The Embellishment Surrounding Auschwitz

In order for Auschwitz to rise above the rest of the carnage of WW II so as to be used as the means by which to keep the goyim full of guilt  and shame, it most certainly did need the embellishment of serial lying. Without that serial lying, coming in the way of embellishment and exaggeration Auschwitz is just one more tragic incarnation of evil found so frequently in WW II like Katyn forest, the liquidation of the Christian Kulaks, Operation Keelhaul, or American run death camps where 1 million German “disarmed enemy forces” perished in conditions every bit as horrid as Auschwitz.

There is nothing about Auschwitz that makes it anymore hororfic than many of the other events of WW II except for the lying exaggerations surrounding Auschwitz that embellished it so that it might stand heads and tails above all the other Banalities of evil that so characterized WW II. Honestly, if one wants hororfic apart from the need of embellishment or exaggeration one need only to consider the Quebec, Teheran, or Yalta conferences where post-war enslavement was agreed upon, and where countless millions were left to suffer for nearly 50 years under the bloody thumb of Soviet Communism.

And all that embellishment, with all the diminishing of all the other vile evil that necessarily followed the embellishing of one over the others, had a political advantage of allowing the Bagel to shame the rest of the world into giving way to his later malfeasance at every turn.

McAtee Analyzes Stephen Wolfe Using Theological Categories

Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Romans 11:36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things…

“We think that all faithful thinking has to be theological. But most things, to truly understand them, require non-theological analysis. That’s not to say that they are outside God but that the topics of the theological discipline cannot adequately explain/analyze them.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

“An Orthodox Jewish friend of mine spotted it immediately in a comment he made to me soon after seeing the movie (Gibson’s ‘The Passion of Christ’) himself and dismissing the charges of antisemitism as preposterous. ‘It’s all a put on, isn’t it?’ he remarked. ‘None of the guys claiming it’s antisemitic really believes that. It’s really just a question of power. That’s all.’

It is indeed a question of power because entirely apart from the theological, historical, and aesthetic merits of the Gibson film is the question of controlling the public culture, the way of life that defines American society and establishes public standards by which behavior, discussion, and thought are regulated. You probably do not have to accept Christopher Dawson’s view that ‘a living religion always aspires to be the center round which the whole culture revolves’ to grasp that religion is invariably a powerful force in defining a culture and that it is no coincidence that the words cult and culture both derive from the Latin cultus. The religion a society accepts—publicly, regardless of what its members privately believe—is what defines its morals and its patterns of what is and is not legitimate.

The angry controversy about (the movie) ‘The Passion’ is about which cultus will define American culture, and the conflict over the movie is a struggle for cultural power, for what Antonio Gramsci called  ‘cultural hegemony.’ Rabbi Jacob Neusner has remarked that Auschwitz has replaced Sinai in the religious sensibilities of many modern secularized Jews, and the bitter and hysterical war against Mel Gibson represents a further attempted displacement—that Auschwitz replace Calvary, that Christianity itself as Americans understand and accept it be defined and regulated by contemporary Jewish standards and those cultural hegemons who enforce them.”

Samuel T. Francis

I run these these three quotes, from Scripture, Wolfe, and Francis, together in order to demonstrate how mind bogglingly jejune Wolfe is to insist. “that to understand most things requires non-theological analysis”, by providing a Samuel Francis quote regarding a film. Francis’ quote, using theological analysis gets to the center of the meaning of Mel Gibson’s film as well as why it was so vehemently resisted.

Secondly, contra Wolfe and R2K, with their agreement on the Natural Law model of the world, there is no understanding of any reality apart from the usage of theological analysis and categories. I promise you any analysis that Wolfe does on anything is riven with theological assumptions and a-prioris. The theological assumption that is incipient in Wolfe’s quote above is that God is not needed in order to understand many aspects of reality. Wolfe is presuming that man can understand many aspects of reality in the context of completely discountenancing the God of the Bible. Autonomous man, can, starting only from his own reality, and as the measure of whatever he is analyzing, come to the truth of whatever he is analyzing.  You cannot understand the depth of the depravity of Wolfe’s quote without using theological categories to analyze his and its depravity.

Thirdly, what is odd about Wolfe’s quote when compared with the Francis quote is that Francis, who was not a Christian at the time he wrote this piece from which the quote comes, was not a Christian while Wolfe professes Christ. Here we have a case where the children of darkness are wiser than the children of the light.

I do accept Dawson’s view on religion and it is only Wolfe’s religion that could force him to not accept Dawson’s view on religion that religion/theology is the center around which all culture orbits. If we don’t do analysis on anything via theological categories then all that is left is doing analysis via humanistic categories, which, ironically enough, ends up being its own theological analysis.

Wolfe went on to describe anybody who disagrees with his quote above as doing the worst of worldview thinking. Keep in mind that Natural Law theory is inimically hostile to worldview thinking. It is only “natural” that a Natural law aficionado like Wolfe would say such a thing.

Dawson is correct. Religion/theology is the center around which all revolves and since that is the center than all is an expression of the religion/theology around which it revolves.

All the denials and vituperations of the Stephen Wolfes and the R. Scott Clarks of the world, who do not agree that everything must be analyzed using theological categories, no matter what else they might disagree on, will not change that.

What Christians Are Up Against

Not even in the time of the Crusades has Christian civilization been under such threat of dissolution by being conquered. In 1095 Christian civilization was hemmed by the conquering hordes of Islam when Urban II at the Council of Claremont pronounced “Deus Vult” in the raising up armies for Crusade to defend Christianity from the offensive assault of Isalmic madness that had been going on for centuries already.

Today we are in a much more dangerous place as Christians. We are challenged not only by a revived Islam, but were are also challenged by the rise of Globalism, which is an expression of the New World Order Religion of Luciferianism with its written “scriptures” called the Talmud.

On top of that we are beset with serious fifth column movement within the Church — the one Institution that should be leading the way in resistance. We not only have to fight the enemies of Talmudic Globalism and revived Islam from without, we have to fight R2K, WOKE Christianity (anti-Christian Nationalism, refusal to stand up for White Christians, embrace of sexual perversion, etc.), and Federal Vision, etc. from within.

The remnants of Christian civilization has been lulled to sleep and the hour is no so late that one has to wonder if it is too late now to awaken to beat off these threats to Christian civilization.

One thing is certain. We will not beat off these threats by prayer absent the sword. We will not defeat our enemies by pacifism. We will not push the enemy back by means of pietism. Those who desire the soft Christianity that lived off the capital won by hard and muscular Christianity in the days when Islam was rolled back and heresy meant with severe penalty need not apply. They and their descendants will be forgotten.

If you’re 30 and younger… if you want Christian civilization to survive you must learn the art of war. If you’re between 35-50 you must learn the strategy and tactics of war.

In a time soon coming, peace will not be a choice unless it is the peace of the cravenly, the coward, or the dead.

E. L. Hebden Taylor on Reformation’s Use of Natural Law & It’s Inevitable Failure

“Calvin had inspired in his disciples that energy of piety which abhors all halfway measures, which boldly endeavors to make all the affairs of life subject to Christ, the Head and Lord. . . . But what was needed, viz., firm principles about the relation of the Reformation to the forces of modern emerging culture—to the state, science, and art—this was lacking, and how could it be attained all at once in the midst of all the unrest of the time? Regarded in this way, we believe the appearance of natural law doctrine becomes comprehensible. A doctrine of the state constructed on evangelical principles was not in existence. But such a doctrine was imperatively needed and demanded by the need of the time. Men needed to have clearness about the relation of the ruler to the subjects, about the problem of Church and State, about the relation between different churches in the same country. No wonder that in the lack of a conception of the state revised in the light of fundamental evangelical ideas, men had recourse to the political theory taught in the traditional jurisprudence, without heeding the fact that that theory had an origin foreign to the Reformation, and involved tendencies and consequences which would lead away from the Reformation. These tendencies, of course, became apparent later in slowly developing after-effects, and then, especially after the spiritual enervation sustained in the protracted religious wars, they could not fail gradually to dissipate and destroy the Reformation’s basis of faith. . . .”

E. L. Hebden Taylor, The Christian Philosophy Of Law, Politics And The State, p.3

(quoting August Lang in the Princeton Theological Review entitled “The Reformation and Natural Law”)

Van Til & McAtee on Linguistic Deception

“Modernists will usually betray pretty clearly that they use Christian terminology before a pagan background . . . Modernism is the use of Christian terms for the purpose of conveying pagan thought . . . All the words that we daily use and give a Christian meaning must now receive a pagan meaning

Cornelius Van Til
“What Do You Mean?” The Banner, Vol. 67

This is called linguistic deception and we are seeing it all the time now. Linguistic deception treats words like eggs which can be cracked open and emptied of their content and then filled with new content. What these people do is they empty words used by Christians that have traditional meanings and then fill them with other meaning.

We see this w/ R2K for example. All R2K fanboys will affirm that Jesus is Lord, but eventually one learns that the word “Lord” for R2K fanboys means “Lord,” except for where Jesus is only “kind of Lord in a spiritual sense.”

We see this w/ Federal Vision types. They assert “Justification by faith alone,” and then they teach that there are two justifications, initial and final, and not all who are initially justified are finally justified. What’s the difference between the those who are initially justified and also finally justified and those who are who initially justified but not also finally justified? Well, what else can the difference be but the contributory dynamic of our works to that final justification?

We see this in Gary DeMar’s full Preterism. They recite the Apostles Creed but when they get to the part about Jesus returning again for the quick and the dead, suddenly that is reinterpreted to mean “returning for the persons of the quick and the dead but not their corporeal and now glorified bodies.”

Machen complained about this linguistic deception in his “Christianity and Liberalism,” continuously. He complained that Modernists (Liberals) where cracking open the words, emptying out the meaning, and then filling the words with new meaning, while still insisting that they were “Christian,” when in point of fact they were liars, just as the R2K chaps, the FV chaps and the Full Preterist chaps are liars when they do the very same thing.

OK… let me soften that a wee bit. At least some of them are epistemologically self conscious about their lying while the rest who are doing the same may not be epistemologically self conscious about what they are doing but instead are merely useful idiots.