About Jeff Q

I live in New Orleans. I have a Bachelors in Computer Science and a Masters in English Literature. My interests include ancient history, religion, mythology, philosophy, and fantasy/sci-fi. My Twitter handle is @Bahumuth.

Deconstruction of an Unfunny Joke

America Divided

“The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan. I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.” -A federal judge on why he sent out an Obama joke about his mother committing bestiality to a short list of his ‘friends’

Reading this story, I feel the urge to ask the judge: “Setting aside the fact that judges are supposed to prevent even the appearance of political partisanship, if you admit this is racist, but that you didn’t want to send it ‘as racist’, what message was it supposed to impart? What about it did you find funny?”

I find this kind of interesting from a psychological perspective. I’ve always said you know a racist by what they find funny. I laugh at racist jokes on Tosh.0 all the time because they are told ironically and bring up something new and unexpected. I make hostile jokes against Republicans on Twitter all the time. But if you laugh at a clearly unfunny joke only because of who the target is, then you clearly have a psychological need to put down that person to make yourself feel good.

This subconscious form of racism-as-political-attacks seems to me to be fueling a lot of the racial tension in politics. Conseravtives who had absolutely no problem with Colin Powell and Condaleezza Rice have no problem breaking out the old animal and welfare tropes, thinking its only fair since Bush was constantly depicted as a chimp. It’s the same with biased chauvinism, Conservatives always making terribly unfunny jokes about Hillary Clinton wearing pants because everyone was sick of seeing her balls while withholding any sexist comments about Margaret Thatcher.

There are plenty of racists who don’t dress up in KKK uniforms because the question of race isn’t that important to their lives and their identity. Those who do are basically submitting themselves to a cult that works by providing self-esteem to individuals solely on their relationship with the group. To some extent, everyone does this on a individual level: ever-more partisan news shows get their money by focusing their audience’s hatred on the other side which in turn makes them feel better as a person. But the method is reinforced far more vigorously when the relationship is personal and two-way rather than the imaginary friendships people make with news personalities.

The joke the judge sent out wasn’t so much as funny but fulfilling in its ad hominem attack. Seeing how easily Democrats have abandoned civil rights and Republican hypocrisy on Libya and the debt ceiling, it’s easy to see how the meanings of “left” and “right” are slowly dissolving into ambiguity as Republicans accept that liberals won the culture war and Democrats accept that corporate socialists won the financial war, while at the same time that political partisanship has polarized the nation into hate-filled cynics who adopt numerous positions they don’t really believe in to defeat the other side. The judge is fulfilling his role in his place in the Republican superstructure by promoting racist sentiments to dehumanize the leader of the Democratic Party even though he would probably have been appalled at the same exact joke being leveled at Condaleezza Rice. He may not believe in racism as a virtue, but hating Obama is, so using a racist joke as a way to attack him is good, even if there’s nothing new or funny about the joke at all.

The whole ordeal makes me wonder if social media is corralling people towards a situation where the political parties become no more relevant than football teams: both parties being corrupt, socially-liberal corporatist hawks.

I realize the “socially liberal” part might seem premature since we appear to be fighting the contraception wars of the 60s all over again, but I don’t think the current kerfuffle is anywhere near as relevant or game-changing as those bra-burning days. We are still in a male-dominated era of medicine with birth control being termed recreational while boner pills are considered a mandatory health concern, but I think this will change with time and the draconian ultrasound shame law will be repealed in Virginia. The conflict itself is, I believe, only a reflection of the politicization of the parties: this issue never would have come up during the Bush years specifically because it’s meant to hurt whoever is in power at the time. Even just 5 years ago, people were still more likely to care about the issue rather than blindly accept the party stance and make excuses that it’s “not really about birth control.” The fight is nothing more than an election-year “wedge issue” where one half doesn’t even believe in the battle but hopes that it eventually leads to a victory in the war. Since it is only a means to an end — a club raised in partisan posturing — rather than a goal unto itself, it will drop by the wayside.

The latest battles don’t look to have helped Republicans much. In every case, over 18% of Republican voters said they are more likely to support Obama than the Republican challenger.

Popular issues no longer reflect the deep questions on how to govern but are only weapons used in utilitarian fashion, such as the inexplicable accusations regarding Sharia law. Republicans weary of the wars and Democrats not wanting to admit Obama’s ties to Wall Street focus exclusively on taxes. The cynicism was always present in politicians since they are the ones who are “in the trenches” trying to make deals and win fights, but I think the overall trend where the attitude of the politician hit mainstream with the launch of Fox News in ’96 and the massive media overhype of 9/11 for years after the event.

Politics itself is becoming a reality show complete with scripted conflicts. The whole debt ceiling debacle, which I fully admit I never heard of and was shocked to learn existed, felt like an episode of Jersey Shore where the crew happen to find a self-destruct button in the house and spent the entire episode fighting with each other over whether to push it or not. The Tea Party paid in popularity for that: becoming less liked that even atheists and Muslims. But the Republicans in congress only celebrated the enmity people had for them since by “sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.” The paradox of partisanship is that the White House assumes bipartisan bills will be better off if Obama doesn’t back it, so there is no leadership on boring left-wing issues like the desertification of the planet. GOP candidates bemoan the deficit while promising to increase it. The cynicism is infectious: I have to admit that I sincerely hope the Democrats repay the Republicans with wall-to-wall partisan-promoting filibusters the next time they are out of power.

The boring news of yesteryear can no longer compete in an era of 24 hour cable news so the shows themselves must be reinvented into political cults sporting charismatic figures who befriend the masses and talk everyone into getting involved with the issue of the moment. I admit I’m a part of it — watching no less than an hour of political shows a day. My favorite shows, the Daily Show, Colbert Report, Real Time, and Rachel Maddow all combine news and entertainment to some degree, and they all do a great job combining personality with substance, but it does sometimes feel like the inevitable conclusion of personified news is the WWF wrestler as president in Idiocracy. Common wisdom is that the more counter-arguments you provide, the more successful you’ll be in debunking a myth, but the Overkill Backfire Effect tells media creators that a more effective strategy is to make a smaller number of arguments: hence the popularity of sloganeering.

Overkill Backfire

Things can sometimes deteriorate as they become more popular. Everett often lamented the way anime became popular. I’m sure part of it is the fact that the more demand for something, supply is constrained to release substandard content in order to maximize profits, but it in turn pollutes the waters the way the flood of third party Atari games destroyed the gaming industry in the late 80s. But perhaps another aspect of it may be the way an unpopular subject will attract people of a like-mind, so that when the subject becomes popular, the inclusion an increasing number of less empathetic people makes the experience seem less unique. And once something becomes important, questions of profitability begin to overtake questions of integrity.

If the popularization of the news has transformed the political parties into gang rivalries, it’s been worse before, but when I look at media events like the “Ground Zero Mosque” (which opened without any protestors noticing) and the debt ceiling battle, I’m not sure if it’s ever been this random and pointless.

Why Newt?

Romney Machine

A couple of weeks ago I was trying to figure out why the Tea party was going back to “Moon U-Newt” Gingrich after a quick fling with Santorum. It turned out the revelation from his wife that was supposed to end him wasn’t that sensational from a secular perspective: he wanted an “open marraige.” But since we already knew he had told his wife to just deal with it before, the only real difference is Newt wasn’t so much of an asshole that he also demanded his wife be faithful to him while he slept with other women. But I could see where she would think that would sink him with Christian conservatives: cheating on your wife is an easily forgivable sin while having an open marriage is openly adopting the same secular lifestyle Newt rampages against (when he isn’t making completely-prescient remarks about Saul Alinsky).

Turns out she was wrong. They don’t care. Which I’m not too surprised about. What I was surprised about was the standing ovation by the “values voters” of South Carolina for being appalled at being asked about it (skip to 3:35). Do Conservatives now believe only Liberal sex scandals should be covered by the media? I know a lot of them believe the King David/St. Augustine fallacy that sinful Christians can inspire their peons to be sinless, but even they know that only works if they keep it on the down-low. So I asked two conservatives why the Tea Party wants someone who:

1) is a Washington outsider,
2) believes the Republicans have been too pro-spending,
3) is against ObamaCare,
4) is a social conservative, and
5) pretends to believe that Fannie and Freddie caused the financial crisis

When:

1) He’s a Washington insider who was reprimanded on ethics and fined $300,000 by an overwhelming 395-28 House vote. It was weird enough that Sarah Palin, the previous VP nominee, was considered a “Washington Outsider” even though she backed everything Tea Partiers hated about McCain, but at least she acted like an an “outsider” in that she didn’t know anything about Washington. Honestly, I thought that’s why they liked her, Bush and Perry: “folksy” stupidity is a plus to many voters. But Newt is the exact opposite of that: He acts like he knows everything.

2) He’s a “technocrat” who received more federal subsidies than any suburban county in the country, except Arlington Virginia, effectively part of the Federal Government, and Brevard County Florida, home of the Kennedy Space Center.

3) He was for insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year

4) He was cheating on his wife while impeaching Clinton for the same thing, yet got a standing ovation for saying it was no one’s business. I thought only Democrats believed that, but Clinton never would have been elected if his cheating had come out before he became president.

5) He said Barney Frank should be arrested (apparently for unsuccessfully trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie against Republican opposition), yet received millions to push congress NOT to regulate Fannie and Freddie.

The Ron Paul supporter answered:

“Here’s the secret: He’s like Donald Trump in that people think he can and will take on the left-wing Media and their boy Obama…kick his ass in a debate make him look like shit for what he is doing to this country….all those other facts are second fiddle for now….but I don’t think it will last…he will fall back down!”

That makes sense. Despite all of Newt’s baggage, he is the best in the group at insulting people and his hate-filled swagger no doubt resonates with many the Tea Party faithful. And apparently their cynicism has risen to the point where they would elect Pol Pot as long as it meant he had the best chance of out-debating Obama. They do seem to be a wee bit unhinged, what with them killing cats and praying for Obama’s death and all.

The other answer seemed like a typical echo from within the Republican Bubble:

“The answer to your question is simple; Only one of 3 men will be our president. next year. Oboma, Romney or Newt. With Ronald Reagan being dead, that only leaves Newt as the last man standing.”

I replied that the Republicans had moved so far right that Obama was the closest to Reagan, which he found to be “a stretch of epic proportion.” I told him that was because he was thinking of the mythical Reagan. The historical Reagan did these:

1. Raised taxes 11 times when taxes were higher than today
2. Became the 1st president to create a deficit without a Depression or World War
3. Sold weapons to Muslim extremists in Iran
4. Increased welfare spending
5. “Cut and Ran” from Lebanon
6. Invented Cap and Trade
7. Raised the debt limit 18 TIMES
8. Granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens
9. Helped facilitate the Savings and Loan Crisis through deregulation
10. Started “Big Government” War on Drugs
11. Compromised with Democrats
12. Bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future
13. Failed to deliver his promise to close the Departments of Energy and Education, then created a Dept. of Veteran Affairs that cost twice as much
14. Was first former union leader who became president and believed that “where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost”
15. Signed a bill to liberalize California’s abortion laws
16. Claimed to want a world “free of nuclear weapons,” something no Republican could say now
17. Continued funding al-Qaida after U.S.S.R. decision to surrender Afghanistan in order to put Gorbechev in a bad light, thereby instigating the battle that catapulted Bin Laden to his leadership position
18. Tripled the national debt

Here’s the famed Conservative Blog “Red State” that fully admits Reagan is the “Great RINO of American History.”

Here’s the Keynesian-hating “Von Mises Institute” attacking Reagan’s financial conservatism.

Santorum’s sudden return makes much more sense as the Tea Party favorite since polls show them to be the social conservative wing of the party. I guess it just took a while for them to find out he’s as much of a sexually repressed hypocrite as they are. He railed against Clinton for Kosovo, is still pissed off that the French sided with the U.N. in our unquestionably successful war in Iraq, was against Libya, but then said that Obama “had little to do with this triumph.” As Santorum said when getting bashed for supporting No Child Left Behind: “when you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader, and I made a mistake.” He’s the perfect candidate to lead the Tea Party to reducing the federal government into a Punanny State.

But David Frum likes him because at least he acknowledges there is a problem with the poor; never mind his solution is the same as everyone else’s: the Paul Ryan Plan. Frum did a great review on the Charles Murray book. Murray is the same guy who wrote the “The Bell Curve,” a bestseller among the intellectual racist circuit, such that there is such a thing, as a new study seems to show there isn’t. The book is about the deteriorating values of the working class. Kevin Drum adds an interesting anecdote about how teen pregnancy from the 60s to the 80s may have been linked to childhood exposure to leaded gasoline. Being a Neo-Con, Frum naturally hates Ron Paul and Julian Assange, and lately he’s also been critical of the Heritage Foundation and the contraception fight (“Call me out of touch, but campaigning hard against birth control doesnt seem to me a winning issue in 2012”).

Whether Santorum is able to beat Romney has a lot to do with whether he can pick up the rest of the votes from the Tea Party split. Yet ironically, the billionaire holding Newt’s puppet strings didn’t like him attacking Romney since he likes him, but he’s given Newt permission to attack Santorum all he wants. Not only is he going to throw away another million dollars on Newt, he actually flew the idea of putting another $10 million into his campaign. But hey, if it wastes the money of a rich GOP-supporter, I’m all for it.

I also got this in my email:

Joke on liberals

My response was:

Except Christianity: Yeah, Liberals totally hate 72% of themselves.

Unless it offends her: Tell that to Frank VanderSloot, Romney’s billionaire donor, who has caused Forbes, Mother Jones, and several private bloggers to remove news articles on ridiculous charges because of the threat of facing unlimited funded lawsuits. One blogger posted the lawyer’s letter was threatened with COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT after getting the letter copyrighted after the fact!

Religious Devotion to Apple: This is only shows complete ignorance of recent news. The Tea Party has been trying to claim his mantle while Republicans like Rush Limbaugh have devoted entire episodes to gushing praise for him as the model businessman, falsely claiming that he created tons of jobs in American when he didn’t. It’s liberal publications and t.v. shows that have just recently started looking into how we can live with ourselves getting our technology from Chinese slave labor camps where dozens of people are packed into rooms but not allowed to talk to one another and suicide attempts are so common that nets were installed on the outside

Steve Jobs

Protests the 1% Except Steve Jobs, Michael Moore, Movie Stars, or Millionaire Democratic Politicians: Unlike Jesus in the Synoptic gospels, Liberals do not criticize individuals solely for being rich, only when they use that money to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Meanwhile, Conservatives make up excuses for the banks they bailed out but then go to annex and astroturf Ron Paul’s Tea Party the minute Obama spends less than a tenth of that money on the actual victims of the financial crisis (which even Ron Paul said: If you’re going to bail someone out, bail out the victims).

Except Conservative, straight white people: Celebrating diversity does not mean pretending to agree every opinion.

Hates Capitalism: Amazingly, the fight between Romney and Gingrich has opened up evidence that many Conservatives secretly acknowledge there is such a thing as vulture capitalism. Limbaugh observed recently, “Here we have capitalism being attacked by Republicans.” GOP strategist Frank Luntz told a group of Republican governors that the public thinks “capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.”

Surprisingly, I actually liked the State of the Union address. I didn’t even want to watch it but Candice dragged me in and I was shocked (in a good way) to find out that Obama had appointed Eric Schneiderman to a federal investigation of the mortgage crisis. Even Matt Taibbi seemed to be unusually semi-optimistic. Then Glenn Greenwald had to ruin it all by pointing out that Obama is targeting rescuers and funeral attendees.

It’s always a drag when even the most reasonable presidential candidate with a chance of winning is pro-murdering heroes and mourners.

Books That I’m Reading

Secrets of the FBI

The Secrets of the FBI, by Ronald Kessler: Although rather defensive over some the FBI’s mistakes, it starts with Hoover and goes over some of the good and bad points of each director peppered with many humorous anecdotal tales of FBI break-ins gone wrong, like when a cat escaped and they sent agents with night vision out to recapture it, threw it back in the house and wondered why the dog was flipping out over the cat only to find out the next day that it was the wrong cat. Or the time a bus was parked in front of a house to give agents cover for a target house they broke into, after which everyone piled in the bus and drove off, only to find two freaked out pedestrian passengers who boarded without anyone noticing and was now ringing the bus stop bell to be let off the bus filled with black-suited men bearing weapons.

Action Philosophers

The More Than Complete Action Philosophers, by Fred van Lente and Ryan Dunlavey: A hilarious graphic novel that provides good synopses on ancient, medieval and modern philosophers, including: Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Lao Tzu, Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes, Epicurus, Epictetus the Stoic, St. Augustine, Bodidharma, Rumi, Thomas Aquinas, Mchiavelli, Isaac Luria: Rabbi of the Mystic Arts, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, George Brekeley, Leibniz, Hume, “Oh no, Rousseau!” sitcom, Jefferson, Immanuel Kant: Epistemological Attorney (God hires him after being indicted as a “transcendental illusion”), Georg Hegel vs. Arthur Schopenhauer, Auguste Comte, Soren Kierkegaard, Marx, “You’re a Good Man John Stuart Mill” Charle Brown comic, Nietzsche, William James, Freud, Jung, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jean-Paul Sartre, Joseph Campbell, Ayn Rand, “The Foucault Circus,” and Derrida the Deconstructonator.

Hitch 22

Hitch-22: A Memoir, by Christopher Hitchens: Turns out the priest Hitchens’ mother committed suicide with was an X-priest and they both had become initiated into a religious following by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the “Beatles Guru.” This, combined with the the way he had to pay a priest who was grumbling about the sanctity of deterring a suicidal adulteress has made me even more confident that his, and the unabashed love he described for his mother — descriptions which bordered so much on Oedipal that I thought I was listening to D. H. Lawrence — has made me more confident in connecting this to his hatred of religion.

Another weird thing is that although a great deal of the book is dedicated to his protest against Vietnam and his first encounters with associates and books in the world Socialist movement. Yet the only reason he gives for being against Vietnam is because the U.S. was aggressively bombing an agrarian state, with no mention of WW2, the French colonies, China, the Korean War, the South Vietnamese, or anything to put the war in context. One could make the same argument he gives for Iraq. In other words, the book has more to do with what he did than why he did it. He does the same thing with Kennedy, completely blaming him solely for the Cuban Missile Crisis as if it had more to do with the United States’ desire to annex a “Banana Republic” rather than prevent a nuclear buildup on it’s front door. No blame whatsoever for the U.S.S.R. (A later chapter says that a review of his work showed that the word he used was, quite surprisingly, not “Banana Republic” but “perhaps”.)

Although he gives some reasonable explanations for being against of the Gulf War, such as the U.S.’s role in the Iraq-Iran war and Bush originally pledging not to defend Kuwait being a signal that Saddam was going to be allowed to take the oil fields but not the country,
the way he moves from goes from opposing the Gulf War with quiet reservations to hating those who support the Iraq War in the same chapter is mentally disjointed, even falling into the same tropes that he would have found to be disgusting propaganda had it been used for the Vietnam war. Had the Gulf War been expanded into a 10-year ouster of Saddam, he no doubt would have felt as vindicated (something he says is the definition of happiness) as if the Iraq War lasted as long as the Gulf War. As it so happened, his transformation from World-Citizen Socialist to American Liberal Hawk coincided with his supporting of a bad war in the guilt of not supporting a good war. Especially strange is the way he insincerely suggests that the Bush Administration and his good pal Paul Wolfowitz were criminally negligent for the massive power outage that hit Iraq and the lack of properly issued vehicale and body armor following Saddam’s fall, yet he nevertheless compares Rumsfeld’s quote about “going to war with the army we have” to his own unconvincing belief that he would have pushed for the Iraq War had Gore been president. Thomas Jones says it best:

More striking than the way in which the content of his opinions has changed, however, is the continuity in the manner in which he has held those opinions. He likes to think of himself as a rational sceptic, but he isn’t really: his views are more visceral than that, his lurches from one deeply held position to the next driven mostly by gut instinct. Fine orator and fluent writer though he is, he’s never been much of an analytical thinker, and his style of argument proceeds more by a series of emphatic, emotive and stylish assertions (he magnificently denounces Argentina’s General Videla as looking ‘like a cretin impersonating a toothbrush’), by appeals to common sense and common feeling, than by logical reasoning.

Masterfully eloquent in his delivery, every appended anecdote scorched with dry British wit, it is very much worth the cost of not being able to interpret some of his phrases to listen to it on audiobook.

Catch 22

Catch 22, by Joseph Heller: I was given this book by a friend even though I wasn’t sure if I was going to read it, but was told by him that the book was so good he had a second copy just so he could lend one out. Apparently I took too long because the last time I was over at his place before the New Year, he announced (not to me specifically) that he had bought another copy of it. Haven’t gotten far in it but the theme of the WWII-set storyline seems to be that in a world gone completely insane, only those feigning illness to get out of the war are completely sane.

Fullmetal Alchemist

Fullmetal Alchemist, by Hiromu Arakawa: A story in a paralel universe where alchemy replaces science. Two brothers, Edward and Alphonse Elric, attempt to break alchemy’s ultimate taboo and use the art to bring back their dead mother. The act pulls Edward’s leg into another dimension while Alphonse is completely swallowed up. Waking up, Edward finds a tortured, half-constructed organ mesh where his mother should be and his brother gone. Using alchemy once again, he sacrifices his arm to anchor Alphonse’s soul to a body of armor. In grand steam punk style, his friend/love interest Winry then creates a metallic arm and leg for him, the first of which he often transforms into a blade using alchemy. Alphonse’s fearsome look is contrasted by his a polite, gentle character, and his disappearing memories later make him wonder if he really existed before he was transposed into the metallic body. Edward is shorter than average and a lot of comic relief comes from how extremely touchy he is about it, along with the running gag that everyone they meet naturally thinks that Alphonse is the “Fullmetal Alchemist.”

The manga reminds me a lot of Rumiko Takahashi, and she does say that Rumiko is one of her inspirations. Two different television series were born from the manga: the first one moves in a different direction once it catches up with the manga and the second one basically rewrites a bunch of the episodes for the first season and then continues with the manga telling of the story. I had watched the movie a couple of years ago even though and enjoyed it even though it acted as an ending for the first series. The movie was set in our own universe right before Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch, with the plot involving the Nazi-connected Thule Society trying to open a portal into the other world.

As for the manga, it had a wonderfully massive ending that concluded the story. That is one thing I’ve always appreciated about the Japanese manga artist. They may have no problem carbon copying themes from every other manga/anime in existence (Negima!, for example, is a now-typical “harem” comedy about a 10-year-old magician with a talking ferret that has 31 schoolgirls “almost” kissing him, including: a ninja, a vampire, a robot, a ghost, a half-demon, a web idol, and a time traveling Martian). But for their lack of originality, the Japanese manga artist at least knows how to end a story and move on, whereas no cartoon in the U.S. can ever change anything on their last comic/episode on the chance it might get picked up again.

Hedge Knight II: Sworn Sword

Hedge Knight II: Sworn Sword, by G. R. R. Martin. Before writing the stupendous Song of Ice and Fire series, Martin wrote for The Twilight Zone and the CBS drama Beauty and the Beast. Hedge Knight is the story of a not-too-bright knight-for-hire and his younger, bald squire, the literate but still childish “Egg.” Like Game of Thrones, Martin does a great job immersing the reader into his world and the lushly colored art is spectacular. As always, even the most minor of characters is an interesting three-dimensional medieval personality and the plot has plenty of great plot twists.

The First Man in Rome

The First Man in Rome, by Colleen McCullough: This is the first in a series of extremely long novels, starting with the history of the Social War in first-century B.C. Rome and ending with Antony and Cleopatra. The first novel chronicles the lives of Gaius Marius, a powerful man without prestige, and Sulla, a nobleman without money or power before their alliance and eventual conflict, which eventually broadens out to the Social War between Rome and Italy, which in turn precipitates the Civil War between Caesar and the Republic. McCullough does a great job combining a character-driven novel with an amazingly immerse background in Roman history, complete with appended glossary. The immense novel lengths of McCullough is not the only thing she shares in common with George R. R. Martin. Like Martin, she gets the characterization right, masterfully blending modern psychological traits with ancient cultural mores.

The Great Derangement

The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire, by Matt Taibbi: Working under Rolling Stone, the only magazine that will allow Taibbi to say “FUCK YOU” to Mike Bloomberg, Matt goes undercover, pretending to be both a Fundamentalist Christian in one of John Hagee’s Megachurch cells and a 9/11 Truth follower to show how modern politics has polarized political groups into conspiratorial cults. Probably the only author I know who non-nonchalantly referred to himself as a drug addict without any explanation or elaboration. Taibbi is also surprisingly bad at his undercover roles, explaining that at one point he told his fellow Megachurch supporters that his Dad had died in some clown-related incident… and that wasn’t even something he came up with on the spur of the moment. The undercover work actually seems to yield very little in damning material about the individuals he meets, who you end up feeling sorry for more than anything, and so most of the book is him extrapolating on conversations he had with them in order to explain his own points. Surprisingly dull for such a talented writer.

Griftopia

Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America, by Matt Taibbi: A must-read for those looking into a non-partisan explanation of the financial crisis of 2008. He explains how the Tea Party was “top-down media con” initiated by CNBC’s Rick Santelli when he denounced not the huge bailout of the banks but rather the relatively small bailout for people facing foreclosure. (The name goes back to Ron Paul’s 2007 Boston Tea Party fund raising commemoration, but that’s like comparing the commercialized rape-fest of Woodstock ’99 to its original). He describes Alan Greenspan as an economist who became famous for being famous, a social ladder climber who got in with Ayn Rand to help himself get into elite circles and then abandoned her Libertarian philosophy to join the Federal Reserve as a corporatist. Taibbi explains how the banks repackaged securitized loans as Collateralized Debt Obligations (and in the process took the loan originators off the hook), then cut these bundled loans into “tranches”, convinced the rating agencies who depend on the banks for their living to give them a Triple A rating, and then insured them through credit default swaps so that neither sellers like AIG needed capitalization, nor buyers needed to own the insured assets.

Prey

Prey, by Michael Chrichton: Nanomachines that are evolving into hive behavior begins killing the scientists who created them. The protagonist, an out-of-work scientist who helped develop the nanomachines but now a stay-at-home Dad, goes to the Nevada desert lab where his wife works to help bring them under control while at the same time worrying about whether his wife is having an affair with his former friend and team leader. Decent novel. Follows a kind of horror movie format. The science seemed well researched, as opposed to say, Timeline, where Chrichton emphatically maintained was based on parallel universes and NOT time travel before ending the story with the protagonist changing the past in his own timeline.

Next

Next, by Michael Chrichton: This is the last novel that was published before Chrichton died. This story is about transgenic animals being given the powers of human intelligence and speech. Genetic companies wage legal and covert battles. One of the main characters, a biotech researcher, is forced to adopt a child-like chimp that has his genetic material and his wife creates a fictitious genetic disease on Wikipedia to explain his appearance at school. The family must deal with bullies and the genetic corporation trying to eliminate him to destroy evidence of unauthorized experiments. There are several other plot threads, some which run into the main one, and others that go nowhere and just die out, and Chrichton explains in an interview appended to the audiobook that he did this to emulate the way genes themselves evolve.

Rethinking the Gospel Sources

Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark, by Delbert Royce Burkett: This book has been nothing short of revolutionary for me. I had of course, long believed that there was more than one earlier prototype for the Gospel of Mark, but Burkett’s theory made me change my mind on two things that I never would have believed possible: that the Griesbech Hypothesis was partially true and that Jesus’ resurrection appearance at the end of Mark’s gospel, which most modern Bibles now mark off as a late addition, is actually the original ending.

The Griesbach Hypothesis is a very old rival to the Two Source Hypothesis saying Matthew and Luke had used Mark. The theory instead argued that Mark’s gospel is actually a combination of Matthew and Luke. There was no shortage of evidence against the Griesbach hypothesis: Mark’s language was cruder, it’s plot less grandiose, and tons of gospel content would have had to have been exercised from Matthew and Luke for no discernible reason. I had studied the Griesbach Hypothesis for my thesis and wrote against one Griesbach author who had tried to show that Mark had been switching back and forth between Matthew and Luke as he went along. By looking at some of the examples, I showed that the “alternations” were ethereal: every instance of “Mark copying Luke” had some Matthean language in it and every instance of “Matthew copying Mark” had some Lukan language in it. But I rememeber thinking how weird it was that Matthew and Luke always seemed to take a different verse from Mark than the other.

As it turns out, that is because both the Two Source Hypothesis and the Griesbach hypothesis are true: Matthew and Luke had respectively copied from two different versions of Proto-Mark, called Proto-Mark A and Proto-Mark B, but Mark’s gospel itself was born of the incestuous union of those same two sources. The effect was that while Matthew and Luke had much longer gospels than Mark because they combined different stories, Mark had longer stories than Matthew or Luke because he combined verses from different versions of the same story. It was hard to believe at first: I typically assumed gospel variants expanded like branches on a tree: generally moving apart from one another, but this hypothesis showed that Proto-Mark had been expanded by two different authors and then later recombined back into Mark.

The second miracle, convincing me that both Proto-Mark and Mark actually had a resurrection appearance sequence at its conclusion, came from showing that Mark’s ending had material that came from both Proto-Mark A/Matthew and Proto-Mark B/Luke, meaning that either it came about from Mark’s combining process or it coincidentally went through the same exact process at a later date. I had already known that Mark’s ending referenced Luke, but that only made me assume that the ending was an attempt to harmonize the earlier gospel with Luke’s Presbyter tradition. Instead, it seems a later editor cut out Mark’s resurrection sequence, something I had only seen Biblical literalists believe. The absence of a resurrection appearance made sense for Proto-Mark because early Christians probably would have believed the resurrection would happen at the upcoming Apocalypse, not before it, or so it seemed. Burkett even showed that textual parallels within Mark’s second, shorter ending with the earliest version of Proto-Mark proved that it based on Proto-Mark’s ending, basically meaning BOTH endings involving the resurrection appearance are authentic.

Proto-Mark -> Proto-Mark A & Proto-Mark B -> Mark -> Mark with Deleted Ending -> Mark with Proto-Mark’s Ending

Proto-Mark A -> Matthew

Proto-Mark B -> Luke

But why would a Christian cut out the resurrection appearance and leave Jesus’ tomb empty at the gospel’s conclusion? I thought that the most likely explanation was that it was edited by a Gnostic since the Gnostics generally eschewed apocalypticism, perhaps as a reaction against the messianic failures of the Bar Kohba Revolt. And, as it turned out, I had already accepted the plausible explanation from Helmut Koester that Morton Smith’s Secret Mark was a third-generation gospel edited by a baptismal sect since both Matthew and Luke lacked a verse from Mark making a literary connection between baptism and martyrdom. I even built on Koester’s hypothesis: Secret Mark had a story very similar to the resurrection of Lazarus from John’s gospel following the bathing narrative and the Gnostic-themed second layer of John appeared to be Valentinian. There was a branch of Valentinians known as the Marcosians, named after their leader Mark, who also happened to teach about a second baptism of Christ for perfection apart from the baptism of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Who better to write a Gnostic version of the gospel centered on baptismal resurrection under the name Mark?

But it was not to be. Burkett dismissed the existence of Secret Mark for lack of evidence and an insufficient amount of material. I went back and started to review Secret Mark with a mind to contradict him, but as it turned out, a writing expert had recently determined it to be a forgery and an old Da Vinci Code-like novel had since been discovered telling of plot involving a forged “lost gospel” that had been “discovered” at the Mar Saba monastery near Bethlehem, the same monastery Morton Smith had “found” the letter supposedly written by Clement of Alexandria quoting Secret Mark. Ironically, I had originally been skeptical of Secret Mark, even writing to a Biblical scholar that the dishonesty and cynicism in the letter didn’t seem to reflect the personality of Clement (one of the few theologians I kind of liked), but got a reply that it did reflect him. The fact that “Secret Mark” made Jesus look gay and that Clement’s letter mysteriously disappeared soon after Smith “found” it also made me skeptical, but I started to question that skepticism when Bart D. Ehrman claimed to have talked to someone from the monastery who said they had seen it and knew how it disappeared (although Ehrman himself remained unsure). I finally accepted Secret Mark as real when I read Koester’s argument dismissing Smith’s assumptions that the resurrection story was historical and linked to actual homosexual magical rituals used by Jesus. Although Burkett didn’t even mention it, an examination of his work on Proto-Mark also destroyed one of the main pillars of Secret Mark: the scene of Jesus entering Jericho and then leaving the city without doing anything inside it, long assumed by Bible scholars to prove the story in Jericho from Secret Mark was edited out, which is shown by Burkett’s work to be a byproduct of Mark combining his two sources. Thus, a late layer of Mark is disproven by the same process proving no less than three earlier layers of Mark.

Panarion

The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, translated by Philip R. Amidon, S.J. (Jesuit): Driven by jealousy for not making Barkett’s discovery myself, I attempted to prove that Marcion’s “Gospel of the Lord” constituted an editorial layer in between Proto-Mark B and Luke, but came up with mixed results. Before I knew about Epiphanius’ quotations from Marcion’s gospel, I had gone through Luke and bracketed out what I thought was an earlier Marcionite gospel that was canonized into Luke. Although I did find a few examples from Epiphanius of what I think are verses that pre-date Luke, a lot of the content missing from Marcion actually appears in Mark and Matthew, leading to troubling conclusion that some verses really were “cut out” as Tertullian and most biblical scholars assume, and not only that but cut out for no good reason (as even Epiphanius mentions). Weirdest of all is that Epiphanius’ version has the physical resurrection of Jesus after he himself said Marcion only believed in a spiritual resurrection.

Another conclusion I came to from the comparison is that I believe Proto-Mark did in fact have a copy of the Sermon on the Mount but chose to pepper his action-oriented gospel with a few references rather than copy the whole thing down. Most scholars, including Burkett, believe the Sermon comes from Q, but the “Blessings and Curses” from it are very different from the Cynic Wisdom teachings that make up Q, plus both Matthew and Luke place the sermon in the context of a mountain, proving that the Sermon’s source was not a “sayings gospel” like Q.

    Games That I am Playing

New Super Mario Bros. Wii

New Super Mario Bros. Wii

This game is amazingly challenging for the Wii era of the casual gamer, not to mention a game that could be essentially classified as a “party game” since it can boast 4 players, but having multiple players in a Mario game is the very pinnacle of nostalgic gratification. Having a second player can prove advantageous since you can cooperate a times, such as jumping on your partner’s head to gain altitude, but it also often trips you up as players run into one another and accidentally killings are very common. Given that the challenge level is so high, one would expect Princess Toadstool/Peach should have been one of the four main characters, but opting to keep the nostalgia centered completely on Super Mario Bros. 1 (rather than 2), Player 4 is just a second clone of Toad in another color, which is pretty pathetic given the expanded array of Mario characters– even Luigi has a princess girlfriend I think. The final battle against Bowser is also engineered to bring back nostalgic memories of the original castle-battle of SMB1 where Mario had to run under the jumping Bowser and flip a switch that dropped him into a pool of acid below, though it is spiced up with a final final battle against a magically-enlarged King Koopa. The game is played with the WiiMote held sideways to emulate the controller of the 8-bit NES. However, the decision to do this is met with a massive design flaw:

Wiimote design flaw

The A button puts your character in a bubble, which is useful if you make a mistake and are about to die, but is excruciating when you accidentally hit it and are the only one alive on the screen, because it automatically takes you back to the beginning of the level with whatever power-ups you had lost. It’s also easy to accidentally hit the power button, which causes everything unsaved up to that point to be lost. Either one button or the other got pushed accidentally dozens and dozens of times and usually at the worst possible times.

    Music That I Am Listening To

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo Soundtrack

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo: by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross.

I had heard that Trent Reznor had gotten involved with another band called How to Destroy Angels, but I didn’t really like the grating, demonic noise that indeed seemed designed to rupture the conscious mind of some ethereal beings. As it turned out, Trent had gotten married and the project was centered on his Filipino wife, Mariqueen Maandig, who quit her band West Indian Girl and joined her husband and Atticus on creating “Angels.” As if Trent getting married wasn’t shocking enough, he also has a son. Like Devin Townsend, Trent seemed to have lost some of his inspiration with With Teeth and Year Zero when he decided to get sober, but then he teamed up with Atticus Ross to create the four-cd instrumental epic, Ghosts I-IV, my favorite Nine Inch Nails album to date. Although he had talked about making a sequel to Year Zero and Ghosts, Trent eventually decided that NIN should “go away for a little while” and went on his “Waving Goodbye Tour.” However, the two soundtracks he has done with Atticus Ross, The Social Network, and the 3-cd behemoth, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, are just sequels to Ghosts with another name on it. Beginning with a cover of “Immigrant Song” by Led Zeppelin and ending with a cover of the Bryan Ferry song, “Is Your Love Strong Enough?”, under the moniker of How to Destroy Angels, the movie is bound to bring Reznor and Ross far more commercial success than had it been released as a Nine Inch Nails album.

The True Meaning of Christmas

St. Nicholas

December 25 is not Jesus’ birthday. Christmas is based on the winter solstice. In a great many religions from the Old World, the solstice marked the day that the vegetation god died, typically by being crucified on a tree, causing all the earth’s vegetation to die with him only to be reborn on the spring equinox. Thus the death and resurrection of the god symbolized the death and resurrection of vegetation throughout the year.

None of the gospels give an exact date for the birth of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke mentions shepherds out tending sheep in the late evening, which some have taken to mean it wouldn’t be in the winter since sheep would have been locked up. Luke puts his birth at 6 A.D., a symbolic year for Jewish resistance as Luke specifically makes reference to the Roman tax census that triggered a revolt by Judas the Galilean (a Zealot figure who probably inspired Judas Iscariot, seeing how his surname is a reference to Sicarii assassins). The Gospel of Matthew tells the story of the Three Magi visiting Herod the Great on their way to meet baby Jesus, but Herod didn’t die until 4 B.C., a full 10 years before the tax census.

Around 200 A.D., St. Clement of Alexandria gave three different dates various churches used to celebrate Jesus’ birthday. None of them were December 25. Another Alexandrian theologian named Origen mocked Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices.

Tertullian, the first Latin father to mention the Trinity, in particular condemned decorating the home with boughs of evergreen, saying:

“Let them over whom the fires of hell are imminent, affix to their posts, laurels doomed presently to burn: to them the testimonies of darkness and the omens of their penalties are suitable. You are a light of the world, and a tree ever green. If you have renounced temples, make not your own gate a temple.”

Even the 2,600-year-old Biblical prophet Jeremiah condemned a ritual seemingly identical to Christmas, saying: “For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter” (10:3-4).

The first Christian linking Jesus’ birth to Christmas comes from an Egyptian in the mid-300s, and by the late 360s, the Donatists, an African Christian sect that broke away from the “traitors” who allied themselves with Emperor Constantine, accepted Christmas on December 25 but not the Epiphany on January 6.

Some time during the Middle Ages, the Christmas tree became associated with the tree from the Garden of Eden, called the “Paradise Tree,” and decorated with apples, a concept hardly alien from the original pre-Hebrew myth. The first recorded Christmas tree was erected in the house of a military brotherhood in Estonia in the mid-1400s. A Bremen guild chronicle of 1570 records how a small tree decorated with apples, nuts, dates, pretzels and paper flowers was put up in the guild house for the members’ children. Most Christmas trees were found only in churches until the 1500s, but even in the mid-1800s, they were still controversial enough to bring threats against Henry Schwan of Cleveland Ohio, the first American pastor to erect a Christmas Tree in his church. The Puritans likewise condemned Christmas, with Oliver Cromwell outright banning “the heathen traditions” of Christmas carols, decorated trees and any joyful expression that desecrated “that sacred event.” Martin Luther tried replacing the bearer of gifts with Christkindl, the “Christ Child”, but the name was only transferred over to St. Nikolaos, which is why Santa Claus is also known as “Kriss Kringle.” Decorating the tree with expensive-for-the-time candles comes from the 1700s and by the 1800s Christmas trees were showing up in Germany’s schools, inns, and military hospitals.

The winter solstice was important in ancient times because there was little food and starvation was common, so the solstice was meant to be the last feast celebration before everyone had to hole themselves up for winter. Most cattle were slaughtered to save on food, so the solstice feast was one of the few times anyone could eat as much meat as they wanted. Wine and beer stored for fermentation was opened up at this time. The reason Christmas Eve holds particular importance is because the pre-Romanized day began in the evening previous, just as the Jewish Sabbath does today.

In Roman times, the solstice festival was named Saturnalia after the god of time and agriculture. According to the third-century Neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry, Saturnalia occurred near the winter solstice because the sun enters Capricorn, the astrological house of Saturn, at that time. The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at at Saturn’s temple and a public banquet followed by private gift-giving.

There was a carnival atmosphere, complete with costumes and role-playing, a time when social norms could be overturned: gambling was permitted, no declaration of war could be made, and masters provided table service for their slaves. Both citizen and slave wore the cone-shaped pileius cap, representing the wearer as a freedman. The reversal of social roles aspect of the holiday was inherited from the Athenian festival of Kronia, named after Kronos (linked to the root word “chron,” as in “chronology” or “chronicle”), the Greek equivalent of Saturn, although the Greek holiday was actually celebrated in the summer.

Wikipedia says that:

The day of gift-giving was the Sigillaria on December 23. Because gifts of value would mark social status contrary to the spirit of the season, these were often the pottery or wax figurines called sigillaria made specially for the day, candles, or “gag gifts”, of which Augustus was particularly fond. In his many poems about the Saturnalia, Martial names both expensive and quite cheap gifts, including writing tablets, dice, knucklebones, moneyboxes, combs, toothpicks, a hat, a hunting knife, an axe, various lamps, balls, perfumes, pipes, a pig, a sausage, a parrot, tables, cups, spoons, items of clothing, statues, masks, books, and pets. Gifts might be as costly as a slave or exotic animal. Patrons or “bosses” might pass along a gratuity (sigillaricium) to their poorer clients or dependents to help them buy gifts. Some emperors were noted for their devoted observance of the Sigillaria.

The revelries and dropping of social status of Saturnalia were supposed to reflect the conditions of the lost mythical age, when Saturn, or Kronos, reigned over the world during a time of limitless bounty of the earth without labor in a state of social egalitarianism known as the Golden Age, the same as the Biblical Eden.

The Jewish Talmud ascribes the origins of this festival to Adam, who saw that the days were getting shorter and became afraid that the world was returning to the chaos and emptiness that existed before creation because of his sin, and so fasted for 8 days, representing the 8 days between Saturnalia and the winter solstice. When the days grew long again, he realized it was the earth’s natural cycles, and so made 8 days of celebration, representing the 8 days between the soltice and the festival called Kalend. Only later was the festival turned into something pagan, according to the text.

Christmas day also marked the first day of the year for the Anglo-Saxons, the German tribes that invaded Great Britain in the 400s and ruled the newly dubbed Angle-land (England) until the Norman conquest in 1066. Around 730 A.D., the venerable Latin monk Bede wrote:

They began the year with December 25, the day some now celebrate as Christmas; and the very night to which we attach special sanctity they designated by the heathen term Modraniht, that is, the mothers’ night — a name bestowed, I suspect, on account of the ceremonies they performed while watching this night through.

In Germany, the Yule festival was celebrated for 12 days from late December to early January on a date determined by the lunar Germanic calendar. The legendary Ynglinga Saga, written by the Old Norse Icelandic poet Snorri Sturloson in 1225, mentions a Yule feast being celebrated as early as 840. In the Saga of Hákon the Good, Snorri gives a vivid description of the German festival:

It was ancient custom that when sacrifice was to be made, all farmers were to come to the heathen temple and bring along with them the food they needed while the feast lasted. At this feast all were to take part of the drinking of ale. Also all kinds of livestock were killed in connection with it, horses also; and all the blood from them was called hlaut [sacrificial blood], and hlautbolli, the vessel holding the blood; and hlautteinar, the sacrificial twigs [aspergills]. These were fashioned like sprinklers, and with them were to be smeared all over with blood the pedestals of the idols and also the walls of the temple within and without; and likewise the men present were to be sprinkled with blood. But the meat of the animals was to be boiled and served as food at the banquet. Fires were to be lighted in the middle of the temple floor, and kettles hung over them. The sacrificial beaker was to be borne around the fire, and he who made the feast and was chieftain, was to bless the beaker as well as all the sacrificial meat.

The first toast was to be drunk to Odin “for victory and power to the king,” the second toast to Njörðr and Freyr “for good harvests and for peace,” the third toast was to be a beaker drunk to the king himself, with final toasts to the memory of departed kinsfolk.

Children would fill their boots with carrots, straw, or sugar and place them near the chimney for Odin’s flying gray horse, Sleipnir, to eat. Black ravens would listen from the chimney hole in the house to figure out which children were naughty and which were nice before the large white-bearded Odin would enter and reward the good children by replacing Sleipnir’s food with gifts or candy. Thor, whose home was in the snowy “Northland”, also rode a flying chariot pulled by two white goats, Cracker and Gnasher, and came down the chimney holes directly into the fire, which was his natural element.

St. Nikolaos’ popularity skyrocketed during Medieval times. The propensity of paintings of Nikolaos was matched only by the Virgin Mary, with almost 400 churches dedicated to him in England during the late Middle Ages. The earlier Yule-themed traits of Odin and Thor passed on to the German Sinterklaas since the Feast of St. Nikolaos was on December 6. This may be related to the fact that the 6th of each month was considered the birthday of the goddess Artemis, the same goddess many of the temples that St. Nikolaos had destroyed was dedicated to. After the Protestant Reformation, Nikolaos’ popularity dwindled in the west, except in the Netherlands. The image of Santa being a fat man comes from the Dutch-American poet Clement Moore in 1823, although Coca Cola ads helped trim his wild nature beard and dropped the smoking pipe.

Nikolaos the ConfessorClement Moore's Santa

St. Nikolaos was originally from Myra in Asia Minor, but his remains were taken to Mari in southern Italy in 1087, and by the late 1400s the city was in control of Spain, which was part of the Moorish Empire of African-Arab Muslims. This is why in the mid-1800s, Dutch folklore described the companions of Sinterklaas, “Zwarte Pieten”, or “Black Petes,” as little Moorish children. These “helper elves” were said to navigate the steam boat that took Sinterklaas from Spain to the Netherlands and took the role of the black crows in listening from the chimney holes and stuffing presents down the ones who had good children. Sinterklaas’ giant bag contained not just candy for nice children but a chimney sweep’s broom to spank naughty children, and some of the older Sinterklaas songs even say the bag was used to carry naughty children back to Spain. In Belgium, “Black Petes” still dress up in colorful moorish clothing and scatter pepper nuts, spice nuts, and special Christmas candies called “strooigoed” to those who ran into Sinterklass as he went around town.

Nikolaos and Black Pete

The relation between Sinterklaas and Black Pete also mirrors the relationship between Amoo Nowruz (“Uncle New Day”), a white-bearded “Father Time” figure who brings gifts on the eve of the Spring Equinox, and Hajji Firuz, little black-faced, red-suited harbingers of the Persian New Year. These soot-covered tambourine players are believed to come from the tradition of the “Mir-Norowzi,” a comical figure that was paraded around the city and given the power of being king for five days.

Black PeteHajji Firuz
Left: Black Pete and Sinterklaas; Right: Hajji Firuz

The red clothes and soot-covered faces and red clothes of the Hajji Firuz apparently goes back to the red-dressed fire-keepers of the Zoroastrians, who at the last Tuesday of the year, was sent by the Zoroastrian priests to spread the news about the arrival of the New Year and call on the people to renew their lives by burning their old items in the fire. The dualistic religion of Zoroastrianism seems to have contributed to the concept of armies of angels and demons doing battle with one another in Christianity since nothing in the Old Testament gives the Judaic Satan from Job that kind of power or authority. And in fact, other Alpine folktales tell of Sinterklass’ companion being the devil, who was shacked to him and made his slave, which fostered the concept of the satyr-like Krampus of Austrian lore. Sources from Germanic Europe identify Black Pete and the Sinterklaas’ demonic slave as being one and the same.

Like Batman, Nikolaos the Confessor used the inheritance from his tragically deceased parents to help the needy. Although Santa passing out candy can be traced back to Odin, the tradition is more popularly linked with the legend of St. Nikolaos sneaking golden coins into the homes of three impoverished families through the windows in order to prevent the desperate families from having to sell their daughters into prostitution for food. Other 11th-century legends tell how he was able to identify a butcher who murdered three children (or inn residents) and was trying to sell their butchered remains as ham, and then resurrected the children. Another legend says that after convincing sailors taking wheat to Emperor Constantine to donate some to the famine-hit people in the city of Mysa that they would not suffer for it, the sailors found that the wheat weighed the same after arriving at Constantinople. Another legend says that Nikolaos set sail for Jerusalem, but after having a Satanic dream, he prophecized a storm and then, a la Jesus, halted the storm and resurrected a sailor who had been blown off a mast. In Jerusalem, church doors magically opened for him, but having not stollen Jesus’ bit enough, he went into the desert to pray but was called back to Mysa so that he could walk through the church doors at just the right time to fulfill a vision given to one of the church elders that an bishop position should be given to the person to next walk through the door.

St. Nikolaos sneaking coins through the window

Although St. Nikolaos is not listed among the debaters at the famed Council of Nicaea, there is another legend that he passionately debated with the theologian Arius over whether Jesus was one and the same in God or a creation of God. Arius argued that the title “Son of God” insinuated inferiority to the Father, saying, “What argument then allows, that He who is from the Father should know His own parent by comprehension? For it is plain that for that which hath a beginning to conceive how the Unbegun is, or to grasp the idea, is not possible.”

And for that, jolly ol’ Saint Nick bitch-slapped him.

Nikolaos was kicked out from the council and Constantine threw him in prison, so says the legend, but then Jesus and the (now official) Mother of God vindicated him. In dreams, of course. The dreams brought the priests and bishops to Constantine begging to let pimp daddy Santa out of prison, which Constantine did after he saw Nikolaos produce both gospel and bishop garments from within his cell. So I guess the lesson here is it is completely all right to resort to violence to prove abstract theological points that even Constantine loathed.

Another similar legend says that Nikolaos helped stop one of Constantine’s armies from sacking the city and then saved three generals from being executed by appearing in a dream to Constantine, who rewarded the three men with golden gospels and incense burners, making St. Nick the patron saint of the falsely accused.

The afore-mentioned 13th-century Icelandic poet Snorri credits the 10th-century King Haakon I of Norway with being the first to combine the Yule festival with Christmas. Although Haakon kept his Christian religion secret at first, he eventually wielded enough power to request a bishop and priests from England to convert the country. By the 1200s or early 1300s, Yule became equated with Christmas, with The Grettis Saga saying that all Christians fasted from meat the day before Yule in preparation of the feast.

In the 1100s A.D., a marginal note written by a Syrian Biblical commentator, Dionysius bar-Salibi, said that Christmas had been moved from January 6 to December 25 so that it fell on the same date as the holy day for the pagan Sol Invictus, the Roman version of the Zoroastrian-inspired sun god Mithras that Constantine had worshiped. His birthday was also December 25. Macrobius, one of the last fifth-century Latin authors not to convert to Christianity, said that the proximity of the Saturnalia to the winter solstice led to an exposition of solar monotheism, the belief that Sol Invictus ultimately encompasses all divinities as one.

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that the date for Christmas was actually determined by calculating the date back 9 months from Passover to the day of his conception, the Annunciation, under the assumption that early Christians were following a Jewish tradition that creation (the Nativity) and redemption (the Crucifixion) occurred at the same time, but Passover and the Annunciation are also derived from the Spring Equinox, or Easter.

The Canaanite fall harvest was changed by the Israelites into Succoth, when they were to move into booths in remembrance of the Exodus, and the Canaanite New Year festivals became Rah ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur, the day of repentance. The Semitic early spring festivals which celebrated the birth of the new lamb became historicized into the Passover, when the blood of lambs was to be put on doorposts.

Even the very minor celebration of Hanukkah probably only showed up on Jewish calendars to provide some kind of a substitute for the winter festival of their neighbors. As David Frum points out, the Pharisee sect that eventually became Orthodox Judaism was actually in contention with the Maccabbees who miraculously held out against the Syrians by the power of divinely enduring lamp oil since the Maccabees not only took over the throne of Jerusalem but also the priesthood, breaking the Biblical law that only Levites could be priests. Since the whole rebellion was based around having to sacrifice against the rules of the Bible, it was understandably a controversy. (Not to mention the fact that the Maccabees allied against the Syrians with the Romans, the same guys who eventually burned down the Temple and put an end to Jewish sacrifice forever.)

The name Easter is based on the Saxon goddess Eostre, which is also related to the word “east” because the sun rises in the east, representing the resurrection of the sunlight. She is also equivalent to the Greek Aphrodite and the Roman Venus, whose lover Adonis is also crucified to a tree and was resurrected in the Spring. Fertility symbols such as the highly reproductive bunny and the egg became associated the rebirth of new life that comes in the spring.

Comic

In Norse mythology, the vegetation god Baldr (of Baldur’s Gate fame) is killed by a dart made from mistletoe and just like Jesus in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemuis, goes to Hel(l) to be resurrected during the Norse Apocalypse, called Ragnarok. Baldr had visions of his own death, as did his mother Frigg, wife to Odin, so Frigg forced all things on the earth to vow not to hurt Baldr except for the mistletoe, so of course, mistletoe became his kryptonite. After being shot by a mistletoe dart by his blind brother Hodr, who is sometimes guided by Loki, Frigg made an arrangement with the queen of the underworld, Hel, to release Baldr if everything in the world wept for him, but a female giant named Thokk, which some sources say was Loki in disguise, refused to weep for him, and thus prevented his resurrection.

Mistletoe is actually a parasite that grows off the branches from bird droppings and thrives during the winter, making it a suitable scapegoat for the destruction of vegetation during that time. Pre-Christian Europe viewed mistletoe as a representation of divine male fertility, possibly because its berries look like semen. Somewhere along the line this turned into kissing under the mistletoe.

The weeping for Baldr also mirrors the ceremonial “weeping for Tammuz,” which many women from Jerusalem did during the 7th century B.C., much to the prophet Ezekiel’s own chagrin (8:14). The symbol of Tammuz was the Tau cross, from which we get the letter T from. In Sumerian times, he was known as Dumuzi (literally “Good Son”), the Crucified Bread and Beer God who rose on Easter and was known as both “Shepherd” and “Fisherman.”

Tau Cross
Sumerian Cylinder From Nippur linking the plowing of grain with the Tau cross.

Dumuzi’s lion-riding wife Inanna was known in the Akkadian language as Ishtar, which is probably related etymologically with Eostre. In Canaan she was known as Asherah, and the Old Testament violently condemns those who worshipped her Asherah poles which symbolized the Tree of Life on which her lover was crucified on. Not only is there a long theological history behind associating Jesus’ cross with the Tree of Life, but infact other than the four gospels and a couple of very late pseudographical epistles attributed to Paul in the late second century, the New Testament refers only to Jesus being “hung on a tree.” The “Sacred Marriage” held between Dumuzi and Inanna was the subject of much erotic Sumerian poetry, which is mirrored in the Biblical Song of Solomon. There are several myths concerning Dumuzi’s tragic death, but the longest one involves him being taken by demons while sitting beneath a tree and then hung on a stake in the netherworld. A Mesopotamian cylinder seal dated between 2320 and 2150 B.C. shows a multi-horned Inanna welcoming Dumuzi back from the dead from the bottom of a tree. Sumerian statues of Inanna also look very much like the ancient “Venus figurines” like the “Venus of Willendorf,” earth mother figurines discovered throughout all of the Old World and dated as far back as 27,000 years ago.

Dumuzi Returns From the Dead

The Babylonians also celebrated the New Year Zagmuk festival of sowing barley in March/April, complete with the Christmas traditions of exchanging gifts, carnival processions, twelve-day feasts, and the staged re-enactment of the Enuma Elish creation myth. Each year as winter arrived, it was believed that the ancient seawater and freshwater monsters of chaos who gave birth to all the gods tried to slay their creations, and so in turn, the freshwater Apsu was tamed by the Promethean god Ea (or Enki) while it was the head god of the Babylonian pantheon, Ba’al Marduk, who battled and slew his primordeal wife Tiamat, before fashioning her corpse into the known world. Tiamat, who in Sumerian myths was Nammu, the great mother of both the universe and humankind, is probably another incarnation of the primordeal “Venus” earth mother. Thus, the Babylonian creation myth apparently represents the replacement of the far more ancient matrimonial religion with that of the patriarchal storm god cult.

The king of Babylon acted out the part of Marduk in the ceremonial New Years play. On the 10th day of the ceremony, he would enact the Sacred Marriage rite with his spouse or a celebate high priestess. In some versions of the story, Marduk is killed by Tiamat and then saved by his son Nabu, the god of writing, so in the enactment of the ritual, the king’s life was to be forfeited as well. However, a prisoner was usually used as a scapegoat for the king, and just to make it fair, a different prisoner was set free under some twisted sense of “balance.” Philo tells of a similar story of a madman named “Carabbas” dressed up and hailed as a mock king, and it is this story combined with the ancient myth of the sacrificed king that inspired the story of Pontius Pilate releasing Barabbas because of a non-existent Jewish custom of releasing a prisoner that the Romans would certainly never had honored even if it did exist. The tradition of the “mock king” holds parallels with some of the other cultural Christmas traditions as it follows the same themes as the dropping rank in Saturnalia and the five-day rule of the Mir-Norowzi. Even in late medieval England, St. Nicholas’ Day parishes held Yuletide “boy bishop” celebrations in which young men performed the functions of priests and bishops and were allowed to boss around their elders.

The myth of Hodr blindly slaying Baldr is mirrored in the apocryphal Book of Jasher in which the antediluvian king Lamech blindly shoots Cain with an arrow by the malevolent direction of his son Tubal-Cain, angering Lamech enough so that he then turned and killed his son in frustration as well. The story of Cain and Abel itself is based on an earlier Sumerian myth about two brothers, Summer and Winter, contending which of their sacrifices was more appealing to their father Enlil, and like the story of Cain (“Metal Smith”) and Abel (a possible pun on “Herdsman”), one is a farmer and one a shepherd, highlighting the ancient conflict between city farmers and nomadic shepherds. Just as Cain represented the city farmer and Abel the shepherd, Tubal-Cain is said in Genesis to have forged the first tools in bronze and iron while his brother Jubal was the father of the harp and flute for the “jubilee.” Just as Romulus slew Remus, Cain killed his brother Abel and was then banished to the land of Nod (“wandering”) and built the first city Enoch, which in Mesopotamia was Eridu. Later Kassite myth said that the first priest of Eridu, Adapa, was taken up to heaven where he met Dumuzi and Gizzida (“Good Tree,” Dumuzi’s double from the city of Lagash) playing St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, after which Adapa, on the advice of the wise God Enki playing the role of the snake in the Garden of Eden, denied the sky god Anu’s offer of the bread and water of eternal life, mirroring the Biblical interpretation of the Fall of Man and the story of the Biblical Enoch being taken up into heaven.

The second Sumerian capital city to take hold in ancient Sumer was Bad-Tibira (“The Fortress of Metal Smiths”), a natural identification for Tubal-Cain (“Bringer of Metal Smithery”), and the third king to rule the city was none other than Dumuzi the Shepherd. Another Dumuzi, called “the Fisherman,” ruled Uruk right before the famous king Gilgamesh. Since this Dumuzi captured the king to a rival dynasty in Kish that Gilgamesh was also in conflict with, it may be reasonable to link the fisherman Dumuzi with the tragic figure of Enkidu, who in Sumerian myth is blindly sent to the underworld by Gilgamesh only to be trapped there for not heeding Gilgamesh’s warnings. The Epic of Gilgamesh later absolves Gilgamesh of any guilt by placing the blame on Ishtar, just as Inanna is said to have been regretfully responsible for Dumuzi’s death in other versions of the Dumuzi myth. In yet another version, Dumuzi’s sister, Geshtinanna takes vengence on the storm goddess who killed Dumuzi, just as Ba’al Hadad’s sister/lover Anat takes revenge on the underworld god Mot for slaying her brother in a later Canaanite myth. In the Coptic Gospel of Judas, Egyptian Gnostics also rewrote the Passion story so that Judas betrayal of Jesus was a necessary part of some deeper cosmic mystery.

At the heart of this world myth lies the complimentary forces of good and evil, king and slave, and sacrifice and betrayal. The Persian historian and mythologist Mehrdad Bahar argued that the figure of the Haji Firuz is derived from ceremonies and legends connected to the Epic of Prince Siavash, which in turn derive from the ancient myths of Dumuzi, with the blackened face of the Hajji Firuz reaching back into the ancient symbolism of the vegetation god returning from the world of the dead, while his red clothing symbolized Siavash’s blood and the return of the sacrificed deity. His joviality, as with the Biblical Jubal, is the jubilation of Spring’s rebirth. The mothers of Baldr and Achilles, “the woman clothed in sun” in Revelation, and the Athena-like goddess of wisdom spoken of in the Toledot Yeshu all represent the same overarching theme of a protective mother or sister goddess watching over her Savior son/lover, who always dies tragically but is then reborn, whether it be Dumuzi, Tammuz, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Baldr, or Jesus.

Hitchens on Endless War

Hitchens in Syria

One thing I noticed about Hitchens that has completely confounded the Left is his so-called “conversion” from Liberal to Neo-Con, exemplified by his “betrayal” of Sidney Blumenthal to get at Clinton during his impeachment, and his support for the Iraq War.

Certainly it can be proved that, disregarding these two controversies, just about every position Hitchens has taken, including his approval of Sweden, can be placed on the Left side of the political axis. I think the problem with this is that almost everyone gets caught up in the Liberal vs. Neo-Con fight, it’s easy to forget that he was never very interested in the predominate cable news battles and typically limited himself to matters of foreign affairs. When the domestic agenda is one’s primary focus, it’s much easier to defend Clinton as a means of stopping a Republican takeover of politics.

I think it’s pretty easy to figure out the reason for his focus on world affairs: he was neither a Liberal nor a Neo-Con but rather never stopped being a Trotskyist. While Liberals and Neo-Cons both saw in Iraq a rematch of the same generational conflicts brought on by the Vietnam War, Hitchens’ belief that the North Vietnamese were not our enemy caused him to completely dismiss the parallels, so that he continued pushing for charges to be brought up against Henry Kissinger even as he made friends with certain Bushites like Paul Wolfowitz who many Liberals would rather have seen arrested. His single contribution to the state of the economic crisis was an article named “The Revenge of Karl Marx.”

Although his book, “No One Left to Lie To” managed to convince me that Clinton was in fact a mass-murdering rapist, his arguments in “A Long Short War,” based on the assumption that the Iraq War is a continuation of the Gulf War (which he ironically opposed at first), appeared to me to be sourced in the revolutionary desire for instant change over the more progressive strategy of gradual improvements (typified by the failed attempts to force regime change through sanctions). This belief was confirmed by a recent article of his called “In Defense of Endless War.”

As Glenn Greenwald snarkily put it: “Chris Hitchens last week: Endless War is good… Now: when’s Obama going to get our enemy Pakistan?”

I often wonder why no one ever asked him, “Exactly how many people would have to die for you to admit that the war was a mistake?” I think the answer to this is that he was less interested in the end-results of the Iraq War, which even many heard-headed Republicans have started to realize is indefensible in terms of lives and money lost, and instead saw it more along the lines of the “Big Picture” that the Saddam regime had to be removed — no matter the cost — as part of the world-wide ongoing transition from tyranny to freedom. He gave a similar answer that Lenin’s Communist Revolution, which killed millions, was necessary. Whereas Liberal Progressives are so-named because of their idealization of slow, non-violent change being the hallmark of civilized politics, Hitchens was closer in embracing the founding figure of the Democratic Party in saying that “Rather than [the French Revolution] should have failed, I would have seen half the Earth destroyed!” Having written a book on Jefferson and used Jefferson’s war on the Barbary Pirates as a precedent for the War on Terrorism, I would not be surprised if he held similar beliefs about the Iraq War. Another example would be the American Civil War that Karl Marx supported, which slaughtered more human beings than it freed from the bonds of slavery, but is nevertheless assumed to an entirely necessary step in the evolution of human freedom.

This belief that the ends justifies the means, working under the assumption these battles against tyranny are absolutely essential for the greater war against World Totalitarianism, is what I think drove his support for the War on Terror. Whereas Neo-Cons attempted to use America’s ignorance of history to argue that Saddam needed to be taken out due to the millions of Iranians and Kurds he slaughtered while forgetting to mention that the U.S. was supporting him at the time, Hitchens went the other direction to say that our prior support of Saddam made us all the more responsible for the fate of that country. For him, it was never about the danger Saddam posed to us but the danger his regime posed to the surrounding states of the future. Of course, the problem with this is assuming winning the battle justifies the losses and that winning the war justifies the battles, when it seems more likely that violence just begets more violence until the country simply erupts into chaos and everyone loses.

Although I think he has made some very compelling cases against the Pope that others may find extreme, his anti-theism has often been placed in the context of this same war against Totalitarianism: that the belief in God can be compared to a “celestial North Korea,” as he very often put it. But that comparison has never had any more force with me than Richard Dawkins’ pathetic simile for God being as realistic as a flying spaghetti monster. Working under the Freudian assumption that one’s parents often provide a massive subconscious influence, I can’t help but think that the suicide pact Hitchens’ mother made with a priest played a large part in his “anti-theism,” which if one parses the words, can be interpreted as an intellectual redefintion of hating God.

I could be wrong. Like most Liberals, I assumed that Bush’s desire to invade Iraq could be at least partially traced back to the belief that Saddam had tried to have his father assassinated, but began to have my doubts that Bush was emotionally involved in wanting Saddam dead when I heard that he had decided to sleep through the dictator’s hanging.

But for me, the thing that I will always remember Christopher Hitchens the most for is when he got into a street brawl with Syrian neo-Nazis after going up to a sign with a “cylone” swastika on it and scribbling, “No, no, Fuck the SSNP.” As Hitchens said, “My attitude to posters with swastikas on them, has always been the same. They should be ripped down.” Not many people can truly claim to have been in a fist fight with fascists. After his ass kicked and barely escaping with his life, his friend Michael Totten told him, “The SSNP is the last party you want to mess with in Lebanon. I’m sorry I didn’t warn you properly. This is partly my fault.” While I think most people would be berating themselves for their own stupidity, Hitchens’ reply best sums up his own combination of principle and ballsiness:

“I appreciate that. But I would have done it anyway. One must take a stand. One simply must.”