A Blessed Christmas to Everyone

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends an atheist’s impassioned defense of Christmas, plus a roundup of the latest political news from Modern Multicultural Holland.

A blessed Christmas to everyone

by H. Numan

After the battle over Black Pete, we’ve got another one here in Holland: the fight over Christmas and New Year’s. Mohammedans don’t like Christmas. That’s why they mass murdered twelve people in Berlin and maimed fifty more. The Germans celebrate the New Year as Saint Sylvester day; mohammedans don’t like that, either. They don’t like much, least of all each other.

But first, I, a confirmed die hard atheist, would like to wish every reader a blessed Christmas! Definitely not happy holidays. Why the change of heart? Because my (non) religion has been hijacked. Just as your religions are. I’m not going into the debate on whether gods exist. That’s up to you. I don’t believe it, that’s up to me. For me, Christmas is a nice family festival. I don’t mind it at all. Is it religious? Of course, in origin. Rest assured, buying gifts and setting up a Christmas tree or a nativity scene is not religious at all. But we all do it, don’t we? And we love it!

However, the politically correct left has taken over both religious as well as non religious ideas. From now on, we are supposed to wish ‘happy holidays’ as not to offend. Who is offended? I certainly am not. Buddhists aren’t. Jainists aren’t either, nor are Shintoists. Also Hindus don’t have a problem with it. There are only two religions which are offended: extreme lefties and mohammedans. No one else. Again: only extreme left wing activists and mohammedans are offended, and they have taken over our way of life. Both of them try to subvert anything you can think of into their way of thinking.

I resent that. What actually is atheism? That you don’t believe in gods. Nothing more. Anything else is added. You can be conservative, gay, progressive, conformist or whatever and not believe in gods. The only thing atheists share is that they don’t believe. Period. Nothing else.

Does that mean other people have to share my non-belief? Of course not. That’s up to you. If you want to. If you don’t, and most Americans don’t, fine. Oh yes, I do have limitations, but they are based on science. If you really want you can believe the earth was created 6000 years ago — something all mohammedans do too — fine, but you would fail any geology exam worthy of the name exam. If you believe man is not a species of animal but something different, excellent. You’d fail every biology exam, but that is your problem. Not mine. And you share that belief with mohammedans. They go one better even. The divide mankind into two different species: believers and anyone else.

Only two religions do that. Extreme socialism and mohammedanism. You have to think they way they think. Nothing else is acceptable.

They have ways to make you believe. Lefties, at least in Holland, control public opinion, commerce and government. They simply changed ‘gelukkig kerstfeest’ into ‘fijne feestdagen’ (‘merry Christmas’ into ‘happy holidays’). Christmas bread is no longer sold as ‘kerststol’ but as ‘feeststol’ (from ‘Christmas bread’ into ‘party bread’). So as not to offend the other group of intolerants. But the same companies that refuse to sell traditional Dutch products bent over backwards to promote mohammedan products. You can’t buy Kerststol, as we don’t want to offend … but why don’t you buy halal food (you actually do already, also in America) instead? Maybe something extra to celebrate Eid al Fitr? Excuse me? That is not offensive to Dutch? Actually, no. It isn’t. Or it wasn’t. Most Dutch used to be very tolerant. As long as they weren’t bothered by you, you could do as you pleased.

That border has been passed. The left simply doesn’t care. You do it our way; there is no other way. Of course there’s a reaction coming. A lot of people, myself amongst others, don’t buy stuff in the Hema anymore. Easy enough for me, as I have to fly 12,000 km to shop there, but many more people share that feeling.

Hema stands for Hollandse Eenheidsprijzen Maatschappij. It’s one of the oldest large retailers in the country, and they introduced fixed prices. They prided themselves on relatively high quality for low prices. Even the design wasn’t too shabby. A few years ago Hema, as a first, introduced ‘El Hema’. It was a special program in which they sold as many Dutch products as possible wrapped up in a mohammedan outlook. For example, during Sinterklaas the Dutch buy often chocolate letters. Large pieces of chocolate shaped as the letters of the alphabet. El Hema was, you guessed it, introduced during that period and they didn’t have chocolate “Dutch” letters, but Arabic. It’s chocolate after all, what’s the big deal? Likewise, they promote each and every mohammedan festival to the max. The result? Declining sales. The whole ‘El Hema’ was a huge and utter failure. The Dutch couldn’t say they disapproved; that’s discrimination. They voted with their wallets instead.

A common sense board would immediately say: Which a**w*** came up with that idea? You’re fired! However in Holland, as in America, left-wing loonies have slithered into most board rooms. Making profits isn’t their primary goal. Converting heathens is. Instead of firing the marketing team that came up with that silly idea, they simply keep on going. Because the end justifies the means.

Look at feminism. In principle I am a feminist. When my mum told me women earn less then men, I was astounded. How is that possible? You get paid to do a certain job, don’t you? Does it matter if you got boobs or not? Not in my book! I was a kid at that time. Now I’m a middle-aged man, and I still feel the same. But feminism changed from equal rights for woman into more rights for women, amongst others the right to be oppressed. The few women who fully supported burkas in Holland are feminists. No exceptions. They also support polygamy and child marriage. They don’t support sharia law per se, but the majority of feminists by far have little objections to it. How low can you go?

That’s the battle that Geert Wilders will have to fight from 15 March onwards. He has plenty of good men (and women) to help him, but how do you change the collective mind of the ruling elite that has gone stark raving mad? Bonkers. Insane.

He’ll win the elections, no doubt about that. That doesn’t guarantee him a seat in government, mind you. The biggest electoral victory of the Labor Party was 53 seats in 1977. They were kept out of the government all the same. In the Dutch political landscape 53 seats is huge: that’s well over 1/3 of the entire parliament (150 seats). Rest assured that all parties will do anything they can to keep the PVV in the opposition.

But things do look a bit brighter this Christmas. As you may know, Geert Wilders immediately appealed his verdict. The prosecutor is now also appealing. He thinks a verdict without punishment is not enough. Not very clever, as Geert Wilders immediately twittered his boss is ambassador of the Moroccan Fund. This gentleman was unpleasantly surprised with that revelation. Gentlemen don’t tar other gentlemen, that sort of thing.

Something else came to light too: Judge Frans Bauduin, who refused to change judges during the previous trial, was equally biased.

And our beloved prophetess of discrimination Sylvana Simons left DENK. That’s the Turkish branch of Erdogan’s AK Party working within the Dutch parliament. Sylvana knows everything there is to be known about fighting divorces, and how to get the most out of it. She was married four times to rich (white) men and left them bare. This time she prepared her departure weeks in advance. Her departure came as a shock to DENK, who will have to find another useful idiot. She will continue to campaign in her new party, called Article 1.

This election no fewer than 82 parties are going to compete for 150 seats. There are no polls until January, but the PVV is rising. Currently about 37 seats. The campaigns haven’t started yet, but rest assured: ISIS won’t be satisfied with just one ‘minor’ incident. They produced a list of churches to attack, also in The Netherlands. The first churches have already been desecrated. I can’t add a link — the newspaper removed it, politically correct as they are.

We have a long battle ahead of us, but things look brighter. Let’s hope we can party in March!

— H. Numan

42 thoughts on “A Blessed Christmas to Everyone

  1. What I like about Christmas is that YAH, who exalts His Word above His Name, sent His Word to live with us and endure what we must endure on a daily basis. Then He (The Word) simplified religious law and duty by saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.” Neither the Liberals nor the Mohammedans with their present mindset and worldview are capable of doing that as they only love themselves. Thus, they are to be the most pitied. I will wish them a Merry Christmas and hold the door open for them even if I am slapped in the face on their way in. They only embarrass themselves, and do so publicly.

    • I agree with you. I would go on to offer that to continue on with the next idea that the whole law hangs on those two that a good test for a good law would be that they not violate those two. I believe in that spirit that at least in the founding of the US we were given the right to free speech and the ability to protect ourselves. I think it is against the nature of power to grant protection against itself. We probably wouldn’t have the national debt we do if we used that as a guide. You can’t say you love or have good will to all of the kids and yet to be born and support more debt.

  2. The writer has the right idea. It is up to the individual to believe or not. Nothing wrong with saying Merry Christmas, even if you are not a Christian, nor in enjoying seeing others enjoying their holiday. I always thought it was quite stupid and/or mean-spirited to do otherwise. Thanks for posting this.

  3. As an Athiest, I wish you all Merry Christmas. And may your halls be filled with holly, ivy, Christmas trees, Christmas cake, mince pies, Christmas pudding, Christmas cards, Christmas gifts and carols. As mine has since before I was born, and as I have made it, ever since.
    I wish for peace to all men, but as I am a grown up, I know, that ironically, peace is so precious, others wish to steal it form you, so you must fight to keep it. Or lose it.

    • Agreed, I’m an atheist too and love Christmas, even love many of the messages in the New Testament.

      And agreed also: peace must be defended. By strong borders, an adequate military, a sensible immigration policy.

      H. Numan does seem to imply that it’s a decision to believe or not. However, we can’t force ourselves – not believing seems to be simply how I am made/brought up etc.

  4. For the life of me I just cannot understand the sheer madness that is tolerated in European countries. Generally, Muslims appear to represent just 5% of the population in European countries yet it is the 95% MAJORITY that seem to have to change their ways to make the Muslims “feel more at home”?? Imagine that happening in Saudi Arabia.

  5. You have outlined perfectly why you find yourselves in the position you are today. Those that cease being champions of a culture find it destroyed, because nature hates a vacuum. To be a champion you have to believe. Not only have secularists rejected Christianity as a religion, they have also rejected it as a moral construct. You can’t have it both ways, because secularism believes in nothing other than the pursuit of personal hedonism. There is no unifying culture in secularism, other than if it feels good do it. Morality is all relative, with all lifestyles celebrated. Enter islam, a culture which does believe in something. Goodbye secularism, hello hell. I am actually optimistic about the future of Christianity in Europe, because when Christianity is persecuted, it actually does better. Christianity is actually growing in Iran as an example.

    • I think you either misunderstood, or did not bother reading, the sentences in the article stating that atheism is nothing but a non-belief in god. You are equating hedonism with atheism. Hedonism is not even a sub-variant of atheism, as you can have hedonists who believe in god.

      Also, the position of religious values as being above human logic, given by an unchangeable god, is logically inconsistent. Different religions have different value systems, so you actually have a choice as to which set of universal, pre-ordained values you live by. Or, you can be forced to live by the religion you were born into, which makes your particular value system completely arbitrary. Or, you can declare that your particular set of religious values is the true one, and the thousands of others which exist are false.

      I know some extremely religious people who are also logical, and recognize that belief is not supported by hard evidence, that belief is part of faith, which makes it an additional virtue for the believer.

      As a final example, it is simply not true that more belief in religion will immunize Europe, or anywhere else, to Islamic encroachment. The Catholic Church, the Church of England, and various US sects such as the United Methodist Church and the Reform Jews, have thoroughly surrendered to Islamic migration and claims of victim-hood.

      • Thank you RonaldB, well put. Look at the Pope: not a hint of criticizing islam.

        I’m an atheist and want to live in a secular society. Nothing to do with having no moral construct. What people like Carlos don’t seem to get is that one has absolutely no power to force oneself to believe in god. It would be lovely to have that kind of certainty in my existence, but I just can’t believe it.

        Secular countries have laws against murder, violent attacks etc. How is this having not moral construct?

        Regarding personal hedonism: some people do, some don’t live that way. Some of them believe in god, some not. Irrelevant.

        • But what of secular “religions”? Should I be forced to believe in – and work with – some utopian collective that is in conflict with my personal set of ethics? What prevents your secular god-state from instituting laws that mandate murder, violence, theft, etc. against an undesired (“deplored”) set of individuals?

          I have only one standard for a good religion: That it allows apostasy. 🙂

  6. I have often wondered if your average atheist would ever wake up and realize that Christianity is his best defense against radical socialism and radical Islamism. It seems the author of this piece is starting to experience this kind of awakening, as far as it goes. However, I think the author has grown so accustomed to his religion’s cultural hegemony (namely, the enforced belief in all sciences, social sciences, and public institutions, that mind comes from non-mind; that super-sophisticated, purposeful designs come from a non-intelligent, randomly-generated “selection” process; that all of our hallowed founding documents must be interpreted in the dark light of atheistic religion instead of being interpreted in the light of the very Christendom that gave the inspiration and supplied the people that built this falteringly great country of ours) . Until the author and his co-religionists voluntarily give up their legal and cultural hegemony (or have it removed from them via constitutional processes or revolution) our once great country will continue down the path of de-Christianized Europe until we are just as defenseless, and just as easy for our enemies–who now walk the halls of Congress, and hold occasional press conferences in the Rose Garden of the White House–to finish US off.

    • Like many who attack atheists you resort to building a straw man to knock down.

      The author states his position quite clearly: “Because my (non) religion has been hijacked. Just as your religions are. I’m not going into the debate on whether gods exist. That’s up to you. I don’t believe it, that’s up to me.”

      But there isn’t enough in the author’s own statement for you to attack so you take it upon yourself to provide your own, highly embellished, definition of atheism, the straw man – going so far as to define atheism as a religion, despite the fact that the author has described atheism as a non-religion, and to invoke the dog whistle of “co-religionists” to describe atheists in general – a term typically invoked to describe Muslims who support jihad. You attribute forced belief to atheists, which is true only of a small but vocal number, when it seems to be yourself who is much more likely to support forced conversion to religious observance.

      You have taken a kind wish from an atheist for a A Blessed Christmas to everyone and twisted its words to justify an unhinged tirade. Merry Christmas to you, Joel.

      • Rick,

        What you say is entirely true.

        While it’s fun to skewer bloviating dogmatists, we should remember that however hot the air from these people, they are not, in general, seeking to use force to advance their point of view.

        My own area of dogma is Darwinism. I believe there’s a general deterioration in the genetic stock of even full-blooded Europeans which dissolves the character needed to stand up against pressures like the left and Muhammadism. And why do I describe it as dogma? Because I do not have hard evidence, but only conjecture and circumstantial evidence, but it is what I believe.

        • Interesting idea but not sure why you’d refer to it as dogma. Circumstantial evidence and conjecture is a legitimate starting point for a hypothesis. A little evidence, a gut intuition and you build from there. You believe it’s true but you just don’t have enough evidence yet for it to meet the threshold.

          Dogma has the connotation of asserting something definitively with no interest anymore in consulting the data.

        • They are not seeking to use force perhaps because they have no power. But the history of Christianity is full of Christians using force very nastily indeed to advance / protect their point of view. I am not convinced that there are none who would not return us to those dark days ,given the chance.

          • Indeed so, Madge. A Wikkan (pagan) friend of mine has been threatened by people calling themselves Christians.

      • Yet, there are enough True Atheists who have succeeded in hollowing out the general moral structure of the West by fanatically – and successfully – arranging for the abolition of its symbols and creeds. generally by resorting to courts and laws backed by the state’s tax-funded guns. These Atheists are of a truly religious fanaticism; so much so that I can never be an atheist, because I am not religious enough for that. This is not straw-manning. We see the empirical results on a daily basis.

        Many of these so-called atheists are really deeply religious Marxist-Leninist or Nazi “progressives” who want to prescribe to others what they should or should not believe and say. Even the “good” atheists are too dumb to see how their militancy creates a cultural vacuum . . . that is sure to be filled by something that is likely far worse than what they were so stupidly undermining. Most of the useful idiots turn out to be atheists. They are generally the first to be executed by the new regimes.

        There are alternatives to the vacuum. No it does not qualify as religion. Alas, it demands a bit of thinking and self-discipline . . . which make me despair for the majority of the sheeple. They will be seduced by the immoral demagogues.

        • Alternatives to vacuum are always religions. A religion is a set of faiths. Catholicism is an example of religion, but two catholic individuals may differ on some specific set of faiths. Atheism is a religion, is a set of faiths. An atheist may BELIEVE that God does not exist, that Christianity is good culturally, etc. For the rest of your writing, I agree.

          • Almost, Bret, but the terms used here are confused.

            A religion may also arise in response to persecution or perceived persecution. This is happening in parts of Africa and in pockets of urban areas in China.

            A religion is a set of doctrinal beliefs. However, it is the sum of those beliefs that would be termed a “faith”. Thus Catholicism is an example of a religion, but two Catholic individuals may differ on some specific doctrine or dogma. They still share the same faith.

            Atheism can be a specific creed, but isn’t so of necessity. The kind of atheism that proselytizes with great vehemence, one which has dearly held doctrines/dogmas, and expresses condescension toward any other form of belief…that kind is indeed credal. In fact, Ernest Hemingway wrote the prayer for this kind of atheism. It begins, “Our Nada who art in Nada…” and so on. It was considered clever in its time.

            However, the atheist who simply wants to be left in peace, who is disinterested in the topic of faith and holds no animus toward those who do believe in a God…that’s the genuine article. Benjamin Franklin seems to have been this kind of atheist. He admired the Quakers but was not one himself.

            You might enjoy what is considered by many to be the definitive book on the subject, written by William James:

            “The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature”

            The book is the result of James’ Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, given in 1901-02 and published later in book form (as most Gifford Lectures are).

            Definitive indeed, as least from the point of view of the then-new field of psychology.

            Here it is at our Amazon page:


    • Well Joel, it would be sweet and lovely to believe in your god, but I can’t force myself to.

      But culturally Christianity is important to me (eg. architecture, music), many messages of the New Testament make sense for peaceful co-existence.

      Christians who give kindness and hope to others and pray for them instead of ranting at them seem good people and set a good example. I’m very glad to know many such Christians and I’ve learned a lot from them. I still can’t make myself believe in god.

  7. Thank you for that, I am also an atheist. After a thousand years or more of Christianity being a part of my culture and having it being moulded in turn by the beliefs and traditions of my people, Christmas and other Christian trappings are an important part of Western Civilisation.
    So when I went into the local Bin Inn (bulk goods) the other day to get some Stroopie, the Indian gentleman behind the counter wished me a Merry Christmas and I returned the sentiment, and the same with the Chinese lady at the Vegetable shop next door.
    What is the point of celebrating the “season” when there is no substance to what is being celebrated, or at least acknowledged.
    For the same reason I prefer the traditional AD/BC for years rather than the bland CE/BCE that academics are replacing it with.
    I would rather have a rich culture full of nuances, even if inaccurate, than a bland cardboard box that is as accurate as a machine can make.

  8. “If you really want you can believe the earth was created 6000 years ago fine, but you would fail any geology exam worthy of the name exam.” That’s a tyranny of (extreme) leftist and atheist. Atheist are not exempt from DICTATING that anyone will fail the exam if they believe the earth was created 6000 years ago. There is NO PROOF that earth was created millions or billions years ago. The so called proofs by using carbon dating or else has no proof. Carbon dating may be precise for some years but not for millions of years. Something that works for some scale does not necessarily works for much larger scale.

    • I’m not going into that silly debate. All you have to do is present some peer reviewed pieces of evidence that support your claim. Nothing could be more simple. Even better: after you presented your proof that the earth is 6000 year old, fly to Stockholm to pick up a Nobel Prize. It’s waiting there for you.

      After you graciously accepted your Nobel Prize, you will be warmly welcomed in Mecca and Tehran, where you will be honored as a hero.

      All I can say is: there is not one single piece of evidence supporting your silly claim. None whatsoever. Lord Dowding, a man whom I greatly respect, believed in elves. There is more evidence for that.

      • You miss the point. It’s a believe, and it’s not exact 6000 years. I’m not eager for Nobel prize. As RonaldB said “Because I do not have hard evidence, but only conjecture and circumstantial evidence, but it is what I believe.” It’s ok for me if an atheist said he did not believe about creation, but he has no proof. It’s not ok if he did not believe, and pretended to have proof. I don’t have a proof the world was created 6,000 years ago. But if you fail me in exam because of your dogma about the creation million years ago, I fight. Peer reviewed papers? You’re kidding me. They’re not always reliable, academics are not always reliable. This has also been pointed out in GoV several times.

      • This is so refreshing to observe intelligent person engaged in the debate.
        Keep up the good work.

    • Bret. We need to laugh now and then, so thanks from this atheist, and BTW, all the best for 2017 to everyone commenting here, and most of all to the Baron and Lady Dymphna!

  9. “If you believe man is not a species of animal but something different, excellent. You’d fail every biology exam, but that is your problem.” There is NO PROOF that human comes from animal species; chimpanzee, monkey, gorilla, or whatever. Failing the exam for believer that man is not a species of animal is a TYRANNY too. If you’re an atheist think there is no wrong in dictating it, you/atheist is very similar to the extreme leftist, and pave way to the extreme leftist. The solution is to have two acknowledged answers in the school: for theist God-believer and atheist. None can rule out the other answer in the school, both admit that they believe it, that they have no proof.

  10. The difference between an athiest and a religious person is simply that the Athiest ascribes no purpose to the existence of the universe….and the Religious look toward the First Cause as divine with an interest in His { or Her } creation. Random events have no morality. If our existence is random { as Athiests proclaim } then forget about good and evil….and get what you can. Pity the limited interpretive abilities of Athiests. One does not need Religious leaders….but common sense demands acknowledgement of a Creator.

    • I question several of your assertions from your beginning sentence to the last one, i.e., that “common sense” demands acknowledgment of a Creator. I know a number of people who have great “common” sense and yet have no need to tack a Creator onto their belief set. They would find *your* need to have them do so nonsensical itself.

      Why cannot people be left alone to believe as they will without the need to have others agree or be judged to have no sense, common or otherwise?

      In this case, I side with atheists, though I am not one myself. No wonder so many of them seem like bulls who have goaded beyond endurance by others’ incessant judgments.
      BTW, for Christians who are interested, G.K. Chesterton, a convert to Christianity, wrote a short but elegant essay on why Christians are ordinary folk:


      • Well said Dymphna. Belief is a personal thing . Many atheists started off believing as children due to religious education by parents or in schools. Sometimes the children of overtly non believing parents would believe due to teaching they received in school. With adulthood some retain belief , others abandon it , others still abandon it then find it again. I think problems arrive when one camp or the other try to make laws governing the behaviour of societies according to their beliefs or lack of them.
        Hope you are feeling better and have had a Merry Christmas!

  11. From Colombia, (late) Feliz Navidad! and Happy New Year to you all
    And let’s hope (and those of us that believe, let’s pray together) for a better 2017

Comments are closed.