Category: Apologetics

The Nature of the Atonement … McAtee Contra Libolt (I)

Here I pick up critiquing CRC minister Dr. Clay Libolt’s thoughts on the weakness of the Biblical doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Clay has appealed to a recent book by Andrew Remington Rillera who was trained at that paragon Institution of Orthodox Christianity — Duke Divinity School. Rillera has produced a book that insists that the atonement was not about the effect of the atonement upon God (objective view) but instead the effect of the atonement was upon the believer (subjective view).  Rillera’s book insists that the sacrificial imagery in the NT is aimed at grounding the exhortation for the audience to be conformed to the cruciform image of Jesus by sharing in his death. The consistent message throughout the entire NT is not that Jesus died instead of us, rather, Jesus dies ahead of us so that we can unite with him and be conformed to the image of his death.

Again, the impact of the cross work of Christ is on man and so the atonement is measured by the effect it has on man. This is in contrast to the teaching of the PSA which does not deny the effect the cross work of Christ has on man, but insist that the subjective impact can only make sense in light of the reconciling impact of the atonement on God toward man. In other words there is a manward impact upon the recipient but that manward impact only makes a difference because God set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. In the atonement God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them.

When we understand that differing theories of the atonement historically have fallen under three overarching categories;

1.) Theories which explain the atonement by the moral influence it has on those who will be recipients (Moral influence theories).

2.) Theories which explain the atonement as God’s eternally assigned means by which He would be reconciled to eternally loved but fallen sinners (Propitiation theories).

3.) Theories which proclaim the atonement as a cosmic victory (Christus Victor theories).

Some prefer a twofold classification of atonement theories, limiting the options to subjective theories as those which emphasize the effect on the believer, in distinction from objective theories which put the stress on what the atonement achieves quite outside the individual. Andrew Remington Rillera has given us a scholarly, erudite, but errant book that opts for option #1 with little to no consideration of the effect of the atonement Godward. This is “Christian” humanism and given Dr. Clay Libolt’s track record through the years of his ministry it is not surprising that Clay would be so enchanted by this volume from the Duke scholar and that despite the fact that such teaching goes against the Three Forms of Unity that Clay has sworn to uphold.

From here I will quote Dr. Libolt’s article that can be found here;

Harsh Justice, Introduction

Clay Libolt writes (Hereafter CL);

This theory of atonement is also “substitutionary.” Because we cannot pay the penalty, God sends God’s own son to pay it for us. Jesus steps in where we cannot. He pays the penalty on the cross.

I note here without developing the thought that this second claim of PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is a bit odd for at least two reasons. One is that the idea that someone can step in for the guilt of someone else seems strange. It’s true that occasionally a person will give up their life for someone else. I think about those who stepped in front of Nazi firing squads, allowing others to escape death. To do so was heroic. But what of the commander of the firing squad? To allow an innocent person to be executed or, rather, to require that someone die in those circumstances is on any account wrong. And in the PSA analogy, we would seem to be putting God in the place of the commander of the firing squad: someone must die; it doesn’t matter whom.

BLMc responds;

1.) I can’t explain why Clay would find this at all odd since Scripture explicitly tells us;

Rmns. 5:7 For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit,

2.) We would note that the Scripture does not teach that the Father “allowed” Jesus Christ to be a propitiatory sacrifice but rather Scripture teaches that God put forth Christ

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. — I John 4:10

3.) Clay writes that such an arrangement as the PSA would be “wrong.” We would ask, “wrong by what standard?” Clearly the death of the just for the unjust is extolled as pre-eminently right by God’s standard.

Him (Jesus Christ), being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:  Acts 2:23

Is Clay saying that God did wrong by sending forth Christ to serve as our substitutionary death.

We begin to see here that Clay is not only disagreeing with the nature of the atonement but we are seeing that Clay has embraced a very different God then the God we find in the Scriptures. This is not just merely a matter of disagreeing about the mechanics of the Cross (as magnificently important as that is). This is about the person, character and attributes of God. In the end this is competition between different understandings of Christianity. Clay wants to start with man. Christians want to start with God.

4.) Note that Clay has God being equal to a Nazi commander executing a poor innocent unjustly. Talk about loading the narrative in your favor. Does Clay really believe that orthodox Protestant Christian theology insists that God doesn’t really care who is the substitute for sinners?

According to the Heidelberg Catechism he swore to uphold the substitute for sinners can’t just any poor schlub;

Question 15: What sort of a mediator and deliverer then must we seek for?

Answer: For one who is very man,7 and perfectly righteous; and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also very God.

Secondly on this note, when Clay writes against Penal Substitutionary Atonement he is directly contravening the Heidelberg which explicitly teaches Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Question 12: Since then, by the righteous judgment of God, we deserve temporal and eternal punishment, is there no way by which we may escape that punishment, and be again received into favor?

Answer: God will have His justice satisfied (Penal), and therefore we must make this full satisfaction, either by ourselves or by another (Substitution).

Also here, Christ was not “some poor victim” of a Nazi Firing Squad Commander (God) who God just randomly chose to be our substitute as Clay would have it;

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me.

Ps. 40 “Here I am, I have come—it is written about me in the scroll: / I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your law is within my heart.” (Cmp. Heb. 10)

Jesus was sent by the Father and eternally willingly embraced what the Father eternally tasked Him with. The Son was not a victim of the Father but the Father and the Son with the Spirit entered from eternity into a covenant whereby God would be glorified in the cosmic impact of the Atonement.

Finally, while Christ was innocent in His person, as our sins were imputed to Him while on the Cross, as a public person He was our sin-bearer.

CL writes,

Second, there is a matter of proportionality. This goes in two directions. First, for God to require eternal punishment for temporal sins seems entirely out of proportion. Is it just for God to require hell for the sins of a child who dies young? Or a person who lives an exemplary life apart from the faith? But it is also out of proportion in the other direction. For the sufferings of Christ, terrible as they were, to balance the suffering of the world seems, well, not entirely adequate. Perhaps this is the reason that Christians seem intent on Good Friday of focusing on how much Jesus suffered.

BLMc responds;

This paragraph leaves me nearly speechless. The fact that a minister believes this and writes this is just astonishing. Understand that Clay is arguing here that God is not just. Clay believes that God is being unfair and overbearing by making the punishment fit the crime. Note, what Clay is doing here is that Clay is summoning God to the dock and serving as the jury Foreman Clay is demanding God give an account of Himself to Clay. It is stunning. Clay, according to Clay’s own standards, has determined that God is disproportional when it comes to punishment for sin.

As to Clay’s question;

1.) Yes, it is just for God to require hell for the sins of a child who dies young. Indeed, what is incredible is that any of us, regardless of our age and comparative innocence should be given grace. Clay is surprised by God’s justice. I am surprised by God’s grace. None of us deserve anything but Hell given both our sin nature and our sinful acts. When it comes to these matters we say along with Father Abraham, “Will not the judge of all the earth do right.” Who is Clay Libolt to call God before the bar of His adjudication?

2.) Yes, it is just of God to cast someone into hell who lived an “exemplary life” without faith. We find ourselves asking first, “exemplary by what standard?” Clay is clearly grading on a curve while God grades on a straight scale. All have sinned and fallen short of what God justly requires (living to and for His glory).  Also consider, is it really possible for anyone, saved or unsaved, to live an “exemplary life” when the standard is God’s perfection? Are we really to believe that a person who has lived their whole lives with themselves as God is a person who has lived an exemplary life? Can a person who has lived all his life for his own glory be said to have lived an exemplary life?

Can you believe a Christian minister is reasoning this way?

3.) But Clay doesn’t stop there. The man actually suggests that the sufferings of Christ on the Cross do not meet and so satisfy the way the world has suffered in/during world history. In other words, for Clay, the world has suffered more than Christ could have ever suffered during His life and on the Cross. Christ’s sufferings were not enough to pay (“not entirely adequate”) for all the suffering that sin has brought in the world. Honestly, even in my most generous moments I can’t see this as anything but blasphemous.

So, for Clay, Penal Substitutionary Atonement can’t be true because Christ didn’t suffer enough in order for it to be true.

We could go on a rag here but suffice it to say that Clay does not appreciate the suffering of the sinless perfect Man and Holy God and the suffering of sinners but clearly at Clay’s age it is unlike any reasoning is going to pull him up short.

Clay is Reformed. Bret is Reformed. Both Clay and Bret served in the same denomination. Clay and Bret can’t both be Christian.

Postmillennialism vis-a-vis Amillennialism … Foundational Differences Teased Out

“It is right for you to realise, and to take as the sum of what we have already stated, and to marvel at exceedingly; namely, that since the Saviour has come among us, idolatry not only has no longer increased, but what there was is diminishing and gradually coming to an end: and not only does the wisdom of the Greeks no longer advance , but what there was is fading away. … And to sum the matter up: behold how the Saviour’s doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily dwindling, and losing power, and falling. … For as, when the sun is come, darkness no longer prevails, but if any be still left anywhere it is driven away; so, now that the divine Appearing of the Word of God is come, the darkness of the idols prevails no more, and all parts of the world in every direction are illumined by His teaching.”

Athanasius, AD 296-372
Incarnation

“…the kingdom of God on earth is not confined to the mere ecclesiastical sphere, but aims at absolute universality, and extends its supreme reign over every department of human life….It follows that it is the duty of every loyal subject to endeavor to bring all human society, social and political, as well as ecclesiastical, into obedience to its law of righteousness.”

A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine
(Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1890] 1990), 283

“It would be easy to show that at our present rate of progress the kingdoms of this world never could become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. Indeed, many in the Church are giving up the idea of it except on the occasion of the advent of Christ, which, as it chimes in with our own idleness, is likely to be a popular doctrine. I myself believe that King Jesus will reign, and the idols be utterly abolished; but I expect the same power which turned the world upside down once will still continue to do it. The Holy Ghost would never suffer the imputation to rest upon His holy name that He was not able to convert the world.”

~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

As Amill eschatology believes that the Kingdom of God is exactly identified with the Church and only with the Church it is inevitable that Amills will diminish the necessity for Christianity to conquer in every area of life outside and beyond the Church. After all, for the Amillennial types, if the Kingdom of God is not inclusive of any area outside the Church and the Kingdom is only synonymous with and for “the Church,” there is no need to conquer those other arenas / areas that for the Amillenialist are “non-Kingdom” arenas.

What I mean is this: As the Amils are always leaning towards identifying the Kingdom of God only with the Church — thus drawing a bright line demarcating between Kingdom/Church activity and non-Kingdom/Church activity — the consequence is that the “consistent with their eschatology” Amils will always chide anybody in the Christian faith who sees the Kingdom as being an arena that is expansive beyond the Church so as in include arenas as education, jurisprudence, just war theory, politics, economics, etc.

Postmils, to the contrary, believing that the Kingdom is not identified as exclusively with the Church and believe thus that the Kingdom of God extends beyond the Church and so will do just the opposite of the Amill and emphasize the necessity that the Church, being the armory of God’s Kingdom, must seek to conquer every arena of human existence. The Postmills believing this then will, unlike their Amill counterparts, address these different various issues from the pulpit. This leaves their Amill counterparts apoplectic.

The fact that this analysis is accurate is seen especially in the writings of David Van Drunen, who I believe has drawn out the most consistently the errant implications of the Amil eschatology. Van Drunen writes in his “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”;

“God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world, but is preserving them through the covenant he made with all living creatures through Noah in Gen. 8:20 – 9:19.”

Van Drunen continues writing;

“God is redeeming a people for himself, by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham and brought to glorious fulfillment in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has completed Adam’s original task once and for all” (p. 15). As VanDrunen explains, “redemption is not ‘creation regained’ but ‘re-creation gained’” (p. 26).

When one follows this reasoning closely one realizes that for R2K Amillennialism the intent of Biblical Christianity is to preserve culture so that individuals alone, as extracted from their cultural context, might be redeemed. Individuals are redeemed while their cultural context by definition is unredeemable. If Van Drunen were a linguist he would say that God intends to redeem the text while leaving the context to experience soul sleep. This is consistent Amillennialism and because of this Amillennial “theologians” will go spastic in condemning Postmillennialists for preaching on subject matter that in their Amillennial worldview does not particularize the need for the individual as an individual to be redeemed.

This thus creates a ever growing hostility between consistent Amills and consistent Postmills. In this hostility the Amils will forever be accusing the Postmills of diluting the Christian message since, as the Amills believe, the Postmills major on the minors and the Postmills will forever rightly accuse the Amills of being cowardly pietists who love them some retreat and who are characterized in preaching a Christianity that redeems the text (individual) while leaving the context (culture) unaffected.

This explanation also sheds light on the fact that Amillennialism Christianity and Postmillennialism Christianity create very different types of character and personalities in people. People who are decidedly Postmil are typically going to be type “A” personalities who have a thirst to conquer while people who are decidedly type “B” personalities will be content to be passive and retiring — except when attacking postmillennialists and their eschatology. Amills typically refuse to fight unless it is to fight those (postmills) who never tire of fighting for the honor of Christ.

Is Theonomy Naturally Libertarian? Rushdoony Weighs In

Recently, I’ve noticed the Thomists insisting that Theonomists are by definition Libertarian. The most recent one mouthing that is Thomas Achord. I’ve seen Wolfe regurgitate this in the past. It is so frequent that I think they are trying to make it a ear worm of sort. Repeat it enough and the normies will just spew it out. Here is the latest statement as coming from Achord;

“Has anyone explained why theonomy, seemingly naturally, took on a libertarian framework?”

There can be no doubt that many theonomists have a libertarian framework. However, the idea that theonomy took this on “naturally” is just bogus.So, we see that like all good lies there is some truth to the statement above from Achord. There were those in the Theonomic movement who read their theonomy through the prism of Libertarianism instead of reading Libertarianism through the prism of God’s Law-Word (theonomy). The biggest offender here was Gary North and Rush made a mistake not squashing his son-in-law on this score. But there have been others in North’s wake. Guys like Joel McDurmon, Andrew Sandlin, and Doug Wilson have strong libertarian tendencies.

But is it really the case that Theonomy is naturally Libertarian or is this just a way to discredit original theonomy? Well, R. J. Rushdoony is someone who knows a little about Theonomy as he can legitimately be said to be the grand-daddy of theonomy. Listen to Rushdoony inveigh against Libertarianism;

“Libertarianism today which passes for conservatism is really a radical relativism with regard to everything except man. It talks about free market economics, but it does not believe in economic law. There are libertarians for example in the Los Angeles area and most of you could think of several who conduct seminars in this area, in Orange County and here. They claim to be teaching a free market economy. They will use free market economists… but in effect what they are teaching is a free market for all ideas and practices.

So that, when you push these people they say that I do believe it, since I believe in this total free market, in the right of marxism to practice marxism, I believe in the right of homosexualism to practice homosexuality (and Hess is in favor of this), I believe in the right of cannibals to be cannibals, I believe in the free market of all the ideas and practices. In other words, everything is equally false and equally true. In such a philosophy there is no truth to free market economics because there is no truth outside of man. As a result his position is an absolutism with regard to man. Man is his own God and there is no truth outside of man, therefore no system of economics, no system of religion, no philosophy can be true, only man as he is whatever he is is the truth.”

https://pocketcollege.com/full.html
IBL06: Sixth Commandment
Coercion

The only Libertarian impulse that was characteristic of Rushdoony was his hatred of centralized and leviathan Government. Rushdoony, following Scripture, believed that Government should be diffused and variegated between self, family, church, local, state, and finally federal. What we are getting today from many Thomists is advocacy for a kind of Nationalism that is top down that would make Abraham Lincoln proud. There is a good deal of Leviathan impulse with some people who are advocating for a “Christian” Franco or a “Christian” Pinochet or even a “Christian” Mussolini. There is plenty of Statists right now running around under the banner of “Nationalism” who need to be hooked up to a paleo-libertarian IV drip. 

So the next time the Thomists try to suggest that theonomy is automatically Libertarian tell them that they don’t know what they are talking about. If they were honest that truth wouldn’t be news to them.

Stephen Wolfe’s Dualism Baldly Stated

“More than any other discipline, theology is prone to becoming a political ideology. Theology’s source is supernatural; it’s propositions are above nature. And so people use it to conceal or to generate “tension” with obvious natural truths known by reason and experience.

Mixed with doctrines of utter depravity, theology is a constant source of trouble for basic truths informed by experience. Everything you think you know from observation, or from deep instinct, is actually “fallen” and needs to be replaced by seemingly absurd supernatural ethics.”

Stephen Wolfe
X posting

Bret responds,

When I read this I couldn’t belief Wolfe was serious since this was such a blatant appeal to the scholastic dualism wherein grace and nature stand opposed to one another. Note here that for Wolfe there are two sources of truth. One source is theology which is supernatural. The other source is natural which comes by “reason and experience.” These two sources of truth conflict with one another because supernatural truths are to be confined to an area that deal with matters that are “above nature,” while natural truths are, presumably, to stay out of “the above nature domain.” To be faithful in interpreting reality one has to keep in mind these two different truth sources and apply accordingly.

Now, as to this area of Wolfe’s “natural truths,” we find an epistemological appeal to autonomous man’s

1.) reason
2.) experience
3.) observation
4.) deep instinct

However, Wolfe’s problem here (a problem shared by all Thomistic Natural Law “thinkers”) is first the presupposition that reason isn’t itself fallen, and so is an untrustworthy guide for interpreting reality. The second problem that Wolfe has here is that experience, observation, and deep instinct all themselves are held to be likewise not affected by the fall. The four factors listed above do not suffer the consequences of original sin but are, in Wolfe’s classic scholasticism, all trustworthy guides to interpreting reality.  Reason, experience, observation, and deep instinct being definitional of who we are as humans all share in our fall and so are not sources of knowledge that can be cordoned off from theology as the source of truth.

Another thing that Wolfe does here is he tries to suggest that those non-dualist Reformed folks disagreeing with him are guilty of embracing “utter depravity.” Wolfe is trying to turn the pedestrian Reformed doctrine of Total depravity into the obscene doctrine of Utter depravity. It is most certainly not utter depravity to teach that all of man is fallen including his reason, experience, observation, and deep instinct.

Scripture supports this doctrine of total depravity which teaches that man’s experience, reason, observation, and deep instinct are fallen.

Romans 8:7 teaches

“The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”

And Ephesians 4:17f teaches,

17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as [f]the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

I must say that it is past odd that Wolfe, who repeatedly noted in his recent book that he was no theologian and so had no intent to take up theology, has apparently as of late become a theologian and so can post on theological matters like total depravity.

However, the fact is that Wolfe is a theologian — just as all men are — and only sought to sidestep thorny issues in his book by seeking to push theology off the table as he took up the subject of Christian Nationalism.

In closing, I can’t help but note how close Wolfe is to blasphemy when he above writes above about appealing to “absurd supernatural ethics.”

Wolfe is a practitioner of dualism and so is to be warned against. It is true that the man comes to some conclusions that we wholeheartedly salute but his methodology finds him to be nought but a blind old sow who finds a felicitious acorn once in a while.

On Those Reputed To Be Jews

“The Six Million constitute a lay religion with its own dogma, commandments, decrees, prophets, high priests and Saints: Saint Anne (Frank), Saint Simon (Wiesenthal), Saint Elie (Wiesel). It has its holy places, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It has its temples and its relics (bars of soap, piles of shoes, etc.), its martyrs, heroes, miracles and miraculous survivors (millions of them), its golden legend and its righteous people. Auschwitz is its Golgotha, Hitler is its Satan. It dictates its law to the nations. Its heart beats in Jerusalem, at the Yad Veshem monument … Although it is largely an avatar of the Hebraic religion, the new religion is quite recent and has exhibited meteoric growth … Paradoxically, the only religion to prosper today is the “Holocaust” religion, ruling, so to speak, supreme and having those sceptics who are openly active cast out from the rest of mankind: it labels them “deniers,” whilst they call themselves “revisionists.”

Robert Faurisson

Former French Professor of Literature at Lyon University
Statement regarding the religious implications of the Holocaust narrativeNow, immediately there will be those who will scream that Faurisson was a holocaust denier. This in spite of the fact that the uber-Leftist Jewish Academic Noam Chomsky once wrote; “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust…I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work.” One should also note that if even Auschwitz in the early 90s had to revise their originally grossly inflated death count total down from four million. The Chicago Tribune reported in 1992;

“Jewish and Polish scholars of the Holocaust now agree that the Auschwitz death toll was less than half the four million cited here for four decades. The actual number was probably between 1.1 million and 1.5 million-and at least 90 percent of the victims were Jews.”

It would seem to be reasonable to believe, that in light of this gross overestimation (a gross overestimation that lasted for almost 50 years) of death totals in Auschwitz that it is likely the case that gross overestimations were made in the numbers reported from other camps. The idea that the numbers were routinely grossly inflated has been reported not only by Faurisson but also by others such as David Irving and Ernst Zundel.

I, myself, do not have a concrete opinion on the matter of total deaths suffered by those reputed to be Jewish though I can easily see how it serves as an advantage for those reputed to be Jewish to continue to cling to these numbers. While, I do not have an established opinion on the total death toll on those reputed to be Jewish I do find it curious that so much is made of this death toll in comparison to the horrendous death toll of other tribal communities that receive comparatively little attention. For example, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Ukranians by Jewish Bolsheviks under Stalin. Also, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Armenians by the  Dönme (Jewish) “Muslim” Turks (members of the Sabbatai Zevi cult). We should also mention that holocaust of over 1 million German “disarmed enemy forces” (nomenclature used to skirt the Geneva Convention treatment requirement for POWs) inflicted by the Allies upon surrendering German troops after WW II, the holocaust visited upon the Khmer people by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the late 1970s, and the holocausts of Mao visited upon the Chinese in both his “great leap forward,” and during the later “cultural revolution.” Indeed, the 20th century could be labeled as the “Holocaust century” — especially were we to add the holocaust of the unborn.

And yet I’d be willing to bet the farm that 9 out of 10 Americans have heard only of the Holocaust visited upon those reputed to be Jews. One is left asking… “Why is that?” A cynic might say that the answer presents itself when one notices what people group it is that has been the guiding light of the Western media / Hollywood since its inception. Those who own the news/entertainment report the news.

Those reputed to be Jews have gotten a good deal of mileage out of their unique ownership of the trademarked word “Holocaust.” They have been able to play the global victim due to their trademark ownership. This is an insurmountable advantage when living in a WOKE global philosophy that prioritizes the oppressed victim over and above the evil oppressor class. Those reputed to be Jews have, because of their holocausted status, have become the greatest victims of them all. In the game of Cultural Marxist poker, where he who is the greatest victim hold the greatest hand, the reputed Jews who were holocausted hold the royal flush against all competing victimhood hands. The reputed Jews who were holocausted are the trump that trumps all trump. Nobody can out victim them.

Their victimhood card was played again just a couple days ago when their Prime minister Netanyahu, invoking the holocaust, said;

“No Nation Came to the Aid of Jews During the Holocaust.”

I think all those boys who died on the beaches of Normandy might argue otherwise.

But, all argumentation is irrelevant. When you hold the royal flush of victimhood nothing else matters, and that was the card, Netanyahu played when he said that.

This returns us thus to the opening Farisson quote. The Holocaust has been turned into a religion. Some wags have taken to calling it “Holocaustianity.” Farisson fails to mention above that Holocaustianity also has its own unique Messiah and the Messiah of Holocaustianity are those who we routinely call “Jews.” They are their own saviors, and one of the means of saving themselves is this new religion wherein all have to bow before their very real tragic history, being required at the same time to ignore the very real tragic history of many other groups who have experienced attempted genocide. If other peoples are to be sympathized with then the sympathy with which those reputed to be Jews are sympathized with becomes diluted and reduced in its guilt invoking power.

Another advantage of Holocaustianity is that serves as a “get out of jail free” card. Any behavior by those reputed to be Jews can be overlooked because, “after all they are the greatest victims of all time.” Whether it is the Deir Yassin massacre, or the sinking of the USS Liberty, or the bombing of the King David Motel, or the ethnic cleansing of Christian Palestinians, it can all be washed away because “we were holocausted.”

Even if Faurisson was wrong about holocaust death totals, the point he makes about the creation of a new religion is spot on. That Faurisson is accurate on this point is seen by that Lawmakers in several U.S. states have recently pushed for laws defining antisemitism so as to censor wrong-speak. One sees the problem here when one considers that there has been no push for laws defining anti-Christian speech so as to censor wrong-speak against Christians. I would submit this is an example of holocaustianity at work. Especially, when living in a climate where antisemitism is defined as disagreeing with someone reputed to be Jewish.

These kinds of things need to be said with the coming of Trump. Trump has surrounded himself with Zionists (Hegseth, Stefanik, Huckabee to name just a few) and Trump has been labeled by Netanyahu as “the greatest friend Israel as ever had in the White House.” Radio Personality Mark Levin recently introduced Trump as “Our First Jewish President.”  In light of all this voices need to be raised warning, (paraphrasing Pat Buchanan here) about the continued increasing Israeli occupation of America.

I shouldn’t need the tag that finds me saying, “I am not pro-Arab or pro-Muslim.” I am not even “anti-those reputed to be Jews.” I am merely pro Christian and I don’t think that anybody but Christians should have special protection in a nation that was established on Christian principles and I am against politically correct poker.