THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think


The Nazis burned and banned a lot of books, when they came to power in Germany. Among the books deemed so “dangerous” to the Reich, that required them to be banned and burned, were such authors as Plato, Gibbons, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, H.G. Wells, C.S. Lewis and Earnest Hemingway.



But despite all the literally hundreds and hundreds, of books banned, seized and burned, there was one book, that was actually LIKED! It wasn’t even a German book. It didn’t espouse German culture. And it was even written in a country, that had become a mortal enemy of Nazi Germany. Yet, despite all that, it was not only a book that was never banned or burned, it was READ.


Why would such a book, written by an Englishman, be valued over the science of “relativity”, Plato’s Republic, and even one of the most thorough histories on the Roman empire, ever produced? Because the author of that book, also produced one of the most vile Anti-Semitic caricatures, ever penned in literature. That author was Charles Dickens.

Gummer and Anderson have noted that the relationship between Dickens and Germany was one that began early in the author’s career with translations of The Pickwick Papers and that reached its height with David Copperfield. The popularity of translated texts in German-speaking regions (mostly of works originally in English or French) extended to Dickens’s fiction despite (or perhaps because of) a reduction of “alterity, or foreignness, of Dickens’s novels for a German audience” (Anderson 20-22). In fact, Dickens’s writing took the place of Sir Walter Scott’s as a literary model for German writers, <> In addition, he saw to it that his eldest son received an education at Leipzig by seeking the aid of his friend (and a publisher of his works) in Germany, Christian Bernhard Tauchnitz <> References to Germany in Dickens’s works, although not copious, do appear regularly.<> his novels were still popular enough in the twentieth century to the extent that even during the time of Nazi censorship, some of them, including David Copperfield, A Tale of Two Cities, and The Pickwick Papers, continued to be published (Welz 51). Norbert Lennartz claims that the continuous publication and reading of Dickens’s works even through this period could indicate that “in the context of Third Reich universities, the discovery of Dickens as a Modernist was obstructed, and academics less inclined to follow Adorno’s ideas than to regard the author of the Christmas Carol as a writer of shallow popular culture” (44-5). In a way, then, the predominant critical view of Dickens as a writer lacking complexity and revolutionary views in favor of cozy and optimistic depictions helped to continue the author’s readership.



One thing all promoters of  "Christmas" agree on, and that is "Charles Dickens" got it RIGHT!  His story "A Christmas Carol" perfectly embodies what all who value and venerate "Christmas" want to say. And that is why plays and movies and videos and TV productions are made every year, religiously, to repeat his "wondrous" message.

The "mean old Scrooge" "sees the light" and "does Christmas". Unfortunately, everyone is so "fascinated" and "entertained" by the opportunity to slander "Christians" who didn't do "Christmas" in their productions, they never really pay attention to anything else in it's content. (Or perhaps, maybe they actually do?) Which would be even more troubling.

"A Christmas Carol" is a hyped, vastly over praised, piece of "English" literature. It is like the stone idol of a turd, that people mindlessly worship, because people mindlessly worship. It's claim to "fame", is it's "fame". We have "reality TV" celebrities now, that do the same thing.

Dickens is promoted and venerated, on an almost religious level, for writing a fairly bad story about Christmas. And while "literature fans" may wish to grovel at the altar of his "genius", his actual "plot" line, was simply "dumb as rocks".  There is no "real story of an Ebenezer Scrooge" in real life, because that is just how "unrealistic" and "dumb" the plot-line actually is. There are "spirits" and there are "Ebenezer Scrooges", but how they would "interact" and form a "plot" would never even begin to resemble his "fiction" (and not even "close").

And how could it be believed that his fiction possibly “influenced” anyone to abandon their “faith”, and start observing “Christmas”, is really beyond the word “mysterious”. Because it certainly does not have the “content” that would ever even "begin" to reach across that theological divide, and make a compelling theological case, for that change in behavior. It's only real use, was literary "mockery" and "harassment".  Dickens and his "Christmas Carol" were the embodiment of a personal "insult", and nothing more. It completely fails, as a fictional narrative polemic, for "Christmas".

In fact, theologically speaking, "A Christmas Carol" is “prima-facie” evidence of all that is actually “wrong” about Christmas. And precisely, and exactly why, it should be abandoned, like the spiritual plague, it really is. Dickens himself blatantly shows it TO BE DEMONIC.

"Ebenezer Scrooge" has been described as a "Vicious Caricature" of the Puritan position against Christmas

- Asia Times Online (2006)

The ”Three Spirits” of “Christmas”, are all shown unmistakably by Charles Dickens, to be “Demonic Spirits”, very well known from both historical and theological sources. So in essence, “Ebenezer Scrooge” gave himself over to “Demons”, according to Dickens own fable, and they “drove”/”compelled” him to do “Christmas”? And this is supposed to “convince” “Christians” they should do “Christmas” too? (Because of a fictional story centered around 3 demons, that "demonize" an old man into "compulsion"?)

Dickens' "demonology" is fairly accurate as to both the past cause, present and future of "Christmas". But why anyone would think that would "convince" anyone to keep it, is an utter mystery. It's certainly not intended to be "persuasion". It is intended to be a malicious "mockery" and "harassment" only. And that is precisely how it's used.



"The Puritans" of Europe who came as refugees to America are often referred to by modern writers as some kind of isolated "alien species", but the truth of the matter is that they represented one of the few last vestiges of "Post-Reformation" Christianity left on the planet. The "counter-reformation" in Europe had already successfully annihilated "Protestant" countries, forcing them into a bastardized compromise after the defeat of the King of Sweden. All that followed was a mish-mash "hybrid" Christianity, that was in reality, neither really "Protestant" or "Catholic".

"Free Church" Christianity, on the other hand, existing outside these "political" compromises and considerations" of the "State-Church". It was "free" to pursue the subject of "Christianity" as found within the New Testament, on it's own terms, with no other focus in mind. Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists and Independent Evangelicals all came from the "Free Church" movement in Europe. (Not the "State-Church") These groups were "collectively" referred to in England as "Puritans". But they were in reality, nothing more than a diversity of "Free Church" Christians. (i.e., "real Christians"") versus those, "declared so" by virtue of natural "birth" in a "Christian state" and an associated "baptismal ritual" that sprinkled them with some water at "birth", completely apart from any wilful volition or cognition.

The "Puritans", were the actual forefathers of American Evangelicalism. The "majority" of America's "Christianity".

They also represented the "Free Church movement". Meaning they were one of the only remaining "Christian" groups left in Europe that believed in a "Free Church" (One that was not "defined", "controlled" and "run" by the government). This became the basis of their support for the  "First Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution.

When "Charles Dickens" came to America to "mock the Puritans" with his fable, he was mocking America's "Christians". The same ones that gave the world the first modern democracy, without a "king", and with "religious freedom" (a separation of "Church" from "State")


Do you "honor" your "historical" and/or "spiritual heritage", or do you buy "Toilet paper" and "Tacos" from advertisers that PAY THE BILL to MOCK YOU every year?

(If you do, then  you are getting what you deserve)



"Charles Dickens" was no "Christian". In fact, to put it bluntly, he was a demonized occultist who lived a secret double life of sexual hedonism and demonic debauchery, while siring 10 children with a woman he would afterwards completely forsake, for a "teen" actress, whom he began his "affair" with, when she was barely older than his own daughter.

But it wasn't enough just to hate the wife he impregnated 10 times, he actually tried to "get rid" of her, by having her falsely committed to an "insane asylum". Back then, "insane asylums" were worse than prisons.

I've now reached the point in Claire Tomalin's Charles Dickens: A Life where the nasty side of his nature can no longer be denied.  In fact, at one point Tomalin warns the reader: "You'll want to avert your eyes from a good deal of what happened during the next year, 1858."

As a father, he would speak of his children as though they were disposable, and he nick-named one after Lucifer. By even the accounts of those who literally idolize and worship him (by their own confessions), he was shockingly abusive to his children, even by the very low standards of the 18 hundreds (when slavery was still legal). That demonic behavior, is always predictably dismissed with the notation, that "But! his "genius as a writer", is "blah, blah, blah, blah" (fill in the blank).
And there is this comment in a letter on the occasion of the birth of his son Plorn (full name Edward Bulwer Lytton Dickens): "on the whole I could have dispensed with him."  It is jaw-droppingly awful in nature.  I don't care how strictly-run Victorian households were at the time, there is little excuse for such a cold-hearted statement.

So it would not be surprising in the least, that Dickens venerated the worship of Satan as Christ. He intentionally depicts the "spirit of Christmas" embodied in 3 demons. Which he then declares, "converts" the Puritan. And "miraculously", when "Scrooge" threw his soul away to these "demons", tiny Tim is then "miraculously healed".
That part of the story is not accidental either. Because one of the ways "Charles Dickens" promoted himself, was as a "faith healer". Not the kind that does so as a "gift" of the "Holy-spirit", but the kind that does so, through the power of the "occult". The power of "animal magnetism", (bestial power) also referred to as "Mesmerism". And Dickens was not just a "dabbler" in this "occultism", he was a "fanatic" of it. He was consumed by it and "eaten up" with it.
Naturally because of his focus on demonology as the source of "Christmas", and his opening scene with "Lucifer", the person of Charles Dickens, was like "cat-nip" to Masonic Luciferians, who loved him so much for it, they dedicated not one lodge, but two, in his name. (Even though during his life, he had been so "immoral", he knew his "membership" among them, would have been rejected) So he never even applied.
You will hear some Masonic "Luciferians" claim he was "anti-Mason". But that is "disinformation". He had one scene in which he playfully imitates Masonic rituals, in one of his stories. But that is the extent of his "anti-Mason" activity. His two best friends were both Masons. And his own son became a Mason. The Masons loved his worship of "Lucifer", in first scene of his "Christmas carol", ..and still do to this day.
If you think worshiping "Lucifer" as "Christ" is a great idea, you will love the child-abusing, wife deserting, devil worshiping, occultist "Charles Dickens" as well. And you will "love" "celebrating" his "Victorian Christmas", in full bow of "Lucifer". (Just as did the monarchy of England)
But it would not be "fair" to characterize the child-abusing, wife-abusing,  devil worshiping occultist "Charles Dickens", as all bad. He did some "wonderful things". He was able to obtain "money" from a wealthy backer, to run a "rehabilitation" home for London's under-aged teen-age prostitutes. A whole home full of young teen-age prostitutes! (for rehabilitation)
And lest you dare think the obvious, you should be told there is not one word, to that effect written anywhere. Because he gathered all such material up, and burned it himself, in a gigantic "bon fire" known as the "bon-fire at Gad's hill place".
When it began "raining" during the "bon-fire", Dickens said it was "God crying". What was in all that material? Who knows. He burned it. But whatever it was, it was so bad, it even "embarrassed" a devil worshiping, child abusing, wife deserting occultist. How bad could it have been? If you are not "embarrassed" over those things, what on earth could have possibly "embarrassed" you, even more? ??? ?????
Dickens's two youngest sons, Henry and Plorn, carried out baskets and baskets of letters to feed into the fire.  His daughter Mamie begged him to reconsider and save some of the letters.  However Dickens was determined that the task be completed.  As they were finishing it began to rain.  Dickens said, " . . . I suspect my correspondence of having overcast the face of the Heavens."

But please do not get the impression from this article, that the child abusing, wife deserting, devil worshiping occultist, "Charles Dickens" was not a "great man". His "socially conscious" depictions of the misery of life in London for the poor, and for children (like the kind he abused)  made for great entertainment.
But - perhaps surprisingly to the layman - the generally accepted view from historians is that while Dickens's was a mighty voice, he did not influence social reform as much as he is widely assumed to have done.<> "Although in his journalism and novels he attacked specific targets - Poor Law legislation in Oliver Twist, the brutal Yorkshire schools in Nicholas Nickleby, the law [Pickwick Papers and Bleak House], government bureaucracy, lethargy and nepotism in Little Dorrit, extremist utilitarianism in Hard Times - it's hard to trace any direct consequences on reformist legislation in any of those areas to Dickens's influence," argues Prof Malcolm Andrews, editor of the Dickensian, journal of the Dickens Fellowship.

As far as actually "changing" anything however, he was very careful not to do that, which was very appreciated by the very same people he was indicting for the problems, in his "socially conscious" stories, that made for fascinating entertainment, and sold him many books.
Hugh Cunningham, professor of social history at the University of Kent, argues that while Dickens "helped create a climate of opinion", he did not articulate a "coherent doctrine" of how society should be reformed - and that the author was at times as much in danger of being seen as a conservative as a radical. With Hard Times (1854) - a critique of the political theory of utilitarianism which holds that the proper course of action is the one that seeks the greatest good for the greatest number of people - Dickens set himself against thinkers like Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus and Adam Smith and their influence on government policy. Likewise, argues Cunningham, Dickens shared the Victorian establishment's fear of the mob - publishing Barnaby Rudge (1840) as a critique of mob action. The author had no sympathy for the working class Chartist labour movement and he was certainly no trade unionist. He favoured "strong prison discipline for those who broke the law".

He was truly a "voice" for the "voiceless", or perhaps he stole the"voice" of the "voiceless" and monetized it. But, who cares, either way, the child abusing, wife deserting, devil worshiping occultist, opportunist,"Charles Dickens" was a "great man", for doing it. So much so that he even promoted the worship of himself by his own crowds. (Perhaps using his "animal magnetism" "powers" of "Mesmerism" on them)

On top of all that, he was "humble" too.
Say what you might about "Charles Dickens", there is one thing you cannot accuse him of, and that would be the "superstition" of "Spiritists".  If there was one thing, "Charles Dickens" hated, it was "Spiritism".  "Spiritism" was all the craze in "Victorian England". Many of England's elite made a hobby and even a "passion" out of "trafficking" in "spirits", but not "Charles Dickens".
He was always "very careful" to distance himself from "spiritists" (even though they were popular among the upper echelon of London society). "Charles Dickens" was much to "scientific" to believe in the apparition of "spirits".

That is why he started a "magazine" which included telling "ghost stories". But he would also "expose" fraudulent "seances" occasionally in its pages. He made a lot of money "selling" ghost stories (which were also very popular forms of entertainment in Victorian England, around "Christmas time"), because as everyone knows, "spirits of the dead", are all about "Christ". (At least in the "State-church", it is)

But even here, unfortunately, the commoners of London couldn't appreciate "Charles Dickens" for the "great" literary "genius" he really was, (as a "great man").  He was actually accused of blatant plagiarism of his "stories".

But despite his "live-feed" of weekly "spiritism" from which he sought to profit himself, "Charles Dickens" wanted everyone to realize the "enlightened scientific" view he had about "spirits" from Mesmerism, that they were in reality, just the result of the universal invisible "fluid" that ran through everything, that could be "captured" and stored in bottles.
So he was very "careful" to "educate" the public against the "superstition" of "spirits", even though he made his living off of "selling" stories about the phenomena. Never mind, of course, this was also actually the "inspiration" for the "3 spirits" of "Christmas" (that were actually, in reality, that "universal fluid", he could never figure out how to get into a "bottle")
But none-the-less, "Charles Dickens" was a "great man" (way ahead of his time), in fact, even by today's standards, he is still "way ahead", because even now, no one has figured out how to "bottle" that invisible "universal fluid"? (Maybe one day, we'll "catch-up" to"his eminence", and learn how to do that) But he was definitely "very scientific", when it came to "spirits". Everyone else's, that is, except his own.
Though many traits can be found with the literary divinity referred to as "Charles Dickens", consistency and honesty would not be among of them. He remained as inconsistent and dishonest on the subject of "spirits" with the public, as he had been on the subject of fidelity, with his wife.

For while he was busy extolling the value of Mesmerism's "universal fluid" to the public, to dismiss the phenomenology of "spirits", he was in private discussing his own "spirit visitation" in correspondence, concerning the "spirit" of his dead sister-in-law, Mary Hogarth, whom appeared to him as the "Virgin Mary" as painted by Raphael. It told him to become a "Catholic", which apparently though, he never did. (Divorce and Catholicism did not go good together in the 18 hundreds)
No space here will be wasted on his useless ramblings about it, other than to point out (1) it happened. (2) He was a hypocrite in private concerning "spirits". And (3) it was "consistent" with his "Christmas Carol" propaganda. It told him to become a Roman Catholic. (And he didn't even have enough consistency within himself, to follow the advice of his own delusions)... and (4) not surprisingly, this happened right "after" the publication of "A Christmas Carol".
But aside from being "demonized" by "seducing spirits", taking the form of the dead, another reason "Charles Dickens" was such a "great man", is that he did not support the "Confederacy" during the U.S. Civil war. Not in the very end anyway. He did eventually "switch" sides, before the war ended. But is initial position was that those  "Yankee hypocrites" were not "sincere enough" in their "opposition to slavery".  "Sincerity of course, is a "huge" factor when deciding between moral decency and degenerate reprobation. And after-all if your not going to be totally sincere about stopping a horrific evil, what's the point in stopping it at all? Just let people die. Right?
Dickens implicitly supported the South, suggesting that the Northern calls for abolition merely masked a desire for some type of economic gain

- Claire Tomalin, Charles Dickens: A Life, (New York: Penguin Press, 2011), Page 325.
That is why such matters can be "very confusing" for child abusing, wife deserting, devil worshiping occultists. As everyone knows, the "slightest" "insincerity" could in all honesty, "tip the scales" between Hitler and the Holocaust, or the Allies. Or say, the enslavement of millions of men, women and children, or their human dignity and freedom? Anyone can see that was a "tough" decision, certainly for "Charles Dickens", it was, anyway. (Because he was such a "great man", no doubt)
Unfortunately however, despite the fact the child abusing, wife deserting, devil worshiping occultist,"Charles Dickens" was "such" a great man in all those other ways, some radical fringe crazy wacky people, like Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford Dictionary, slightly suspect, (just slightly) he may have slightly "struggled" with genocidal "racism".
Yes, it is very hard to believe the child abusing, wife deserting, devil worshiping occultist, "Charles Dickens" would also be a genocidal "racist" on top of everything else, but... yes, he was a virulent racist as well. (But he was still "a great man")
In fact, the racism in his literature is one of the reasons, his books were popular with the book banning, book burning Nazis. They couldn't help but admire his "socially conscious", sense of "white supremacy". (Even in the "Christmas Carol")
Although Dickens wanted to mock "Puritans" in his depiction of "Ebenezer Scrooge", as a literary device, he wanted to make "Scrooge" as repulsive as he possibly could. And Dickens (the anti-Semite) could think of nothing, as "disgusting" as a "Jew". So despite the fact, the features of most "Puritans" were just like everyone else in England, he borrowed the stereotypical characteristics and features of a "Jew", to transpose onto "Scrooge". He borrowed from earlier images of his hatred for Jews, such as "Fagin".
"The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice."

Dickens gave him

(1) a Hebrew name -Ebenezer

(2) A "pointy nose"

(3) And he even gave "Scrooge" the "occupation" of the "Jew money-lender".


The question is... what is "in" you, that would make you "love" it too?

( Maybe whatever it is...  is a "spirit" that really shouldn't be there, to begin with? )