A reply...

Local social conservative bloggers aren’t immune to the Christmas hysteria either. Consider Christopher Watts’ blog Into Good and Evil, particularly his post “Holiday trees?” He also goes off on the nonexistent plot...

(from a rather ordinary, yet watchful fellow)

This is about the post below this one. There is no plot, I was just noting what comes naturally to pagan cultures and the like. There is no room in which pagans with fascist tendencies gather and devise ways to attack the transcendent ethics or notions of noble pagans, Christianity, etc. Instead, the bundle of sticks bundles together based on psychological dynamics that come about naturally enough. There's no smoke filled room necessary. This can be proven from history.

This was his original challenge:I challenge any Christian to find any Biblical passage which indicates that Christ's church should give a damn about the name people give decorated trees or seasonal holidays.

Find one.

But I see plenty of passgaes[sic] saying that they should be concerned about feeding the hungry and helping the poor.

In the American context in which we happen to live there is this little logical point that the empirical facts illustrate that the American poor tend to be fat. There is another bit of logic to be had here, fat people do not need more food to help with their problems. So if we are to help the American poor, then feeding them is generally not the issue. It may make us feel good, but are our own feelings the point? As he went on this challenge did come to be about his moral vanity and supposed feelings about things more than anything. He does not seem to care about the actual/empirical problems of the poor enough to put aside the vanity of his supposed capacity to help the Poor. So he stands with the propagandists that argue that kids will starve if a government food program which is set to increase to a budget of a million and one dollars is "cut" to spend a million dollars instead, as according to our false shepherds their Herd isn't fat enough.

The Christian, Watts, argued (and he even cited some quack study in support of it)

Pediatrics is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics and besides, basic empirical facts can be proven in numerous ways as any researcher who applies logic to their search knows.

...that America’s poor aren’t really hurting because they are fat.

They are hurting, generally from their own excess adipose tissue.

Yes, believe it or not, he’s talking about body fat.

Mainly because he brought up feeding the poor, which has something to do with body fat, believe it or not.

Watt’s statement illustrates my complaint about Christmas. My complaint is that social conservative Christians don’t inject enough Christ-likeness into Christmas. Instead of using their efforts to talk about people in need...

Generally in need of another twinkie I suppose? Blinded by his moral vanity as he snivels on, a vanity that he ironically attempts to base on a Christianity that he does not even believe in, he utterly misses the spiritual problems typical to America's poor. For they generally need the Spirit and the principles that come with the Word to overcome their problems, yet instead he focuses on a suppposed material problem to be remedied by the State. Thus he cites modern politicians and their demands for money and so on which are easily dismantled. I will get to this as well as the Old Press and the homeless, now that he's brought it up. It will likely bring about more cognitive dissonance for him and so perhaps more little lectures about my supposed rage and hatred about it all. I suspect that the empirical or historical facts remain untouched by logic as far as this fellow is concerned.

...during the holiday season and campaigning to help them, they are obsessed with irrelevancies like the language Sears uses in its advertisements.

For the record, I don't even have a Christmas tree. I guess it's quite an obsession.

It's curious how the Leftist mind is almost always the same from person to person, feelings, obsessions(!), how much they care in their good lil' hearts while you do not, etc. There is a weakness to it. It is the same weakness that there was to fascist scholarship, as they are trying to use feelings as a weapon against the word that shapes them. It's a practical and eventually a violent rebellion against transcendence (e.g., a focus on transcedence like basic logic), often in the name of "the people" and "the poor" as is typical to socialists.

The Leftists who engage in that form of propaganda care little for the poor and seek to live on Christian ethics for a time as intellectual parasites, nothing more. So I do two things, as Karl Kraus would I use the associative propaganda and emotional conditioning as the material of satire that it is and shake the Leftists off of Christianity, as they do not believe it anyway. You would think that I'm giving away my methods here, yet soon enough the same exact Leftist that I just pointed these things out to is back to their attempts at manipulation of feelings and so on. There's nothing wrong with having our feelings about things and processing them or guiding them based on logic and Logos, it's the manipulation and rebellion against logic typical to the Leftist mind that is wrong.