Apologetics – Page 4

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III; Antioch Declaration (Part IV)

We continue fisking Humanist Manifesto III. We start with a quote by Martin Luther;

“But the Jews are so hardened that they listen to nothing; though overcome by testimonies they yield not an inch. It is a pernicious race, oppressing all men by their usury and rapine. If they give a prince or magistrate a thousand florins, they extort twenty thousand from the subjects in payment. We must ever keep on guard against them.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — hereinafter AD)

“We deny that it is possible to recover an ethic that honors our fathers and their momentous sacrifices while actively and openly dishonoring them.”

Paleocon

Are these Boomer-con blokes talking about themselves with this one?

Humanist Manifesto III — AD

“We affirm that as the secular liberal edifice crumbles, many will refuse to turn to Christ. As the “strong gods” inevitably return, godless influential figures will arise the same way Theudas did (Acts 5:34-39).[i] The temptation for some Christian leaders will be to ape such methods for the sake of clicks, followers and the ephemeral notion of ‘influence.’”

Paleocon

1.) Agreed … many will refuse to turn to Christ.

2.) As the “strong gods” inevitably return, those who were thought to be godly will reveal themselves to be a Demas’ and/or a Alexander the Coppersmith. The temptation for some “Christian” “leaders” will be to insist that they are not really playing the part of Demas and Alexander the Coppersmith and this so they can keep their stranglehold on the Church.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that it is possible to be a faithful Christian shepherd without identifying, naming and fighting the wolves which prey on the flock. As such, pastors have a duty to confront and rebuke wickedness in all its forms within their congregations.”

Paleocon

Agreed. This is what I am trying to do with this series.

I will say this though … in all of this Humanist Manifesto III the Boomer-Cons have failed to identify and/or name the wolves that they think are preying on the flock. Oh … and their names are on this Manifesto.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD_

“We affirm that in deeply unsettled times there is a carnal desire in fallen man to seek out a scapegoat for sin and social corruption. This sadistic urge seeks to expiate guilt by laying the blame and punishment for all cultural ills on an identifiable group(s). The victimized group(s) is offered up to the masses as providing ostensible ‘explanatory power’ for cultural decay, which all conspiracy theories must provide if they are to gain any traction. The Jews have often been the easiest target for this kind of sinful and decrepit thinking.”

Paleocon

If you can read the books below and not conclude that the fact that the Jews provide explanatory power for our cultural decay then you are a hopeless case.

A few of the books that I have read on the subject of the Bagels and Western Civilization/Christianity that will help you understand our Bagel problem;

When you finish these ask me for more.

Maurice Pinay “The Plot Against The Church”

E. Michael Jones “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit”

E. Michael Jones “The Holocaust Narrative”

Norman Finkelstein “The Holocaust Industry”

Stan Rittenhouse “For Fear of the Jews”

L. Fry “Waters flowing Eastward”

Henry Ford “The Int’l Jew” (4 vol)

A. K. Chesterton “The New Unhappy Lords”

Hilaire Belloc “The Bagels”

Michael Hoffman “Judaism’s Strange Gods”

Alison Weir “Against Our Better Judgment

Ivor Benson “The Zionist Factor”

Neil Gable “An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood”

John Calvin “Response To Questions And Objections of a Certain Bagel”

Martin Luther “The Bagels and Their Lies”

Andrew Carrington Hitchcock “The Synagogue Of Satan”

Ernst Zundel “Setting the Record Straight – Letters from Cell #7”

Giles Corey “The Sword of Christ”

E. Michael Jones “The Bagels & Moral Subversion”

J. Landowski – Red Symphony

George Armstrong — Rothschild Money Trust

David Irving — Hitler’s War

David Irving “Churchill’s War (3 vol.)

Now, obviously not all people who are Jewish belong to the seed of the serpent but throughout history there has been enough conflict between Christian civilization and Jewish tampering that we can say authoritatively that history teaches that this is a reality that all Christians need to be aware.

History here, as science, gives us certitude on this subject.

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III — Antioch Declaration (Part III)

Continuing to fisk the Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration)

We start with a quote by John Calvin;

“The Jews, indeed, seize eagerly on such declarations, and already devour by covetousness the wealth of all the nations, as if they would one day possess it, and vaunt as if the glory of the whole world would become their own.”

John Calvin

Commentary on Isaiah Chap. LXI. 6, — pg. 310

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — hereinafter AD)

“We deny that any particular view of the Allied leaders, their strategies, or tactics during World War II should be a test of Christian orthodoxy. We FURTHER deny that this civic adiaphora may be expanded to cover malice, vain glory, race-baiting, antisemitism, treachery, bitterness, or hatred. These issues are entirely distinct.”

Paleocon

Please note here that what the Boomer-cons have said here is that the strategies or tactics of Josef Stalin during WW II should not be a test of Christian orthodoxy. If anyone has read anything about Stalin and the way he pursued WW II as one of the Allied leaders they know that the man was a demon and that anyone who says that disagreeing with his mandated rape strategy visited upon women across Eastern Europe and Germany (as one just one comparatively minor example) shouldn’t be a test of Christian orthodoxy is just holding to a anti-Christ position. Oh, and what about the tactic that Stalin employed of shooting vast numbers of repatriated civilians in what was called on our side “Operation Keel-haul?”

As said earlier all these clown Boomer-Cons are doing in their “cover” statement is to poison the well. They are merely asserting without proving that anybody in the Church is full of malice, race-baiting, anti-semitism, treachery, bitterness or hatred. This technique of flinging accusations without substance was seen again most recently in the whole Webbon incident where they got caught in their slander and malfeasance.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that it is possible to harmonize the racial and antisemitic theories of Adolf Hitler and neo-pagan doctrines of the Nazi cult with the gospel of Christ and the teachings of scripture.”

Paleocon

No problem. We finally agree on something.

Would you mind giving names of who is doing this harmonizing in the Reformed church in the West? I mean certainly if you go this much out of your way to include this denial you must have someone concrete in mind. Names please.

Do you also deny that it is possible to harmonize the racial and anti-Christian theories of the Talmud and the neo-pagan doctrines of the Chabad-Lubavitch cult with the gospel of Christ and the teachings of Scripture?

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that if the superabundant, diverse forms and veritable glut of evidence – detailed in diaries, documented records, firsthand testimonies of eyewitnesses, extensive photography and videography all provided within living memory – for the deliberate mass destruction of millions of Jews by the Nazis does not amount to historical certitude for what specialists call the Holocaust, then the science of history itself is called into question.”

Paleocon

1.) History is NOT a science. Not even science is science. I would think presuppositionalists would understand that and not say such a stupid thing.

2.) Here we have an example of how the Boomer-Cons are indeed trying to make their interpretation of history the gold standard that everyone has to bow to. There are similarly tons of counter evidence to this. There is the fact that starting at the turn of the 20th century we find constantly repeated references of the danger of “six million Jews” being in danger. Then there is the fact that in the war memoirs of Eisenhower, de Gaulle, and Churchill there is no mention of this thing called the holocaust. Perhaps these chaps ought to consider reading “The Holocaust Industry” by the Jewish author Norman Finkelstein. Then they could read next E. Michael Jones’ “The Holocaust Narrative.” Maybe they could also watch the documentary, “1/3 of the Holocaust, by Dean Irebodd.” Maybe after consuming this material these Boomer-con clowns would be less confident of their handle on history.

What I call into question in light of this Humanist Manifesto III is the reasoning ability of these clergy doofuses.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that there is a vital biblical difference between the self-loathing of men in the grip of disillusionment over a failed idol, and the true repentance of the Christian man.”

Paleocon; This really makes one ask; “Who are the ones in the grip of disillusionment over their failed idol?” I think a case could be made that it is the Boomer-Cons who are in the grip of disillusionment that their failed post-Enlightenment idol has failed them.

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration) Part II

Continuing to Fisk the Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration) We start with a quote from Chrysostom;

“Let both Jews and Hellenes know that Christians are the guardians, protectors, rulers and teachers of the city; and let the reprobates and libertines learn the same thing, that they should be afraid of God’s servants, and that if they want to say anything blasphemous or mocking, they look around and fear even the shadows, fearing that a Christian might overhear.”

St. John Chrysostom

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — Hereafter AD)

“We deny that disillusionment and resentment over the lies one has been told is adequate preparation for standing in the truth and resisting a new set of lies.”

Palecon responds,

This is generally true and would be fine except for the fact that the Boomer-Cons have not proven that those they are excoriating are not standing for the truth and are not resisting a new set of lies. The above denial may be true but if the Boomer-Cons have not proven their case (and they have not) then it is merely an assertion.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that disillusionment and resentment make a person vulnerable to deception and frequently prepare the ground for accepting new falsehoods, setting the stage for further disillusionment.”

Palecon responds,

I affirm that envy and jealousy make a person vulnerable to tearing others down without substantial reason and that apart from repentance this envy and jealousy is preparing the ground for new future rounds of attacks, thus setting the stage for further division.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that neo-pagan secularism with its utopian religious motive arose as a consensus after World War II. Rather, it manifests itself as the political outworking of the so-called Enlightenment during the French Revolution and gradually won the hearts and minds of Western nations, being well expressed in the political philosophies dominating Europe prior to the outbreak of the two great global conflagrations.:”

Paleocon responds,

So your point here is that you’d rather refer to it as the post-Enlightenment consensus then “the post-war consensus?” Fine … if it will make you happy we will refer to it as the post-Endarkenment consensu.” However, that re-titling doesn’t help you in being right on these matters.

Can we at least get you to admit that with the 20th century WW I & II what was planted as a seed in 1789 came to full flower and has gone from blooming unto ever fuller blooming since those wars?

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that the aftermath of World War II served as a cultural tipping point for the secular narrative and its myth of religious neutrality which has functioned as a centerpiece for these lies. It has promoted this deception with triumphal hubris throughout all Western institutions, insisting on both an idolatrous religious pluralism and a mandatory globalist cosmopolitanism.”

Paleocon,

Hmmm … globalist cosmopolitanism?

Who in history has been known as being characterized by a “wandering” that is characteristic of “cosmopolitanism?”

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that a contradictory and pervasive thread of self-doubt and self-loathing has also formed an essential part of this secular narrative following the horrors of World War II. Thus, when the reactionary right challenges the “post-war narrative” they are not necessarily breaking free of it—this is a reflex that the post-war narrative itself has nurtured. The narrative thrives on an unstable mix of white imperiousness and white guilt.”

Paleocon,

So, what you’re saying is that self-doubt and self-loathing of bullied Western man is wrong and that self-confidence and self-assertion of Christian Western man is also wrong? Well, jeepers, is there any position that can be taken without being condemned by you Boomer-Con clowns? If we bow to the post-war narrative we are wrong. If we challenge the post-war narrative we are being reactionary and so wrong.

Why, you even seem to suggest here that any vigorous manly challenge of the false post-war narrative is likewise unhealthy and the result of woe begotten reactionary challenging. Why one might begin to think that only if we bow the knee to you ecclesiastical clowns can we discover just the right response to all this skubala narrative.

If we are imperious we have surrendered to the post-war narrative. If we are full of guilt we have surrendered to the post war-narrative. What is this? A version of Goldilocks where we are looking for the response that is neither too hard or too soft but is just right per the Boomer-cons writing Humanist Manifesto III?

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration) (Part I)

Today Humanist Manifesto III was dropped by the Boomer-Cons. They are calling it “The Antioch Declaration.” I hope to interact with it some over the next few entries

We will start with a quote by Augustine;

“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.”

St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — Hereafter AD)

“We deny that the Kingdom purposes of Christ and requirements of His Word can be equated with the seating positions of political actors during the French Revolution, or that the modern antithesis between right and left is equivalent to the antithesis that God established in the Garden of Eden between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, the kingdom of darkness and kingdom of light.”

Paleocon responds

I wonder if the Boomers who put this together know that even though the French Revolution gave us “the Left and the Right” as political categories realize that both the Girondists, who sat on the right nor the Montagnards who sat on the left belong to what today would be known as conservative. The difference between Girondists (“right”) and Montagnards (“left) is that the Girondists were moderate and soft left while the Montagnards were hard left. There was no right.

It is the same today. In wonderful irony these chaps writing this document belong to the soft-moderate left in the Church. They are not as far left as the WOKE left but they are still doing the devil’s work in opposing well established revisionist understandings of the post-enlightenment consensus.

Now as far as the antithesis goes, it is true that the Biblical antithesis is not the same as left vs. right but with that said can the Boomer-Cons give anybody on the left that doesn’t belong to the seed of the serpent? I can give all kinds of names of those on the Right that belong to the seed of the woman. So, there isn’t an exact mirroring going on here but everybody on the left hates the Messiah.

Humanist Manifesto II (AD) writes,

“We affirm that the modern neo-pagan secular project is bankrupt and desperately trying to hold the social order together by means of a fraudulent narrative and anti-Christian worldview. As a result, the lies of secular elites in all spheres have necessarily grown increasingly evident and outrageous.”

Paleocon responds,

I affirm that the Boomer-cons are likewise bankrupt, being a pale expression of the neo-liberal Enlightenment project. They are likewise seeking to desperately hold the ecclesiastical social order together by means of a fraudulent narrative that finds Hitler behind every thought that disagree with them and views themselves as being Churchills who won’t make the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain. I would contend that they likewise are holding to a anti-Christian world and life view, and in order to support it the lies of these would be gatekeepers necessarily grow increasingly evident and outrageous. This is a classic case of accusing your enemies what you yourself are guilty of.

Humanist Manifesto (AD) writes,

“We affirm that, as a consequence, some young men in the West have become jaded and cynical, with an element among them now rejecting or doubting the received account of virtually anything. The great danger is that now, instead of acting on the basis of revealed truth in Christ, they are in the unhappy position of reacting by choosing between opposing sets of lies.”

Paleocon responds,

I affirm that, as a consequence, many old Boomers in the church in the West have become bossy and imperious, with an element among them now rejecting or doubting the well documented revisionist history on just about everything over the last 200 + years since the Endarkenment. The great danger is that now, instead of acting on the basis of a Christian Worldview derived from Scripture that allows them to properly read and interpret history, they are in the unhappy position of choosing to believe the lies fed to them by the non-Christian court historians of the 2oth century.

Twin Spin #2 — McAtee Contra Wilson On The Value Of His Conservatism

In this 30 second clip the Modernist of Moscow tips his hand in a revealing fashion;

https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkx7CxL4q6HzpNHhIzYS7j1kJI0UjqHnL6p

Wilson is a classic example why Biblical Christians need to avoid the sobriquet of “conservative,” and why they need to be done with being followers of Wilson. Wilson has demonstrated for us that there is very little admirable in being “conservative.” This is why some of us have reached for other labels. Some of us have suggested “Reformed Dissident.” We certainly need some identification that marks us as distinct from the type of conservatism that Wilson embodies.

The three quotes below from Samuel T. Francis begins to limn out the problems that currently exist with being thought of as “conservative.”

“What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones.”

Samuel T. Francis

“Abandoning the illusion that it represents an establishment to be conserved, a new American Right must recognize that its values and goals lie outside and against the establishment and that its natural allies are not in Manhattan, Yale, and Washington but in the increasingly alienated and threatened strata of Middle America. The strategy of the Right should be to enhance the polarization of Middle Americans from the incumbent regime, not to build coalitions with the regime’s defenders and beneficiaries.

Samuel Francis

“The first thing we have to learn about fighting and winning a cultural war is that we are not fighting to “conserve” something; we are fighting to overthrow something….While we will find much in the conservative tradition to teach us about the nature of what we want to conserve and why we should want to conserve it, we will find little in conservative theory to instruct us in the strategy and tactics of challenging dominant authorities.”

Samuel Francis

Wilson in that link is nothing but astonishing … maybe “shocking” is a better word. I think my readers will find this link interesting.

To set this up, we need to keep in mind that there is a rumor floating around that Trump’s Sec.Def. nominee, Pete Hegseth is no longer a zionist, but that is not confirmed and is meaningless at this point. It is also interesting that I also heard that Hegseth attended a CREC church.

Anyway … in this recent clip linked above, Doug expresses glee over the possibility that Hegseth IS a zionist, all because it puts a damper on those Doug label’s “Aunti-Zemite” and that crowd’s hope of prevailing against the advance of Zionism in America.

The great irony of this is that boiled down: DW would rather a Christian Heresy (zionism) continue to prosper and haunt our nation, just to shut down a group of people he has a personal grudge against. This even though this heresy of Zionism is really aimed at the strength of the church in favor of a heathen belief and people.

DW expresses glee over a heresy which has subjected our children and nation to constant war / poverty. He takes glee in the undermining of the Church and nation, so that these “Aunti-Zemites” he so detests personally would experience setback.

It’s also interesting that DW in the clip above talks about “bad forms of Kinism.” Does this mean that DW finally recognizes that there is a Kinism that isn’t bad? And if he finally recognizes that would he possibly come out and say so?

Folks, conservatism is dead and ministers like Wilson (and Foster, and Sandlin, and Boot, and White, and etc. etc. etc.) are Pied Pipers either keeping us in the very bad place we currently are or worse yet leading us to an even worse place yet.

Dabney noted this long before Samuel Francis when he wrote of Conservatism in the 2nd half of the 19th century;

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.”

― Robert Lewis Dabney

Biblical Christians need to be done with conservatism and they need to be done with the clergy, like Wilson, who are the embodiment of the Conservative impulse.