to justify the Palestinian monarchy and make it more saleable. It just this kind of political storm that lies hidden beneath the pages of the Bible and it is extremely important to understand the racial make up of the early Monarchy in the newly formed state of Israel to understand what is hidden and encoded in so many Biblical stories, and it turns out it is also necessary to be able to understand how the church came to have the story of a Divine God-Baby at the very center of its theology for close to two thousand years.

Other examples of propaganda that have as their historical inspiration the political tensions revolving around the racial make-up of the Jewish Monarchy include the stories which extol Solomon as the ‘wisest person who ever lived' (Solomon being David's son, and in the line of Ruth the Moabite as well). The ideological spin in these stories is pro-Monarchy. On the other hand in stories laced with racism, we are told of how corrupt Solomon was, and how he became perverse and ‘left the path of Godliness' due to his penchant for imported foreign women. The racism in these polemics against Solomon is undisguised, but what might not be well understood is the political turmoil that was brewing during the times that these propaganda pieces were written. David, we are told, betrayed the Israelites and begged the Philistines for a chance to join their army so that he go out with them slaughter and plunder Israeli citizens. Like the stories told against Solomon the pretext here is that sooner or later foreign blood would result in nothing but treachery. In Solomon's case, it led to a destructive invasion of foreign women and foreign influences, and in David's case it led him to commit treason and join the ‘niggers' (which is what a Philistine was in those days - but then coming from a nigger blood line you would have to expect such treachery from a nigger like King David, or so these stories try to suggest).

Entire books are devoted to the theme of banning marriages with imported foreigners (such as Ezra). When Ezra found out that someone was dating a ‘nigger', he tells us that ‘I beat them severely and tore the hair right out of their heads.' It would not surprise me if all the racism so pervasive in the Torah, and peppered throughout the writings were birthed and recorded during this time of ferment, kindled by the outrage and widespread fury that was aroused when a clan of imported ‘niggers' wound up taking over the throne of ancient Israel.

In addition to the dualistic stories (pro and anti Monarchy) that pepper the writings, the Torah was also torn in two directions, and we find therefore the politically significant addition of a law in the book of Deuteronomy issuing a permanent ban on Moabites, that was an everlasting and eternal curse. No Moabite was ever ever to be allowed to become a part of the nation, not today, not in three generations, not in a hundred generations, never never never never. If they married a Jewish person and their Moabite bloodline become ‘diluted' even that would not suffice. No one with even a trace of Moabite ancestry was ever ever to be allowed to join the nation, not today, not even till the end of time. They were to be endlessly and eternally banned. Given that the Monarchy was from Moabite roots, and Ruth was a Moabite, it is obvious that this law came from the side of those who were violently opposed to the Davidic Monarchy, and so vitriolic was their opposition that they went so far as to include in the Torah an eternal ban against not only Moabites, but also those who had mixed Moabite blood.

In turns out that the Davidic Monarchy was only able to survive on the throne of Israel for two generations before civil war broke out, and the nations was split in two. Two provinces, Judah and Benjamin, remained with the Moabite dynasty, while the other ten provinces of the country formed a separate nation, reserving for themselves the right to name their nation Israel. From this we can see that the stories in support of the Moabite dynasty must have had their origins in the two provinces that were left to the Monarchy, while the other versions of these dualistic stories circulated and became popular in the rest of the nation.

The research of Biblical scholars indicate that after the invasion and collapse of both Israel and Judah at the hands of the Babylonians, the two separate nations were forced to put aside their feuds, and in the process many source Biblical manuscripts were fused together during an editing process which left in its wake the morally confused, inconsistent, dualistic documents we know of as the Old Testament in the Bible. The Bible is virulently racist and the Bible condemns racism. This kind of morally confused hodge podge is characteristic of the Bible, and is one of the consequences of a series of historical accidents that placed a foreign family on the throne of Israel, an event that was to have repercussions that are still being felt today. For it truly is the case that one cannot understand the Christmas myth or the mythology that became Christian theology, centered as it became around a fabricated tale of the virgin birth of a divine God-baby, without understanding the history that I have just sketched out for you above.

The rejection of King David in Matthew's gospel

It was a common belief in the early church that, as the book of Romans put, Yeshua (or Christ if you prefer) "was descended from David according to the flesh." Another of those church letters urges readers to "Remember Yeshua, risen from the dead, descended from David." This was the belief in most churches, but then as you can tell by studying the matter, most churches did not hold to the belief in the infallibility of the Torah in those days (that so many do today is actually a departure from the earliest traditons of the church).

The declaration of Biblical inerrancy in the Gospel of Matthew is actually out of step with beliefs common in the early church, and the Matthew Gospel also departs from the rest of the church in denying that King David was the ancestor of the Messiah. ""What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." He said to them, "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘YAHWEH said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet'? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?" And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions." (Matthew Chapter 22 verse 42)

This belief that David was not the ancestor of Yeshua was unique to the community that produced the Matthew gospel. By once again taking a single quote out of the Bible they attempted to 'prove' that the rest of the church was mistaken, and that in fact 'prophecy proved' that Yeshua could not have been a descendant of King David.

Christian theology revolves around a central core which consists of a racist myth. The celebration of Christmas and the entire Christmas myth is the celebration of fairy tale created for racists in the service of preserving the doctrine of Biblical infallibility. If the Bible is ‘infallible' then it would be necessary to get rid of the father of the little God-Baby, since, you see Joseph, the husband of Mary, was eternally cursed, eternally banned by the Torah, being a descendant of Ruth, and descendant of David and Solomon, and thus carried that tainted Moabite blood. The curse in the infallible Torah was explicit and eternal and allows no ‘wiggle room' for less rigid interpretation. If the Bible is infallible that Joseph could never be the father of the Messiah.

Now given the conservative dogma that the Bible is infallible, so important throughout the document of Matthew, as revealed by the repeated pattern of editing and doctoring documents, it naturally follows that given that the infallible Torah eternally cursed Joseph, and given then that the God-baby would also have been eternally cursed, it could, therefore, one could reason I suppose, if one had the fundamentalist mindset, as did Matthew, that it could not have been the case that Joseph was the father, and since one did not want to suggest that Mary was engaged in an adulterous affair with someone with more acceptable blood lines, well you can see how using nothing but ‘pure logic', with no evidence other than the dogma of inerrancy as justification, a true fundamentalist Jew like Matthew could reason that what we must have had here was a Divine God-Baby and his mother did have sexual relations, with a Holy Ghost, which was acceptable.

Here then are the two historical explanations of the Christmas story, and you can decide which one seems the most likely to be historical fact. Either Matthew was a fundamentalist, and the Torah cursed Moabites forever, and Joseph was a Moabite, therefore Mary had sex with a Holy Ghost, resulting in the Virgin Birth of a Divine God-Baby, or Yeshua (Christ is you prefer) was a ‘nigger', given that, of course, as is the case with all babies, he had a father, Joseph in this case, and thus the Messiah baby was actually a ‘nigger baby', and thus cursed forever, according to the infallible Torah, if you choose to believe that somehow that matters, by the way, which it doesn't (but try convincing someone with a mindset like that of Matthew).

The controversy over the family tree of Yeshua surfaces in the gospel of John. A crowd of angry Jewish people confronts him with a racial slur, saying ‘Your nothing but a Samaritan and the descendant of Samaritans.' For those unfamiliar with these matters, a Samaritan would be ‘a half breed nigger', and as John's gospel points out, those racist Jewish people had nothing to do with those ‘niggers'. In fact, according to stories, if a pure bred Jewish racist could go 40 miles around ‘nigger country' to get somewhere, or they could go 15 miles right through ‘nigger country' to get to the same destination, well they would go 40 miles, because, you see, they just didn't have nothing to do with those ‘niggers'. So, to bring the gospel of John up to date, so that it can be understood, what those racist Jewish people said was ‘You are nothing but a nigger, and the descendant of niggers. We, however are the pure bred master race, and our ancestry is impeccable, going back to the purest stock, and yet you, being nothing but a nigger, have the gall to try scolding us?' The polemical response in the Gospel of John was that far from being born from the loins of the master race those people must have born from a devil, this being the case since they were always acting like Devils.

Why did the Messiah's family live in Harlem?

A second controversy emerges in that Joseph and Mary and their baby lived in Nazareth, which is another way of saying they lived up north around ‘nigger country', and people were saying ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth', which is something like saying today, ‘Can anything good come out of Harlem?'

The religious people of the day also had certain prevailing myths and interpretations of the Bible, much like they do today. For example you will often hear today the one about ‘the evil European Union' which as prophecy tells us, is the Beast of Revelations, all this nailed down by highly accurate interpretations of prophecy books. In the same way, religious people in the time of Joseph and Mary had certain set expectations, one of them being that the Messiah would certainly not be a ‘nigger', in particular not the kind of ‘nigger' cursed forever by the Torah, but would be a pure bred Jew, and also have impeccable credentials to prove it, being a citizen of the town of Bethlehem after all. All this was quite clear according to prophecy, as in one of the quarrels recorded in the Bible we are told that religious preachers said, ‘that ‘nigger' can't be a Messiah. Go check your prophecies, and you'll see that he didn't even come from the right town.' After all since when did prophecy say that the Messiah would be a ‘nigger from Harlem'. Everyone knew he would be from the purest stock of the Master Race and would come from Manhattan.

Now by skipping back and forth between these documents we can get some sense of the racist controversy that was swirling around the figure of Yeshua at that time, and these same controversy stories emerge, although in disguised form, in Matthew's gospel. The tall tales that open the Gospel of Matthew are actually controversy stories dressed up as historical myth, and these myths address the same controversies so bluntly discussed in manuscripts such as John (the difference being here that the John manuscript will deal with the controversy by declaring that Yeshua was the mysterious ‘Word made Flesh' who existed eternally, and so on, while Matthew will make up a tall tale about sexual relations with a ghost, but in the end these doctrines are designed to achieve the same apologetic purpose).

Matthew tells us that one day Mary was impregnated by having sexual relations with a ghost. An angel then came to strictly warn Joseph not to have sex with Mary, and not to break off their relationship, since she did not commit adultery but rather was impregnated by a ghost. And Matthew assures the reader, Joseph didn't go near her during the time of her pregnancy, which is another way of saying ‘that nigger never went near that white woman, trust me.' It was a well established fact that Joseph and Mary lived in that ‘nigger country' called Nazareth, you know, up north in Harlem, and this was so well known that even a notorious forger like Matthew could not simply ignore the facts on this one and just perjure himself creating an entirely alternate history. So at this point what Matthew does instead is perjures the historical record by inventing a fictional historical event and by pulling out of thin air a nonexistent prophecy.

We are told that the little God-Baby was born in Bethlehem (hark the herald angels sing) and thus fulfilled the prophecies people expected to be fulfilled, no coincidence really given Matthew's agenda. However, they were forced to flee to Harlem and live there because Herod consulted some astrologer, and the astrologer told Herod that a great and powerful God-Baby was about to be born in Israel, so Herod had all the babies in the whole country slaughtered, except for the God- Baby for fortunately a friendly angel showed up and told the whole sorry business to Joseph and Mary who fled to Nazareth. This of course explains that whole business about the Messiah coming out of Harlem, which not only disagreed with interpretations of prophecy common at the time, but given that it was Harlem was hardly the right place for someone to come from if they were trying to hide the fact that grandma was a ‘nigger'.

All this Matthew tells us was a great fulfillment of prophecy itself, which states that ‘He shall be called a Nazarene'. So not only did the God-baby fulfill that business about being from Bethlehem but also fulfilled that other prophecy about being called someone who lived in Harlem (‘he shall live in Harlem', could prophecy be any clearer?) Just one problem exists here, and that is that there is no prophecy which states ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.' Matthew made the thing up, but then after having really told a whopper, by making up that business about Herod murdering all the Jewish babies, making up a prophecy out of thin air is not out of character for this author.

It is worth noting here that this is one of the biggest complaints voiced by Jewish people over the centuries - the story is a forgery. It never happened. People would have remembered, in particular the Jewish people, who do remember Massada, which happened about the same time, and was no where near as horrible an event as the massacre of all the babies in Israel. Josephus, who covered Herods reign in his writings never mentioned this story, because, as Jewish people have protested from day one, its a falsehood. Matthew just made the whole thing up to service his agenda, along with that other foolish story about a philandering ghost and the false prophecy, not to mention that constant changing of previous stories that permeates the book, in keeping with this forged introduction. Jewish people have always protested this nonsense, and it was something that provoked busy Christians like Martin Luther to rage, who after all, had enough trouble believing this fairy tales and didn't appreciate the people who should have known about that terrible baby slaughter pointing out for thousands of years that such a thing never happened. You might also recall a story that Josephus does share with us, the one about how one Roman soldier bared his buttocks at the Jewish people causing massive rioting and near civil war. Rome responded by getting rid of the governor at that time, and you would think, given how Herod was doing worse by killing Jewish babies and all, that perhaps the Jewish people might have had, say, even a small riot, and Herod would have been replaced by someone with a few more brains. But then, of course, this never happened, as both Josephus and the Jewish nation have testified, with only a known perjurer and forger like Matthew to spread the silly tale around, which hardly adds to its credibility.

What is especially peculiar about that made up prophecy is that Matthew is just as nimble with twisting single verses of prophecy when it suits his purpose as he is at manipulating the historical record. We are told that the virgin birth story was a great fulfillment of the prophet Isaiah, "A virgin shall give birth, and they call his name Immanuel, which means ‘God is with us'.' First problem : the passage in Isaiah does not in the original Hebrew say that a ‘virgin' will give birth but rather that a ‘young woman' will give birth. Second problem : if you put that isolated passage back into context what Isaiah is telling the King at that time is that a young woman will give birth, and they call his name Immanuel, and before that baby is old enough to stop breast feeding, those two kings that are preparing to attack Israel will face their downfall and the country will be safe. We are then told that Isaiah went and had sex with his wife, the young woman he was speaking of in the prophecy, giving birth to his son, who was also the Immanuel referred to in the prophecy.

Now Immanuel was actually a teenager when the prophecy came true, and not quite as young as Isaiah suggested, but nevertheless the prophecy did come true when the states threatening Israel collapsed and the country was safe from their depredations. Isaiah then delivers a speech addressed to Immanuel warning him of the coming invasion of the Assyrians, who will come like a great conquering flood of waters ‘that will rise up to your neck, oh, Immanuel'. What the poetic language suggests is that the Assyrian invasion will take place during the lifetime of Immanuel. This Assyrian invasion was imminent during the time of Isaiah and eventually the Assyrians destroyed Israel. I have never heard anyone suggest that the God-baby was up to his neck in Assyrians, but then Matthew didn't have any use for that whole prophecy put back into context, he just needed that one line (and the author of Matthew does the same thing over and over again throughout the manuscript, pulling one line of prophecy out of context, often times with comical results if you actually understand what the prophecy really meant in context in particular given the context given to that single line by Matthew, which is wholly inappropriate, from whence comes the comedy).

Suffice it to say that the ‘young woman' (not ‘a virgin', which is a mistranslation being employed by Matthew) was the wife of Isaiah, and as for Immanuel, that was the name given to Isaiah's son as a prophetic sign. Immanuel was not the only child Isaiah and his wife had who was given a symbolic prophetic name, as you can tell by reading the entire manuscript yourself, the prophet apparently never having had a baby that didn't get named for a prophecy, just as was the case with Isaiah's son Immanuel.

Now given how nimble Matthew is with historical fact, how nimble Matthew is in twisting lines of prophecy, one must wonder why Matthew could not find even one line about a Nazarene that he could use instead of just making up a prophecy about a Nazarene, but in this case the pickings were pretty slim, and backed into a corner like that, Matthew just made something up.

And none of this inspires any particular confidence in that Christmas myth, or for that matter, in Christian theology and what passes for ‘the doctrines of salvation' which came by way of the ‘birth of a God-baby' who would be ‘sacrificed for sin' like some goat in Leviticus, well the truth is very subversive, which is why you so seldom hear what you are hearing here today.

How inspiring truth can be hidden by cute myths...

Simple truth is easy to believe and this is something that cannot be said of Christian myths, which being myths after all, are not really believed, nor can they ever be truly accepted, and this is even more true among the more conservative who must wage a hidden, repressed battle with the powerful forces of unbelief which are the naturally occurring consequences of believing in myths in the first place.

It should be obvious that when are talking of the Christmas story we are telling a fairy tale, and it is the fact that Christian legend is clearly mythological that is responsible for the dogmatism and intolerance characteristic of Christianity over the centuries. When one is supposed to literally believe what is clearly mythological, the resulting cognitive dissonance leads inevitably to intolerance of anything that might disturb the fragile equilibrium that a true believer must maintain in order to believe in myths as though myth were reality. Believing in truth does not burden one with the struggle imposed by Christian doctrines, which are religious myths, and even more unfortunately, myths which all to frequently are forced to masquerade as truth, which is foolish, and in the end, destructive to any sort of worthwhile faith. Truth is also a lot more compelling than myth, and thus the true story of Christmas is, in the end, a lot more inspiring for that very reason than the charming stories and popular myths and fairy tales that have come to be associated with the celebration of Christmas and have come to be the defining images of the Christian religion in the process.

During the Christmas season we can expect to be reminded again and again of how ‘inspiring' the Christmas myth is, and for that matter, just how inspiring Christian myths are in general. After all, who cannot feel inspired by the story of the birth of the little God-Baby, a divine being born among us, as the songs celebrating the feudal ideology that emerged from this myth proclaim, ‘hark the herald angels sing, glory to our new born King, God and sinners reconciled.' The dualistic hierarchical social relationship being celebrated here is that of the lowly serf rejoicing in the birth of just one more royal overlord, but isn't it particularly wonderful the way that royalty will reconcile a degraded humanity with divinity. Of course it would help if Christianity first degraded humanity so there would be a people to lift out the filth, and helpfully that is just what the church did, for what would there be to celebrate at Christmas if there was no sinful, degraded serf to rejoice in the ‘salvation in the birth of the God-Baby king'. This is real inspiring stuff, is it not.

And really just how inspiring are Christian dogmas concerning ‘disgusting human orgasms' as the ‘vehicle for original orgasmic sin' resulting in the birth of one sinful and degraded human infant after another (with the exception of her royal majesty, Mary, who was immaculately conceived, and of course the sinless God-Baby King). This obsession with punishing with eternal tortures something like an orgasm, can be contrasted with both the lack of natural affections and sympathies that are displayed by to many Christians. I would suggest that just as babies are not born racists, but nurture, not nature, is the source of racism, so sin is also a matter of nurture, and it is sinful human institutions, like for example, the sinful institution of the church, that are the nurturing teat that creates sinful human beings in the first place, and thus it would be far more inspiring to cleanse the sin from human institutions, thus bringing salvation to all humanity by breaking that vicious circle of babies being trained to become sinners by a sinful society and its sinful institutions.

So then to be really inspired it is absolutely necessary to ditch the fables and the warm fuzzy myths, and start being just a little more concerned with historical accuracy and truth. For, really, is anything really gained by the elevation of fables and what are alleged to be inspirational fairy tales by the church?

It is even less inspiring to consider each and every December just how foolish humanity can be, the fault and the sin lying with their religious institutions in this case and certainly not with sinless babies who know nothing of such nonsense until they have been trained by such flawed and sinful institutions after all. Year after year we must again and again celebrate the inspiring racist tale which truly is the Christmas story, without of course, understanding that we are celebrating racism once again, although as all the carols remind us, we are celebrating hierarchy and patriarchal social systems, not to mention perpetually celebrating the degradation of humanity (assigned the role of degraded, unwashed sinner, ironically, by such a sinful and questionable social institution as the church, which has become, sadly, the peddler of fairy tales, tales with a message none the less and that message of class divisions and degradation hardly being inspirational after all).

This is all the more tragic when you consider just how inspirational truth and genuine history can really be. Now the Bible is hardly the most inspirational book ever written, unless you feel inspired by the oppression and subjugation of woman and constant celebrations of military power and authority figures and social relations based upon the obedience of the subjugated, murder, cruel tortures, and genocide. You see, at the heart of the history of Christmas is the much more interesting story of racism challenged, although, granted you would never know it if you were to gullibly take the Bible at its word. This story that can be uncovered is much more inspiring than the racist fairy story that has become the Christmas tale.

Even more inspiring is the attack on corrupt religious institutions that permeates the gospel stories, not to mention those trenchant critiques of sacred documents that are peppered through our flawed and unholy Bible. These things I find very inspiring, much more so than the sterile celebrations of ancient dogmas and the unquestioning acceptance of historical falsehoods that celebration of the ‘Christmas story' requires. This is not inspiring at all, but rather truly alarming.

The story hidden in the gospels and in the books of prophecy can be summed as follows. "Caesar crucifies slaves, but God raises the persecuted from the dead.' And that is very inspiring. It also happens to be the polar opposite, in terms of the ideology is celebrates, than the subservience to feudalism and class structures that permeates our Christmas fairy tale. Like fire and water the two cannot coexist, like matter and anti-matter the subversive message buried in the gospel and the Christmas fairy tale celebrating the establishment of the Heavenly Oligarchy must destroy each other on contact. Which is why we celebrate Christmas every year and religious dogma is not questioned.

After reading a long story of how some rebellious slave was schemed against by preachers and Caesar and eventually executed by the death squads of the state, the story of the victory of that tortured victim is without a doubt, the most inspiring story I can imagine, in particular in a world where activists are routinely executed day after day. This story is absent the slavish deference imbedded in that other supposedly inspirational tale of how ‘a god came down among us' in order to ‘save sinful humanity'. The thought that a god came down among us is supposed to a great plus, and that this god would be the ‘Lord and Master' and ‘take complete control' of the lives of those who ‘surrender their wills to him' is supposed to be a good thing, in particular when you consider how degraded and mired in filth the serfs really are - and isn't it inspiring that a godlike figure was actually willing to condescend to the level required to rule over such mere nothings. Christian ‘salvation' is permeated with such ideas concerning slavish subservience to feudal institutions and those who rule and lord it over others due to their noble births, and none of this a coincidence, since Christianity was the bulwark of the feudal order for ages past.

Now that such uninspiring rubbish nailed down by threats of hideous crucifixions (over flaming coals) could become the official state religion throughout the long reign of feudalism on earth is no surprise, since it is after the ideology of the feudal state which is embedded in this supposed ‘story of Christmas'. This supposedly charming tale sits in opposition to the story of a persecuted, executed slave which symbolizes the overthrow of those very corrupt and sinful social institutions that are responsible for teaching human infants the very sins they will then generously offer to cure, at the price of obedient subjection of course, not to heavy a price to pay considering your past life of degradation and sin. Even more offensive is the way that the story of crucified slave has become the justification for the odious torture system envisioned by Christian theology, as, in truly Orwellian ways, the message of the Christmas story gets turned inside out and upside down, and soon is even celebrating torture and the abuse of the weak by the powerful, which, as I suggested previously is the polar opposite to the message embodied in the symbol of the cross.

And how sad that after ages of Christianity and the offenses of Christian myth and Christian theology that now the cross is considered such a stinking offense by so many, when the symbolism embedded in the original meaning of this sign is actually very noble.

At the end of it all, the ideology of a society is reflected in its religious ideology, just as a profoundly conservative, reactionary feudalism is reflected in the celebration of that racist myth known as the Christmas tale. We should cherish the lies and falsehoods embedded in the Christmas myth because they are ‘inspiring' we are told, but in truth, by obfusticating and hiding other truths, the Christmas myth is actually very disturbing to someone like me, and really what is inspiring about considering how myth, even charming fairy stories, can hide historical truth and even radical revelation in dense cloud of delusional smog. I am not inspired at all.

Add on to this the fact that Christian ‘revelation' is difficult to believe, being myth and fairy tale after all, and that embedded in Christian revelation are a hierarchical vision of human life that is hardly palatable to most people who harbor a belief that at the end of it all most people are pretty much the same and we are all equal. In this the story of the crucified slave of Caesar, of the slaves redemption and Caesar's humiliation carries within it elements that resonate with what most people know to be true, and embedded in this symbolism is the message of freedom from both oppressive power but also the corrupt institutions which are the real carriers of sin in society. This gospel is also easy to understand, whether a person has the faith to believe or not - the gospel of the crucified slave in victory has embedded within it a symbolism that not only dignifies humanity (as compared to degrading them as Christian doctrine does) it is also instantly comprehensible. One can compare this to the tales of sinful orgasms and sacrificing pure gods as though they were sheep or goats as ‘payments for sin debts' and various other types of superstitions that most people regard as nothing more than dogmas, which is all they are, and thus are instinctively resisted. The gospel of the slave is attractive, while the ugliness of the Christian doctrine, its degrading of humanity, its violent even virulent threats of tortures that go beyond all reason in their ghoulish cruelty, its offense against commonly held virtues and values in favor of extremely conservative and oppressive social systems and religious dogmas, is inherently unattractive. Something that unappealing can only be peddled using violent coercion and threats which is why Christian salvation consists of such psychological brutality and coercion.

Truth is compelling, and truth can sell itself, while Christian myth can do neither.

So there is a revelation buried in the Christmas story, but the revelation is obvious in the symbol only when it has been cleansed of the detritus of accumulated religious doctrine and dogma, which far from being inspiring, only serve to hide the obvious truth, and one must wonder about motives when such things transpire, in particular when powerful institutions are involved in constant attempts to obscure the meaning of anti-institutional symbols. It is the burying of this sort of revelation under a pile of conservative documents, questionable forged gospels, that makes Christmas such an uninspiring time of the year, while all around me people are diverted by cozy sounding hymns and tales of charming little God-Babies while the music celebrates the degradation of humanity before powerful institutions symbolized by a Divine God-Child in that yearly celebration of the feudal order we know as Christmas.

A Unified Field Theory

The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file -> unified.zip

Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.

Principles of Evolution: A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs