Announcing VDARE.COM`s War Against Christmas 2003 Competition!


WAR
AGAINST CHRISTMAS 2003 COMPETITION
[II]
[III] [IV]
[V] [VI]
[VII] [VIII]
[IX] [X]
– See also: War Against Christmas

2002,
2001,
2000.



Peter Brimelow
writes:
VDARE.COM
officially began with an email barrage to friends on
Christmas Eve, 1999. One of our first postings was a
leaked


memo
from Clinton HUD
Secretary Andrew Cuomo about his department`s “Holiday
Party” plans—including “Kwaanza, Native American
celebration of the Winter Solstice, Channuka, Ramadan,
The 3 Kings”
… but no mention of you-know-what. We
ran our


first
War Against
Christmas contest, inviting readers to report the most
egregious attempt to suppress Christmas, in 2000.

In retrospect, 2000 was a nadir. In that year,
National Review,
where at
my urging John O`Sullivan had actually been running a
proto-War Against Christmas competition, celebrated his
firing as editor by touting a “Holiday Books”
section on its cover. Christmas was thereafter purged
almost as thoroughly as the issue of


immigration reform
. But by 2001, as a reader
carefully


documented
for us,
Christmas was making a small comeback at

NR.

Our
reader was cynical enough to suggest this must be
because Christians and


patriots
were suddenly needed for some war
somewhere. But we`ll take it.

Let`s
see what
NR does
this year!

Of
course, thanks to Lew Rockwell`s estimable blog—YES,
YES,  VDARE.COM SHOULD HAVE ONE TOO— we already


know
what the Christmas-free “conservatives” at the
Bush White House are doing this year. But they will be
the last to get the word.

By
now, through the miracle of the internet, VDARE.COM has
posted a considerable archive on the War Against
Christmas. (Click here for

2002,
here for


2001
, here for

2000
.) It all helps in crystallizing the
consciousness of a culture, and of a country. Just last
night, for example, a Russian-speaking reader pointed
out that our


photograph
of the multilingual but Christmas-free
Queens Post Office “Holiday Greetings Board” actually
did contain a reference to Christmas, cunningly
disguised in the Cyrillic alphabet.

That
picture went up in 2000. But it is still being studied.
And its symbolism continues to sink in.

Two
points need to be born in mind when contemplating this


Christmas Kulturkampf
.


  • It`s
    OFFENSIVE
    .
    Tom Fleming, the ferocious editor of


    Chronicles
    Magazine, put
    it best it in his powerful article


    “Taking the Kwannukah Out Of Christmas”

    (December 22, 2000), when he denounced “the insulting
    and Christophobic `Happy Holiday.`”
    That`s the
    point. “Happy Holidays” is

    Christophobic.
    It insinuates that the religion that founded America is
    unfit to be mentioned – even allusively, even though
    Christianity pervades the English language.



  • It`s
    unstable.

    The celebration of Christmas has


    evolved
    over the years. It was suppressed in
    Cromwell`s England, but


    returned
    . Our archive indicates gathering
    resistance. Christmas will return again.


Christianity is the religion,
not just of the Nativity, but of the


Resurrection.

Please
send entries, with “Christmas Competition” in the
message line, to


witan@vdare.com
. Because
of the spam epidemic, we will post names but not email
addresses unless you say OK. A gushingly-inscribed copy
of


Alien Nation
for the best
entry in our competition for the most outrageous attack
on Christmas this year. (Or


The Worm In The Apple
or
champagne if you prefer it!)


And a very Merry and Blessed
Christmas to all our readers.


P.S. Don`t forget, if sending
Christmas gifts via Amazon this year, begin by going
in through any book link on VDARE.COM, for example


here
– thus directing a
commission to us, at no expense to you! And thanks to
the many readers who have been doing this.

Share
Jeff Bezos` wealth!

Take Back Christmas!

[Also By Tom Piatak:

Happy Holidays? Bah! Humbug!
,


A Last Dispatch from the 2001 Christmas Front
,
and


War Against Christmas Competition 2002 [III]: News From
the Front
]

Christmas is less than a month away. Which means, in
today`s America, not tidings of comfort and joy, but of
new assaults on Christmas, unimaginable only a short
time ago.

Disney has chosen to observe the season by releasing
(through its Miramax subsidiary)

Bad Santa
,
an alleged comedy starring Billy Bob
Thornton. This movie isn`t another

Miracle on 34th Street
,
which featured Edmund
Gwenn in the definitive portrayal of St. Nicholas.
Thornton`s Santa, like Gwenn`s, works for department
stores, but he robs them. He also is a drunk, has sex
with a waitress he`s just met, is heard by other
characters having anal sex in the department store, and
repeatedly uses profanity in front of children.

To make matters worse, Disney is, according to the
Chicago Tribune`s
John Kass, promoting this charming
film with advertisements on TV featuring “a veiled
reference to oral sex and an unmistakable reference to
feminine hygiene.”
These ads are being run at times
when it would be reasonable to expect children to watch
them—such as during Sunday afternoon football games.

As Kass archly observes, “About the only thing that
Santa is forbidden to do these days is mention the real
reason that gifts are given in late December.”
[Disney
owes fans apology for `Bad Santa` ad
, John Kass,
Chicago Tribune November 21, 2003]

The obvious purpose of Bad Santa is to mock and
demean Christmas. The film`s boosters say as much. As
the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

points out
, George Thomas [gmthomas@thebeaconjournal.com] of
the Akron Beacon Journal

described
Bad Santa as “an anti-holiday
[sic] film” that “could be the much needed
antidote to that good-will-to-man feeling that permeates
the season.”

The fact that Disney has chosen to observe Christmas by
insulting it is telling. Certainly, the company would
never have made a movie demeaning Hanukkah or

Kwanzaa
, if for no other reason than fear of the
resultant bad publicity. Nor could this movie have been
made in Hollywood`s Golden Age, when Hollywood observed
Christmas by making such delightful films as

It`s a Wonderful Life
,

The Bells of St. Mary`s
(the film

playing in Bedford Falls
as George Bailey runs down
its snowy streets on Christmas Eve),

The Bishop`s Wife
, as well as Miracle on 34th
Street
. The journey from “Miracle on 34th Street” to
“Bad Santa” is downhill all the way.

Part of the explanation of this downward trajectory, I
believe, is that the men running Hollywood in the 1940s
were of a different, and better, character than

those running it today
.

But another part of the explanation is more prosaic. In
the 1940s, Hollywood worried about the reaction of
Christians to its product. A boycott by the

Legion of Decency
would have been financially
ruinous. Today, by contrast, the

pressure groups
Hollywood fears are all on the

multicultural left.

It is a sad reality—and a reality not at all in keeping
with the Christmas spirit—that the squeaky wheel gets
the grease. This is the lesson that has been learned by
those who have been waging the War against Christmas
these last few decades. Over that time, we have seen

crèches
disappear, beautiful

carols vanish from school concerts
, and the very
word “Christmas” largely disappear from public
discourse—to the point that many of us

no longer dare
wish each other “Merry Christmas”
and we now hear of “holiday trees,” “holiday
cards,”
“holiday parties,”

“holiday songs,”

and even, in one particularly egregious
recent advertisement, a

“child`s first holiday.”

This dramatic transformation was not spontaneous. As
Mrs. Kerri Jones wrote to me last year, this
transformation was the result of “incessant,
relentless and unyielding complaining”
by “a tiny
minority of people who take offense at Christmas.”

Ms. Jones came to this conclusion because “when I
express my preference for `Christmas` over `Happy
Holidays` I am invariably told that others `complain`
because they feel `offended.`”

Kerri Jones is exactly right. And the only antidote is
to continue to express our preference for “Christmas”
over “Happy Holidays,” whenever we can.

We must realize that even though appeals for
“inclusion”
are calculated to appeal to our better
nature, they may be motivated by less noble sentiments.

As VDARE.COM reported last year, filmmaker Jonathan
Kessleman was

motivated
to make his movie

The Hebrew Hamme
r
because “I asked myself,
`What as a Jew really pisses me off?` It hit me when I
was walking around a mall in December: I hate
Christmastime.”

Mr. Kessleman scarcely speaks for non-Christians, most
of whom, in my experience, do not resent Christmas and
actually enjoy some aspects of its celebration.

This sentiment was well expressed by Philadelphia
Inquirer
editor Jane Eisner`s thoughtful and
generous

essay
of last December in which she explained why,
as a Jew, she was bothered by the suppression of
Christmas and [t]he conflation of Christmas,
Hanukkah, and now

Kwanzaa
. . . into one big, fat, indistinguishable
holiday.”

But Kessleman`s sentiments are assuredly those of many
in that small minority of Americans—comprised of all
faiths and of none—who have litigated and complained to
prevent such horrors as children learning how to sing

Silent Night.

In order to take Christmas back, we need to let movie
studios, retailers,

school boards
, and politicians know that those of us
who love Christmas vastly outnumber the malcontents, and
that we don`t appreciate what`s been happening to our
holiday.

We need, in essence, a

new Legion of Decency
. Numbers are surely on our
side. A recent survey by the National Retail Federation

reported
that the holiday more than 92% of consumers
plan to celebrate is Christmas.

This effort need not be entirely negative—even though
some polite, forceful complaining will be necessary. We
can start wishing others “Merry Christmas” again.
We can only buy cards that mention Christmas, and let
both the retailer and the

card maker
know why we`re doing that. On our
Christmas cards that actually mention Christmas we can
make a point of only using the Post Office`s Christmas
stamp, and we can inform the Post Office why we prefer
that stamp to the generic “Season`s Greetings”
alternative. (Indeed, only a popular outcry saved the
Christmas stamp from the PC chopping block in the
mid-1990s.) We can patronize retailers who actually
mention the holiday that is the source of their good
fortune, and tell them why we prefer to shop there.

We can also share essays on the War against Christmas
with our friends and relatives: people are much more
likely to act when they realize they are not alone, and
others have expressed sentiments they share but have
been reluctant to voice.

Over time, the message that most people prefer Christmas
to “holiday” will be heard. Indeed, the Associated Press
reports that there has recently been a resurgence of
Christmas music on the radio, as radio stations discover
that being the only station in town playing Christmas
music in December

does wonders for their ratings.

What the malcontents who have waged

War against Christmas
want is to replace the
Christmas we have known and loved with the festival it
is on the way to becoming: an undistinguished,
uninspiring celebration, devoid of religious or cultural
significance or indeed of beauty, with nothing left but

multiculturalist
pap and tawdry commercialism.

There is no reason for them to get their wish.

But they will—if we remain so unnerved by the thought of
giving offense to those looking for a reason to be
offended that we are afraid to celebrate our own

culture
,

tradition
, and

religion.



Tom Piatak
writes from Cleveland, Ohio.