History – That… Which Matters Most

Will Spencer on the Manosphere, Neo-Nazis, Stone Choir, and the Wickedness that is Invading the Church

I’m not real sure what to cover or bring out when it comes to Will Spencer’s article, The Dangerous Secret Your Young Men are Keeping: Neo-Nazi Thought Has Entered the Church. It really does cover the entire Neo-Nazi movement that undergirds people like Candace Owen, Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes and others. But the article doesn’t really deal with those three. It shows the origins of their poison, and gives us a good indication of how bad it is in some sectors of the right.

The reason I’m sharing Spencer’s article is that if you have read my previous posts on Nick Fuentes, or the Post-War Consensus, you know that I’ve been trying to understand where all this foolishness comes from. Spencer nails it down with an elephantine bit more precision than I have been able to do. Those articles included: World War II and Hitler, Hitler, True Evil and Post-War Consensus, and Nick Fuentes vs. William L. Shirer.

What helps Spencer is that he was running in the circles of the manosphere, the Neo-Nazi’s and others for a while, without realizing how wicked the entire movement really was. It took a pastor coming along side him and showing him the truth about groups like Stone Choir in order to see their wickedness. Spencer has since become one of the best experts on the subject.

You can listen to his podcast here.

The Gospels were written much sooner than we’ve been told.

When Were the Gospels Written?

When were the gospels written? Decades after the ascension of Christ, later, or actually, earlier?

Let’s walk through this together.

First thing to understand concerning the dates of the Gospels is that it is all speculation and consensus, depending on where you stand. From the liberal camp, they will say that the gospels were written after 70 AD because Jesus speaks of the destruction of the temple, which took place in 70 AD. For them, Jesus could only speak of something like that if it had already happened. So their decision is based upon unbelief. They don’t believe that Jesus was a prophet, or knew the future. For them, He was just a good man.

For the conservatives, they always seem to claim that the gospels were written at the earliest, in the 50s or late 60s. Their reason for this is actually the opposite of the liberals. They actually believe that Jesus was and is a Prophet. This is why Jesus speaks of the destruction of the temple in the future tense. And since the gospel, book of Acts, or the rest of the NT speak of the temple actually being destroyed, they hold that all were written before 70 A.D.

I completely agree with this assessment. Jesus was THE Prophet. He foretold of His death, resurrection, and ascension. Foretelling the future of the Temple was child’s play. If He was right on the former, which He was, then the prophesies of the temple’s destruction were nothing for Him. He did ascend to the right hand of the Father. He also came again in judgment in 70 A.D. to carry out what He said would happen.

(Obviously, I’ve gone to preaching.)

Back to the date of Matthew, which is my main goal.

I hope you have seen that we have placed the Synoptic Gospels before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. But why do we claim that the gospels were written in the 50s or 60s?

This is what I was told while in seminary. The reasoning given was that it takes a while to gather the money to buy the paper, which was rare and expensive. The paper that could be had, was only used on the most important things in the world, like… grocery lists, love notes, and reminders to wash chariot, taxes, court records, contracts, leases, wills, and other such things.

We know all those things were written down in the days of Christ because of the great treasure trove of papyri found in Egypt in the late 1800s, and early 1900s. That discovery was a gift that showed us the life of the average Greco-Roman citizen.

This destroys the false notion that paper was hard to come by and so expensive that the disciples had to save their pennies in order to get enough paper before they started writing.

This is where the faith of the conservatives falls flat. They are trying so hard to be acceptable, scholarly, and responsible in their discussions of such a topic, that they rule out the possibility that our King already had a plan on how the gospels would be written, who would write them, and where the money would come from to do so. It is almost as if they think that the King of kings, the omniscient Second Person of the Trinity was sort of winging it, and only thought to have the guys start writing all that happened down during the 40-day stretch between the resurrection and His ascension.

The truth is that Jesus knew that the events of His ministry needed to be written down, and would have had His disciples doing just that during His ministry. We know this, because the same Person of the Trinity was having the prophets write things down before His incarnation. Every time YHWH moved in the lives of His covenantal people, He would raise up a prophet to write those things down.

For example, YHWH told Moses to write things down, Exodus 24:4. Moses writes down all the words of YHWH, so that he can read them back to the Israelites all that they had agreed to do.

In Exodus 34:27, YHWH instructs Moses to write down the covenant He just made with the Israelites after the golden calf incident.

YHWH Himself, actually writes the Ten Commandments: Exodus 31:18, 32:16, 34:1, 34:28.

This would continue with Joshua and the Prophets. It was done during the period of Joshua, Judges, and Kings. Even David had access to paper and was in the habit of writing things down to record the Psalms.

All this shows us that God established a pattern of writing down what He was doing in history. God always ensures that there is someone to record these events when He begins to move, forf covenant people. YHWH actually wants us to know about how He has moved in history. He wants us to remember, so that we declare His magnificent works to the nations.

So why is it, that we think that Jesus, as the incarnate YHWH, would not do the same?

Peter Leithart

Now please understand where all this begins. I confess that it is not from me. It was a short article by Peter Leithart that opened my mind to this truth. Blame him. Yet, what he writes, has a ring of truth to it. I never liked the idea that the gospel writers sat around for decades before putting pen to paper. This makes no sense. See his article here, where he writes:

Late dating of the gospels is historically preposterous. Even the most “conservative” dating assumes that Jewish Christians, who believed that the long-awaited salvation had finally occurred in Jesus, would wait over a decade before putting an ordered account on paper. On the contrary: The very first thing a Jew would do if convinced that Jesus was Messiah would be to pick up a quill and papyrus and start writing. Matthew, who wrote the book cleverly called “Matthew,” was a literate tax collectors who in all likelihood jotted down sermon notes as he followed Jesus around Galilee and Judea. Whyever would he keep those hidden for a decade before writing his gospel?

Why would he? We don’t. When something happens of significance, we write it down. This is because we know the importance of something that is written down. This was true of the Bible as well. Especially given… that the Messiah, whom the Jews had waiting for thousands of years, finally showed up.

Our scholars seem to think the gospel writers waited like modern historians do, waiting to get the full picture, which takes a few decades. For example, William Shirer, who wrote The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, was heavily criticized by academia because he put his book out so quickly after World War II. But why? Shirer was a witness to many of the events. He knew many of the people who lived under the Third Reich. He was writing down the events of history as they unfolded. And because of this, his book is one of the premier books on Hitler and the war.

I point this out to show it’s part of human nature to record great events in history. We should expect the same when the long-awaited Messiah shows up.

The Chosen Recorder

As for Matthew, I believe Jesus chooses him specifically to write down the things that Jesus is doing. Why is this? In general, we know that that all the disciples were chosen by Jesus for a specific reason. We may not know those reasons, but Christ does.

The best example of this is Paul. Jesus called him while he was on the Road to Damascus for the purpose of taking the gospel to the Gentiles, and to suffer many things for Christ. But Paul was also chosen because he was a Pharisee of Pharisees. He was trained in the Old Testament. He would go on to write much of the New Testament in his letters to the churches explaining the Christian life (I include Hebrews among his letters). But he wasn’t just writing them simple letters. Paul was writing to the explaining the Old Testament in light of the New Covenant, and Christ. His background as a Pharisee helped him explain life as a Christian.

Jesus choosing of Matthew was no less specific. Matthew was chosen because he was a man who paid attention to details. He was a tax collector and was educated. He knew how to write. He also knew how to get paper. It was a part of the trade to keep records of the work he did as a tax collector. So the need to wait 10, 15, 20 years before writing what Jesus did, was not necessary.

As Leithart suggests, Matthew probably started writing down things the moment of his calling, and may have even wrote things down before he was called. We don’t know with any certainty, but Matthew may have been part of the multitudes who actually heard the Sermon on the Mount, or witnessed the miracles of Christ. He may have known the Centurion, or others, who experienced the mercy and power of Christ.

I don’t believe for a moment that when Jesus said, “Follow Me,” that this was the first time Matthew had seen Jesus. But then again, I don’t want to take away from the possibility that it was the first time Matthew saw Jesus. Jesus could command as much. His calling on a man is effectual whether the man has seen Jesus or not.

What we do know is Matthew did follow Jesus, and immediately threw a banquet for his friends, the other tax collectors and sinners. Luke’s gospel gives us more details than Matthew’s does.

And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them (Luke 5:29).

This lack of the term banquet in Matthew’s gospel may be a testimony to his humility. He didn’t want to boast in being able to throw a banquet. Yet, he did just that. As a tax collector, he had the money to throw a banquet.

Why?

He threw the banquet so his friends could meet Jesus as he had done. He wanted them to know Jesus as He knew Jesus.

It is interesting how little we know of Matthew. His name is mentioned about five times in the Gospels and Acts, and his other name, Levi, three times. His name is found in the accounts of his calling, and in the list of the disciples. But no where else.

There are no recorded words between Matthew and Jesus. He never asks any questions that we know of. He is, silent…

But we do know he wants people to know Christ. The banquet shows us this. He invites everyone he knows to the banquet… and he writes. He records, and writes, so that people will know about Christ.

And it is after the Day of Pentecost, that Matthew sees the real need for all that he has written. There are all these Jews who have just come to know Christ who need to be informed. The Spirit has moved in them, but they need instruction. And Matthew is ready. He takes all his notes, put them in book form, and starts sharing so those who have come to know Jesus through the preaching of the word, can read the gospel for themselves. Matthew fulfills the purpose for his calling.

Conclusion

What I’m hoping you see, is that there would be absolutely no reason at all to wait a decade or two in order to put down on paper the events of the long-awaited Messiah. There was an immediate need for the gospel of Matthew. And Matthew filled that need for his countrymen. He was the first because he was on the scene for many of the events. He was THE eyewitness for the job. It was exactly why Jesus called Him.

If you like, you can listen to the sermon I preached on the calling of Matthew here. This post was the background work for that sermon.

A Voice of Reason

As I was working my way through the steps to get ready for LORD’s Day worship, I came across the following Proverb.

He who walks with wise men will be wise,
But the companion of fools will be destroyed (13:20).

I think this is the battle of the age at the moment. As you look at a previous post, you can see that in conservative circles there is a lot of confusion about whom we should follow. In many sectors of the far right, the answer is Nick Fuentes. I don’t get it at all. The man is nothing but a spectacle, who appeals to the base nature of a man’s flesh in the worst of ways.

In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he warns the pastor about those “who give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in the faith.” Fuentes does this in our modern context, and shows a real lack of godly wisdom.

Fortunately, there are those who do put forth a voice of reason.

Victor Davis Hansen is a voice of reason, at least when it comes to political conservatism. In the video below, he nails it on the issue of anti-semitism, and actually goes through an explanation of why we want Israel as an ally. It has been a while since I’ve heard anyone put forth the reasons why we have always been behind and allied with Israel. I know many try to tack on a religious component, claiming them as God’s special people and all, but that is not the reason. Israel is strategic. Israel is an ally.

Hansen also points out that what many in our society are given over to are the voices of those who are revisionist historians. They are not historians at all, but simply put forth history as truth without any basis. (This is what Fuentes does concerning the number of deaths in the Holocaust, offering no real evidence, put forth as evidence, without actual evidence. In other words, all he does is offer questions and more questions without any truth to his arguments).

Now what Hansen misses in the discussion, is not just that that men like Fuentes are antisemites, but that they are not Christian at all. This is my biggest concern, since so many young men in the church are listening to Fuentes. I’ve heard enough of him to know he is not a Christian. He does nothing to build up the body of Christ. He does nothing to further the cause of Christ. His entire MO is destruction and the fruit he is putting forth is not Biblical.

Not some might say I don’t have the right to declare that about Fuentes. But Jesus made it clear: you can tell a tree by its fruit. This is why I put forth that he does nothing to build up the body of Christ.

I was also thinking: what is the best way to understand Fuentes? Let us ask a few questions of our own.

Would you want Fuentes dating your daughter, given his unstable, hateful nature? Would you want this man to be a part of your family, this man who has no regard for authority (thereby breaking the fullness of the 5th Commandment)? Would you want him in your church, bringing division, casting dispersion, seeking the destruction of others?

As men of the church, is this who we want to follow? Is this who we want to emulate? It doesn’t matter that he has a large following or not: Hitler had a large following. Large followings mean nothing. After all, Jesus said and says, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destuction, and there are many who go in by it, because narrow is the gate and difficult which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

Fuentes is the voice of a fool. Let us be those who saturate ourselves into the way of Christ (see Psalm 1), and not sit in the counsel of the wicked.

All Are Guilty: Including King Charles

On Good Friday, I was perusing through the newsfeeds and two things caught my eye. Both of them were news stories that make you immediately say: “That’s not right.”

The First Offense

The first story came from The King of England, Charles. AS the King of England, he was supposed to give a message to all the Christians in his realm about Good Friday and Easter. He is, according to their government, the head of the church of England. Therefore, you would think he would understand the obligation to encourage those who were members of the Church of England.

But King Chuck refused to do so. His excuse was that he thought it might be offensives to the Muslims in his country, so he remained silent.

I had to remind myself that this lack of declaration should not surprise anyone. Remember who Charles is? He is the royal adulterer. Not only was he in an adulterous relationship with Camila before his marriage to Princes Diana, but also afterwards. The man’s full depravity has been on display for decades. He even made it known long before he became king that he would be the head, not only of the Church of England, but also all religions in the realm.

Apparently, after his non-declaration declaration, he is no longer the King of the Christians in the realm… just the Muslims.

The last thing that King Charles would ever want to do, is affirm the true King of kings, who condemns Charles and his adultery. Charles refuses to Kiss the Son… He is in rebellion against the true King.

This is what refusal to bend the knee looks like.

The Second Offense

The second offense comes a little closer to home, by the way of Houston City Hall. They were in the habit of giving a proclamation about Good Friday and Easter, but also decided not to do so because it would offend the Islamic population of the city.

They gave no proclamation all.

Again, this should not surprise us. The Houston City Hall has been the center of depravity for years. The people of the city had no problem with a lesbian mayor, who served a number of years ago. For those of you who remember, at one point, she tried to demand that all the pastors of the city, submit copies of their sermons to see if they included hate speech against the Sodomites in the city.

We must understand that this is what we should expect from those who are outside of Christ. The resurrection condemns them. They hate Christ and His followers.

Why is this?

The simple answer: They love the darkness, rather than the Light of the World.

John 3:19-20

⁹And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. ²⁰For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light lest his deeds be exposed.

Why would we expect anything more of the Houston City Council, or the adulterous King of England? They have done nothing but emulate the depravity and darkness for the last 50 years. Yes, they made their proclamations at times, but Christ rejects their proclamations.

As Jesus said:

Matthew 15:7-19

⁷You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:

⁸‘This people honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
⁹But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commands of men.’”

The beauty about the King of England and the Houston City Council is that they are no longer hypocrites. They are being honest about who they are. Their darkness is complete. They can try all they want to silence the good news. But it shall not work.

Nothing New

Realize that the attempt to silence the news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ has been going on since His death on the cross. The Pharisees tried the best they could to silence the possibility of the resurrection and then reality of the resurrection.

Matthew 27:62-66 shows their attempt to seal the tomb, thereby keeping Christ inside for good.

⁶²Now on the next day, the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, ⁶³and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ ⁶⁴Therefore, order for the grave to be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” ⁶⁵Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.” ⁶⁶And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.

The seal they placed and the guards who were there failed in their charge. The tomb was opened, and Jesus rose from the grave.

Once that happened, then they tried to silence the reality of the resurrection. Turn to Matthew 28:11-15.

¹¹Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. ¹²And when they had assembled with the elders and took counsel together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, ¹³and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ ¹⁴And if this is heard before the governor, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” ¹⁵And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

They chose a lie instead of the truth.

King Charles and the Houston City Council are attempting the same thing. They are attempting to silence the reality of the resurrection, and if necessary, lie about it as well.

But what they are also doing, is joining hands with Pilot and Herod in the death of Christ. They become partakers as the ones who put Him to death.

Representative God

What do I mean by the fact that they join hands with those who put Jesus to death? Let’s back up a bit so that we understand how God deals with mankind.

First, we need to understand that He deals with us through representatives. This is often referred to in theological circles as federal headship. It is the driving principle in which our government was formed upon by the founding fathers of this country.

What it means is that throughout history, YHWH has used federal heads in place of all mankind, to represent all mankind. The first instance of this is with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

As the first man, Adam is our representative, so that when he willfully and knowingly fell into sin, the rest of mankind fell into sin as well (see Romans 5:12-21).

Most of us know that. WHAT I’M TRYING TO SHOW you now, is that this federal representation is also true when it comes to Christ’s death.

The question is: who is responsible for the death of Christ on the cross?

Peter gives us the foundational truth about where the responsibility of Christ’s death is found. in Acts 4.

Acts 4:26-28

²⁶The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

²⁷For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Just as Adam was our representative in the Garden of Eden, so too, were Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews, representatives of the world in bringing about the death of Christ.

King Herod represented the Jewish leadership in putting Christ to death.
Pontius Pilate represented the Gentiles, the city halls, the adulterous kings, in putting Christ to death.
The Gentiles who were involved, the Roman soldiers, were our representative in putting Christ to death.
The Jews that were there, were the people of Israel’s representatives in putting Christ to death.

What this shows us is that fundamentally, we are all guilty of Christ’s death. Had we been there on that day, we too, would have shouted “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!”

But please notice that when Peter makes this statement, His major focus is with the kings of the earth. He is dealing with those who are set up to govern the people. He is addressing the King of England. He is addressing Houston City Hall.

Peter’s message is an all-inclusive message of federal headship. Listen to his quote of Acts 2.

²⁶The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

Peter changes Psalm 2, where it says “anointed” to the Greek version of that: “Christos.” He is making it clear that the governments of the world should Kiss the Son, and that Son is Jesus Christ.

Psalm 2:12

Kiss the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

This is why those in leadership want nothing to do with Good Friday or Resurrection Sunday. They don’t want to acknowledge what took place and will seek to do whatever they can to silence the message of the empty tomb.

We know this because their forefathers in darkness worked doubly hard in attempting to squelch the reality of the resurrection. The King of England follows in the footsteps Pontius Pilate. In fact, it is more than that. He is joining hands in the death of Christ. This is quite sad given his heritage and his mother. But heritages is no guarantee against apostasy. So he delights in joining hands with Herod, and with the darkness of Islam.

We shouldn’t be surprised. Saddened yes, but not surprised.

Nick Fuentes vs. William L. Shirer

When I wrote the two blog posts on the post-war consensus, World War II and Hitler, and Hitler, True Evil, and the Post-War Consensus, I didn’t realize that I was laying the groundwork for this post. This is because I had yet to be introduced to the reason for those two post: Nick Fuentes. I confess, I was ignorant of who he was. I was simply responding to those who were making arguments that Fuentes has put forth, and trying to put them into perspective.

I was beside myself as to why anyone in this day and age would argue that the number of those Jews killed in the holocaust was nowhere near 6 million.

Then Nick Fuentes was featured on Tucker Carlson, and I watched it. Fuentes seemed… decent and well-spoken. But something wasn’t right.

If I’ve learned anything about human nature in my 60+ years in life, anyone can present themselves in a good light when they really put their minds to it. And this is what Fuentes did on Tucker Carlson. He sought to build a case that he was a victim after The Daily Wire sent him packing for his views on Israel. The piece was given in a way that was meant to make us feel sorry for Fuentes simply because he was “just asking questions.”

In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right,
until someone comes forward and cross-examines. Proverbs 18:17

And of course, others have examined Fuentes, and continue to do so. Ben Shapiro really brought the receipts against Fuentes. I’m not a huge fan of Shapiro, but I don’t discount what he says at times. After watching what he said, this is one of those times. And if you don’t like what Shapiro says, how about Doug Wilson? He doesn’t give Fuentes a good report either.

If you reread the previous section, you will see and understand why I believe that there is no way for Fuentes to display openly and publicly the kind of demented attitudes toward sex and women the way that he does without having multiple black mold closets in his life, filled with the rotting debris of gangrenous lusts. The portrayals of gay porn that he has accidentally broadcast in the past provide just a glimpse of what is obviously going on. He has offered various explanations, of course—of the “aliens kidnapped me, what year is it?” variety—and anyone who accepts such explanations at face value might be the very chumpiest of chumps. Nick Fuentes is bad news, and one very lost puppy.

Read the rest of the article here.

But for my purposes, watch the video that Shapiro put forth. It’s only 5 minutes long.

Shapiro On Fuentes

Hopefully you see that Fuentes condemns himself in a lot of areas in that clip. He is atrocious. What I want to comment on, what I feel like I have some knowledge of, are his comments about Hitler and the holocaust. What he says, shows he knows nothing of Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, the Nazis, or the holocaust. He is just spouting absolute ignorance to all of it. What does he say? (It begins at minute 3:14 if you want to skip to that part).

“Buddy, it’s Führer Friday. It is Hitler Friday. Shut up. It is Heil Hitler Friday, n*gga. Heil Hitler. All my n*ggas [are] Nazis. Hitler was a pedophile? Kind of. It’s like, well, he was also really f***ing cool. So, you know, time to grow up. We’re not children anymore, am I right, boys? Let’s go. He…”
“It takes one hour to cook a batch of cookies (Jews), and you have 15 ovens, probably in four different kitchens, right? Doing 24 hours a day, every day for five years, how long would it take you to make six million? Hmm, I don’t know, it certainly wouldn’t be five years, right, the math doesn’t seem to add up there.”

And for some reason, he has a following. That following really is ignorant of history and the facts of the holocaust. But more on that in a moment.

Really F***ing Cool

Let’s start with the first statement. Sorry for the f-bomb, but I think we need to quote this man in context and say what he says. He thinks Hitler is “really f***ing cool.”

Instead of giving my opinion, let me quote from William L. Shire, who wrote the book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

“The man who founded the Third Reich, who ruled it ruthlessly and often with uncommon shrewdness, who led it to such dizzy heights and to such a sorry end, was a person of undoubted, if evil, genius.”

The one who follows Fuentes will focus on the word “genius” and completely miss the word “evil.” Let’s not make that mistake. Hitler was truly evil (however, he is not the ultimate of evil or the definition of evil. His evilness, in the grand scale, is actually quite normal evil and what is in the heart of every man, apart from the Spirit and grace of God.)

I think Shirer is a good person to turn to on the issue of Hitler. He lived in Germany before the war, and was a reporter there. He spoke German. He knew Germany. He knew the people. He heard Hitler’s speeches in person. Not things reported to him. He heard them and reported them to the world. He knew Hitler’s voice. He knew Hitler’s intention, and he knew Hitler’s intentions because he was one of the first historians to gain access on all of the Nazi documents and writings after the war. He was not only writing from personal experience, eyewitness testimony, but also the words of Hitler himself. He was documenting what they were intending to do. There was no speculation on the part of Shirer in writing his book. He was working with the facts of what the Nazis wrote themselves.

Knowing this, nukes the entire idea of the post-war consensus, since there as no consensus when Shirer wrote his book. In fact, he was criticized for writing and releasing his book so soon after the War ended. Perhaps this criticism comes about because he was not in consensus with anyone. The consensus had not had time to be formed, and he was defeating the purpose of those who were working to form a consensus. But this is just speculation. Please don’t put too much stock in that.

I point all this out, so we understand, that Shirer was an eyewitness to the things that happened in Germany before and after the war, and was in contact with many Germans during the war. He had to leave in 1940, but was back and in contact with many during the war.

We could say, that of the two men, Shirer was actually an expert on Hitler, whereas Fuentes? He has a podcast that he operates from his parents’ basement. Has Fuentes ever been to Germany? I doubt it. In his comments to Tucker, he was offered a free trip to Israel, and he refused to go, under the guise of “America First.” This doesn’t give him much credibility.

Yet, he admires Hitler, like some starry-eyed groupie.

Shirer never looks upon Hitler with any admiration at all. He called him a “madman,” after Hitler gave a speech. He said he was “evil, genius,” as I mentioned above. Shirer didn’t just call him a madman. He spent some 1,000 pages showing what a madman Hitler was. He recounted how his evilness played out on the German people, and the Jews, and the Poles, and the Czechs, and anyone else who stood in his way. And yes, that included Christians as well, especially the pastors who spoke out against him.

Was Hitler cool? Not in the least. There really was nothing likable about Adolf Hitler. Even those close to him, feared him, because he was so unstable. But cool?

Only a fool sitting in his mother’s basement in 21st century America, far removed from the ghettos, and trenches filled with Jewish bodies, would say something so stupid.

And for some reason, people think Fuentes is worthy of attention.

Now Fuentes’ speculation about 6 million Jews being destroyed like cookies is even more egregious than the stupidity of “Hitler is f***ing cool.” Why? Because Fuentes

trivializes what took place in the ovens in the concentration camps by calling Jews “cookies.” He doesn’t have the decency to call them human beings. He ignores that those bearing God’s image were being ruthlessly murdered, torched, and gassed. He gets cutesy over their deaths by using the metaphor “cookies.”

And he thinks he is something else by asking the “deep” questions: How could 6 million Jews actually be killed in a five year period in the ovens alone?

The problem with this genius observation of his is that no one was saying that 6 million were gassed. The six million Jews killed were killed during the Holocaust, of which, many died in the concentration camps. But the Holocaust didn’t just occur in the concentration camps. It occurred in the ghettos, in the streets, throughout the country side.

Shirer gives this account from an eyewitness of those who were line up and executed for being Jews:

“Without screaming or weeping these people undressed, stood around in family groups, kissed each other, said farewells and waited for a sign from another S.S. man, who stood near the pit, also with a whip in his hand. During the fifteen minutes that I stood near the pit I heard no complaint or plea for mercy… An old woman with snow-white hair was holding a one-year-old child in her arms and singing to it and tickling it. The child was cooing with delight. The parents were looking on with tears in their eyes. The father was holding the hand of a boy about 10 years old and speaking to him softly; the boy was fighting his tears. The father pointed to the sky, stroked his head and seemed to explain something to him.

At that moment the S.S. man at the pit shouted something to his comrade. The latter counted off about twenty persons and instructed them to go behind the earth mound… I well remember a girl, slim and with black hair, who, as she passed close to me, pointed to herself and said: “twenty-three years old.” I walked around the mound and found myself confronted by a tremendous grave. People were closely wedged together and lying on top of each other so that only their heads were visible. Nearly all had blood running over their shoulders from their heads. Some of the people were still moving. Some were lifting their arms and turning their heads to show that they were still alive. The pit was already two-thirds full. I estimated that it contained about a thousand people. I looked for the man who did the shooting. He was an S.S. man, who sat at the edge of the narrow end of the pit, his feet dangling into the pit. He had a tommy gun on his knees and was smoking a cigarette.

The people, completely naked, went down some steps and clambered over the heads of the people lying there to the place to which the S.S. man directed them. They lay down in front of the dead or wounded people; some caressed those who were still alive and spoke to them in a low voice. Then I heard a series of shots. I looked into the pit and saw that the bodies were twitching or the heads lying already motionless on top of the bodies that lay beneath them. Blood was running from their necks. The next batch was approaching already. They went down into the pit, lined themselves up against the previous victims and were shot. And so it went, batch after batch. The next morning the German engineer returned to the site. I saw about thirty naked people lying near the pit. Some of them were still alive… Later the Jews still alive were ordered to throw the corpses into the pit. Then they themselves had to lie down in this to be shot in the neck… I swear before God that this is the absolute truth.” (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich).

This is the results of Hitler’s leadership, and seeking the “final solution.” I know the followers of Fuentes might not know what the final solution was, so let’s look as the results of a quick search from Grok.

The “Final Solution” (often referred to as the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”) was a euphemism used by Nazi Germany during World War II to describe their systematic plan for the genocide of Europe’s Jewish population. Implemented primarily from 1941 to 1945 under the Third Reich, it involved mass deportations, forced labor, and extermination through methods such as ghettos, mobile killing units, and concentration/death camps like Auschwitz, resulting in the murder of approximately six million Jews. This policy evolved from earlier anti-Semitic measures and escalated following the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

So what we have at this point, is a real historian, Shirer, vs. Fuentes, a bean-bag quarterback, commenting or speaking of the death of six million Jews in the holocaust. Shirer gives actual evidence. Fuentes just gives speculation. Idle speculation. He does not back his claim up with any evidence whatsoever. He just specualates.

Anyone can speculate. Anyone can ask unanswerable questions. Satan did that in the Garden of Eden. To ask speculative questions, in order to bring doubt and misunderstanding, is more of Satan than it is of Christ. This is what men like Fuentes do. They ask lots of questions. Unbelieving critics of Christ have been doing it for 2,000 years.

What is sad is that so many in the church are given over to the fleshly speculations of men like Fuentes. He is not interested in the truth. He is merely interested in his idle gossip so he can build his base. If we are truly in Christ, we shouldn’t give him a moment’s notice since Christ is the Truth. We should be those who seek the Truth, in Christ, and in the world He has given us, and refute those idle babbling basement dwellers.

I am glad I watched the Tucker Carlson interview. And that I’ve done a dive into who Fuentes is. We don’t need him in conservative circles, or in the church, without repentance on his side. He is a vile man and if we listen to him, the way he wants us to listen to him, he will end up becoming “really f***ing cool” just like his hero.

Hitler, True Evil, and Post-War Consensus

I admit that I struggled with the idea of post-war consensus. When I first heard the term, I was baffled.

Fortunately, Doug Wilson connected the dots for me. Post-war consensus is the idea that we need to proceed in society, after World War II, without any absolute beliefs. Those who put this forth, did so with the idea that it was hard-core beliefs that got us into the mess of World War I and World War II.

In moving away from this mistake, as they saw it, they made a play for the definition of true evil. Instead of looking to Scripture for that definition, they looked to Hitler. They set Adolf up as the standard for the greatest of all evil beings. This was, to warp what God’s word had said about that which is most evil. For Christians, the heart of unbelief in God, and His word, is the height of all evil. Not Hitler. Not Polpot. Not even Donald Trump, or even Douglas Wilson (for those of you who suffer from Wilson Derangement Syndrome). It is simply unbelief in God’s word.

¹²Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; ¹³but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Hebrews 3:12-13.

True evil is the simple heart of unbelief. While we can look to Hitler as the embodiment of unchecked evil, then we can fool ourselves into thinking we are not that evil, so we must be pretty good. But Hitler, while evil, is not the standard of evil. Unbelief is the standard.

I admit, that I bought into their definition for a number of years. It wasn’t until I was preaching through the book of Hebrews that I realized my mistake and repented from thinking error. Hitler was evil. But so is the sweet little old lady who sits in the pews, week after week, with a heart of unbelief.

By the way, just so I’m clear, Hitler was in no way, shape, form or fashion a Christian. He sent enough Christian pastors to the concentration camps as well as Jews. His religion was was based on himself. He was a god to himself, and the Triune God gave him, and those who followed him, over to themselves.

Wilson’s Post Here

Other thoughts on Hitler and World War II can be read here.

When Herod was Dead: The Gospel of Matthew Sermon No. 11

The simple phrase “when Herod was dead,” ties the events of Christ’s birth to history, reminding us, that the world Jesus was born into was fallen and sinful. This helps keep our view of the nativity rooted in reality, removing our views of a Hallmark birth, which is more fantasy than reality.

About the photo in the header: it was taken down in Galveston and is simply a sand castle that we discovered walking on the beach on Christmas Eve. We loved it, and kept coming back to it through the day. It survived the next high tide, and you cans see it in the sunset picture on the post about Sexual Immorality if you look hard enough.

Herod Was Deceived: The Gospel of Matthew Sermon No. 10

I don’t think there is any more vivid picture of just how wicked the world was, when Jesus was born, than in the few verses we just read. These verses are not verses we readily jump to when we think of the nativity scenes. We gravitate to the shepherds coming and seeing the new born. We delight in thoughts of the angels singing above the manger. We rejoice at seeing the wise men fall at His feet and worshiping Him.

But we don’t like to think of these verses before us, for they remind us just how wicked the world was, in which Jesus was born.

Standing on the Seawall

How many thousands upon thousands of people have strolled along the Galveston Seawall since it was first constructed in 1902 is hard to imagine. We would probably be surprised at the numbers, or the celebrities, or even villains who have strolled along the wall, looking out over the sand and the sea.

But for me, walking with Heidi was a moment that I desired for a long time. I wanted to stand there, look out over the sea with her, just as my grandfather had once done with my grandmother. And perhaps, as my father had done with my mother. The sea wall, the soft sand, the pitiful waves, are part of my family history. Not a huge part, but a part nonetheless.

We stood, looking over the pitiful waves, feeling the wind on our faces, watching the sun set. It was a moment, where history came together, along with the love the LORD had given us. Words fail me…

Gaido’s in Galveston

I was almost like a kid last week as we crossed over the bridge in I-45 driving into Galveston. We were getting there before our check-in time at a VRBO down close to the Strand, and Heidi suggested we head on to Gaido’s for an early dinner. It had been almost 50 years since my last visit there, back in the late 1970s. My family often spent weekends in Galveston while living in Houston, either to go spend time on my father’s boats or to stay at my mother’s beach house out at Jamaica Beach.

I wanted to take Heidi so that we could enjoy the restaurant together. We certainly did, because it is an old-style restaurant with white table clothes, carpet, and no loud music. It had music, but throwback music to the 1940s or maybe 1950s jazz.

AS you can see, it has a wonderful set up, like something from the 1960s or before. Restaurants likes Gaido’s use to be the norm, but so many of them have opted for the Spaghetti Warehouse model, concrete, wide-open spaces, with loud music, so that if you want to have a conversation, you have to yell to be heard.

We started our dinner with a plate of oysters. Since it was November, that is an acceptable month of oysters. You never order them in May, June, or July, only in months that have an ‘R’ in the name.

Our oysters were covered with a hollandaise sauce that has bacon bits and green onions mixed in for extra flavor. Delicious.

Heidi had one of the specials of the day, blacked snapper, which just melted in our mouths. Yes, she let me have a bite.

I opted for a combo plate with charbroiled snapper, fried shrimp, and scallops. As usual, hers was better, but mine was still excellent.

Did I mention the bread the brought with our appetizer? It too, was extremely delicious. By the time we finished, I think our waitress (yes, that is the gender proper form), knew better than to offer us dessert. We were stuffed.

Another neat aspect of Gaido’s is that they are also part museum since they have been there so long.

This is one of my favorite pictures, the construction of the sea wall from the early 1900s. The only problem with the sea wall is that it doesn’t circumnavigate the city. Otherwise, it was a great idea.

World War II and Hitler

I don’t really know where to begin. Over the past year, there have been hundreds of challenges to the things that I grew up knowing and understanding about the world we live in, the world we were given after World War II. Some will immediately point out that this disqualifies me from saying anything at all, because I’m a Boomer. But I throw that back at you, what qualifies you from knowing anything at all if you cannot trust the eyewitness testimony of the generation that preceded you?

For the atheist, that question will mean nothing. But for the Christian, that means everything. If you cannot believe eyewitness testimony, then you cannot believe anything at all, for the Christian faith is built upon, and rests upon the testimony of eyewitnesses, and witnesses to those eyewitnesses (think of the gospel of Luke.) Yes, we also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit. I get that. Yet, even then, we still believe the testimonies of those who have had the Spirit testify to them. Our faith is built upon witnesses.

But my discussion here isn’t focused on the Christian faith, but the simple realities of World War II and Hitler.

This started about a year ago, when someone put forth the view point that Churchill was the true enemy in World War II, and that Hitler was really the good guy because he really wanted peace. (See Tucker Carlson intrerview).

For those of us who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, hearing the stories from our fathers, about the war, we know just how absurd this was. We knew, from eyewitness testimony, what Hitler was. We didn’t believe what we believed because it was official news from the State Department, or from CBS News, although the latter was much more trustworthy back then that it has been in the last 30 years.

For instance, during the mid-1970s when I would visit my step-mother who worked in the Galleria in Houston, I met the secretary in her office who was a refugee from Germany. She went through the war as a German citizen experiencing the rise of Hitler and the war itself. She told us of the speeches that Hitler gave. My step-mother asked the woman why she went along with it. The woman couldn’t explain it, but said it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Please note two things that didn’t need to be said: the secretary knew what Hitler had said and done, were wrong. She made no excuses for Hitler. She understood what he was. She also accepted her own culpability in it as well. She wasn’t proud of the fact.

(I believe there was a spiritual element to Hitler, and this is why he was able to sway so many. We also have reports of his religious beliefs. He really believed he was something of a savior for Germany. And no, he was not a Christian. To say that he was is to show complete ignorance of the man, and the Nazis as well as Christ.)

There was a woman in my first church as a pastor in the mid 1990s who had the tattoos on our her forearm. She was Jewish. She had been taken captive by the Germans and put in a concentration camp with the rest of her family. She made it out. Her family did not. She would only speak in vague ways of the horrors. What she went through still brought her to tears.

I would like to say that she was also a Christian. She never accepted Christ as far as I knew. She came to our church because she was lonely. We did the best we could to love her. But despite our efforts, she drifted off in another direction.

But we don’t need to rely only on eyewitness testimony. We can know from Hitler’s own words what he believed. In fact, this is the very reason that Churchill so opposed Hitler. Churchill read his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler’s own book about his life, and his beliefs of what should happen in Germany.

I confess, I have not read Mein Kampf. But I have read William Manchester’s excellent biography of Winston Churchill, The Last Lion, all three volumes. I have read William L Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, a first edition copy that I got from my father. I have read Andrew Robert’s biography, Churchill: Walking With Destiny. And I have read Churchill’s own accounts of the war in The Gathering Storm.

Three of the four authors, actually lived during the war. They lived the war. Shirer was on the ground in Germany before the war, and was eventually kicked out when war was declared by Great Britain. He spoke both German and English. He gives firsthand accounts of what was taking place.

William L. Shirer

For example, Shirer wrote about the coming of Hitler in his chapter: The Nazification of Germany:1933-34, when 90% of the voting German population voted Hitler into power. The Nazi Party assembled on September 4th to take power.

“I watched him on the morning of the new day stride like a conquering emperor down the center aisle of the great flag-bedecked Luitpold Hall while the band blared for ‘The Badenweiler March’ and thirty thousand hand were raised in Nazi salute. A few moments later he sat proudly in the center of that vast stage with folded arms and shining eyes as Gauleiter Adolf Wagner of Bavaria read the Fuehrer’s proclamations:

The German form of life is definitely determined for the next thousand years. The Age of Nerves of the nineteenth century has found its close with us. There will be no other revolution in Germany for the next one thousand years!

Shirer continues:

“Even one returning to Germany for the first time since the death of the Republic could see that, whatever his crimes against humanity, Hitler had unleashed a dynamic force of incalculable proportions which had long been pent up in the German people. To what purpose, he had already made clear in the pages of Mein Kampf, and in a hundred speeches which had gone unnoticed or unheeded or been ridiculed by so many–by almost everyone– with and especially without the Third Reich (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p 230).

William Manchester

Manchester was alive during this time, and fought in the Pacific theater. What he does in writing The Last Lion is show us the man who was behind defeating Hitler: Winston Churchill. Manchester takes us meticulously through Churchill’s life, beliefs, upbringing, education, and military career in order to help us see why he was the man of the hour to stand against Hitler. Yes, Manchester also shows us Churchill’s flaws. All these writers do, including Churchill himself. He was not a perfect man, or perfect hero. But he was a hero, for he stood against popular opinion of the day, against those who would have subjugated their own people for peace, against even friends, in opposing Hitler. He understood the danger. Manchester writes the following after the fall of Czechoslovakia:

Although the full scope of Nazi atrocities in Czechoslovakia was concealed from foreign correspondents, they could not be prevented from witnessing clubbings, the persecution of Jews, and the disappearance of Czech intellectuals once concentration camps had been built, wired, and equipped with watchtowers for machine guns and searchlights. There was no blinking the fact that this time Hitler had acted not as the champion of Germans living in a neighboring country but as a Genghis Khan bent upon pillage, enslavement, slaughter, and destruction.

The Czechs were the first Slavs he had subjugated. He frequently broke his promises; his threats he always made good. In a secret Führerordnung he decreed that the Czechs were to be “assimilier,” chiefly as “Sklavenarbeit” (“slave labor”) in the Reich; the others, “besonders die Intellektuellen” (“particularly the intellectuals”), were to be “entmanntet und ausgeschaltet” (“castrated and eliminated”). All this had been set forth in Mein Kampf, the best-seller read by few and dismissed by most of them as ravings. Churchill, virtually the only public man who had taken Hitler at his word, published a collection of his own Evening Standard and Daily Telegraph columns under the title Step by Step. Clement Attle wrote him, “It must be a melancholy satisfaction to see how right you were,” and Lord Wolmer wrote: “The book is a record of perspicacity and courage on your part”‘ (Alone, p. 398).

In reading all these volumes of pages about Churchill, Hitler, and World War II, I never once came across anything that would lead me to believe that Churchill was the enemy, or that Hitler was being misrepresented, or that millions of Jews were not indeed killed by the Germans. Hitler felt anyone who was to a German, or was a Communist, was to be eliminated.

Operation Barbarossa itself reflected the attitude of Hitler and his command. When Germany invaded Russia, their goal was to eliminate all those they captured because they knew with the coming of winter, they would not be able to support and feed all the prisoners of war they had captured.

Shirer, if I remember correctly, brought about the fact that it was a major mistake on the part of Hitler. His hatred for the Russians was so great, that he could not see the reality that many of those who were captured, thought of Hitler as a liberator, and were willing to fight for him, against the Soviets. But Hitler’s hatred ruled the day. Had he not killed off so may Russians who were captured, or surrendered, he could have easily captured Moscow and overthrown Stalin.

Conclusion

Now some might accuse me of Post War Consensus which Rich Lusk does a great job of explaining. I think that is just a label that the younger generation has grabbed on to to foist upon Boomers in an attempt to attack Boomers. It’s not my point to win over Generation X, or Millennials, or whatever generation pops up. But all this is important, as Rich Lusk wrote, “Everything you’ve been told is a lie.”

If we continue down this road, then we can know nothing at all about history, and more importantly about Christianity. After all, everything we know, everything… is rooted in history, whether the history is personal or national. So we have to be vigilant about what we do know. Hopefully, you have discovered the following:

Hitler had evil intentions for those not Germans. Yes, we can point to the fact that he was fighting for the blood and soil of his people, but he did so in an evil manner.
Hitler told the world what he was going to do in his book Mein Kampf.
Churchill read his book, and listened to his speeches, and opposed Hitler when everyone else was refusing to do so.
Millions upon millions died because of Hitler’s maniacal quest to exalt Germany over every other nation in Europe.
History repeats itself.

This last point, we need to know because it is repeating itself today. As I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I couldn’t help but think about how many of the situations the Germans faced, that we face today. The beauty for us is that I believe God has spared us a maniacal dictator… for now. That may change, but up until this point in our history, He has shown us grace.

For more on the Post War Consensus, watch Man Rampant with Doug Wilson and Rusty Reno as they discuss Reno’s book, The Return of the Strong God’s.

Wise Men from the East: Gospel of Matthew Sermon 8

King Herod had a really big problem. Allow me to say that again. King Herod had a really big problem. If you will recall from last week’s sermon, I started with similar words: King Ahaz had a real problem.

The problem for King Ahaz was that he was surrounded by two other kings, who were seeking to destroy him and remove him from power.

King Herod’s problem is very similar, but much…, much… more serious.

What was King Herod’s problem? Foreigners. Stinking foreigners from the east. They had the audacity to come into town asking a simple question: “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?”

Winston Churchill ON Socialized Medicine

And now from the department of history repeating itself department…

Churchill on socialized medicine that was implemented in 1948

“The queues are longer, the shelves are barer, the shops are emptier. The interference of Government Departments with daily life is more severe and more galling. More forms have to be filled up, more officials have to be consulted. Whole spheres of potential activity are frozen, rigid, and numb, because this Government has to prove its Socialistic sincerity instead of showing how they can get the country alive and on the move again.”

This is all taken from The Last Lion by William Manchester and Paul Reid. I’ve been working my way through the book for months and have really increased my progress now that I realized I can read while students are working on their assignments.

I love the fact that Churchill had a grasp on the end result of socialism. It never, in the end, provides more of something, but leads to less of something because there are more demands on it. Socializing things also weakened the work force. “A might army of 450,000 additional civil servants has been taken from production and added, at the prodigious cost and waste, to the oppressive machinery of govewrnment and control. Instead of helping national recovery this is a positive hindrance.”

We will see the same thing with Obamacare.

Jock Colville wrote concerning Churchill and all this: “Never in his life has he felt such despair,” Colville wrote, “and he blamed it on the Government whose ‘insatiable lust for power is only equaled by their incurable impotence in exercising it.’”

Churchill also wrote about the Socialists: “What the German U-boats could never do to us has been achieved by our own misguided fellow countrymen through their incompetence, their arrogance, their hordes of officials, their thousands of regulations and their gross mismanagement of our affairs, large and small.”

Churchill on class warfare and the socialist government that led to years of poverty for England’s masses after WWII, Between the loans “and the unparalleled sacrifices exacted from the taxpayers” there is no reason why Britain should not have attained “solvency, security and utopian independence. This has been denied us not only by the incompetence and maladministration of the Socialist Government and their wild extravagance, but even more by the spirit of class hatred which they have spread throughout the land, and by the costly and wasteful nationalization of a fifth part of our industries.”

Sounds so very familiar to the Democratic Socialist governments of the left.