Reconstructed Frauenkirche and square

We need to understand clearly that in modern German parlance, “right wing extremist” means, anyone that wants to remember his ancestors slaughtered by the “Allies,” unless he simultaneously confesses that they richly deserved to be slaughtered. This is what the rulers in Germany think, and an analogous viewpoint is held by our rulers. Therefore, it is worth while to reflect on this matter a little. I will do so by highlighting an anecdote from my own travel in Germany.

I was in Leipzig in December 2006 when Passau police chief Alois Mannichl was non-fatally stabbed, apparently at the door of his house. Instantly all the media — radio, TV, and newspaper — area-bombed the news that a “presumed right-wing extremist” (vermutlich Rechtsextremist), still at large, had done the deed. Every half hour on the radio, the same notice was given out.

Mannichl was a fanatical “anti-Nazi.” He had actually gone so far as to have the grave of a German dug up when he heard that a flag of the Third Reich had been draped over the body. In occupied Germany, such symbols are illegal. Showing Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is illegal. Singing the Horst Wessel song is illegal. “This symbolism is illegal! We must seize the evidence” he must have screamed. Even the dead lying six feet under have no rest from zealots like him.

Mannichl had told police that a young man of such-and-such height and with a crewcut and a tattoo on his neck, before he jabbed the knife, had shouted, “with greetings from the national resistance.”

At the bar in the hotel lobby I had struck up an acquaintance with an amiable German who worked as federal police in the border control department.  I expressed doubt that the evidence that had been made public logically entailed that the deed was connected with “right-wing extremism” or even right-wing non-extremism. He said, they would not be claiming this if the investigation had not shown it. He knew, as a policeman. Trust the system, I suggested. Ja, he said.

Within days, perhaps just hours, all the pundits and politicians, like a flock of chirping sparrows, raised a unison cry that the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany) — styled by our rulers as “neo-nazi,” presumably because it openly favors the continued biological existence of Germans –, should be outlawed. Even though no connection between the NPD and the skin-headed attacker had been made public! I encourage our readers to do a google search. Dozens of articles making this demand at the time can be scanned.

No suspect was apprehended, month after month. A strange detail leaked out: the knife used in the attack apparently came from Mannichl’s own kitchen.

A year after the attack, a few articles could be found that sheepishly conceded that the wound was probably received by Mannichl in a domestic dispute in his own household. Officially, the investigation is still “open” — even though finding a right-wing extremist with a tattoo visible on his neck ought to be exceedingly easy in a surveillance state like occupied Germany!

Was there an apology to the NPD? Was there an admission that there was a rush to judgment without sufficient evidence? Will anti-nazi Mannichl be indicted for making fraudulent statements?

To ask it is to answer it. Of course not.

Now, a little more than two years after the incident, a human chain is to be formed to keep the “right wing extremists” from honoring their slaughtered ancestors.

In a future post, I will document the extent to which censorship has already been put in place in Germany, and increasingly, here as well.

The Gulag is being constructed all around us, brick by brick. But this time, not a shot will need to be fired. The memory of Dresden stands as a reminder of what our rulers can do and will do if necessary. But they also have learned that mind-control is a much more convenient form of power than shooting guns.  No blood to mop up. Much cleaner.

(I. plausibility of big picture and motive)

1. The logistics needed to support the official story are stupendous

The number of total victims claimed used to vary wildly. In the 1980’s, a cousin of mine returned from an official tour and proclaimed to us with wild eyes that the number exterminated was actually over 20 million! Usually, however, the number of non-jewish victims is always kept just a little below that of the jewish victims, i.e. 5 million compared to their six. So stick with that for a moment.

As a budding Physicist, I was encouraged from a young age to visualize quantities, not just memorize them. If a dinosaur is said to be 30 feet tall, I look at a building and imagine a head poking in through a third-story window. That makes it vivid. We were also trained to do “order of magnitude” sanity checks of our calculations. One of my students carried out this agenda in a clever way. He supposed that every time a tire rotated, a one- atom- thick radius of rubber was removed by contact with the pavement. He then looked up the inter-atomic spacing of rubber, and calculated how long a tire should last. To order-of-magnitude, the tire life came out to be approximately right. That is the right way to test a model in a preliminary way.

Now, the serious accounts of the holocaust suggest that it took place mainly over a period of about two years — say, mid 1942 to mid-1944. Say there were six “death camps.” Then the average camp had to dispatch about 2 million victims, or 1 million per year. That is 20,000 per week, or 4,000 per day, if weekends or other rest days are allowed for.

4,000 per day, day in, day out, gassed, incinerated, and disposed of, for two years without letup, during the time that a desperate war was being waged, in which the Wehrmacht often had to resort to horses and wagons for its own logistics. Look up how long it takes a crematorium to incinerate one body with a Google search, and continue the calculation.

Perhaps, as Rocco in Godfather 2 said, “difficult; not impossible.” But almost impossible. Maybe impossible. It staggers the imagination in any case.

It was this kind of thought that first made me, with my background, open to the possibility of holocaust research. But it took years before I could work up the courage to actually start doing it.

2. There is more than one big-picture narrative, and these are contradictory

For example:

“No one knew” about the holocaust. That’s why it was rarely or never referred to explicitly by the officials.

On the other hand, “everyone knew” (e.g. the movie Amen.) That’s why the mass destruction of the German cities is justified, and never-ending reparations.

Likewise, at Treblinka, the bodies were dug up and burned, and everything bulldozed over without a trace, to remove all evidence prior to the allied victory.

On the other hand, “exterminations continued to the last day of the war” (e.g. the film We Were So Beloved).

Listen to enough discussions of the story with ears perked up, and such  contradictory covering propositions will quickly be discovered. We know from logic that once contradictions are allowed, anything can be proved.

3. If the Germans had set the goal of systematic extermination, bullets to the back of the head would have been much more efficient and cost-effective

The Judeo-Bolsheviks knew better, when they massacred the Ukrainians. Wouldn’t the Germans have learned from their superiors at the art of mass-murder?

4. The claim of having the goal of genocide — that is, completely eliminating the jew from the world — is not plausible, in that it was known that millions of jews had taken up residence in the US (for example)

Indeed, the Germans regarded the US as effectively a jewish client state.

For years the goal of the National Socialists was to induce the jews to leave, as can be seen in the film We Were So Beloved, for example. They knew many thousands of jews had emigrated to lands of safety, at the behest of the Nazis themselves. It is quite impossible to imagine rational people thinking that they could pull off a global extermination.

There is no evidence, contrary to the bar-room chatter, that Hitler had the goal of “taking over America,” let alone the world. On the contrary, Hitler envisioned a four-power division of hegemony between the Germans, the Japanese, the British, and the Americans. (See, for example, the Teaching Company’s series, World War II: A Military and Social History, conducted by Penn professor Thomas Childers.) The British indignation was not at the thought of someone “taking over the world,” but at having their own position of primacy challenged.

Thus, the idea that Hitler’s goal was to successively mop up all the remaining pockets of jewry, and thus succeed in “genocide,” is simply impossible.

(II. Rules of Evidence)

5. Much of the “evidence” comes from a group which not only had just been in a desperate war with the Germans, but was their ideological enemy.

The pictures of mountains of hair, and mountains of eyeglasses, and so forth, come almost exclusively from the Soviets. The Soviets just ten years earlier had conducted the infamous “show trials” in their own land. The Soviets had perfected the art of cinematographic propaganda in the earlier decades, led by Eisenstein. The Soviets had a visceral hatred of the Nazis exceeding even the Nazis’ hatred of them. The Soviets are now known to have blamed massacres on the Germans that were carried out by themselves — the Katyn Forest massacre, for example. They are known, documented liars.

6. Most of the “evidence” supplied by the Western allies has had to be modified or abandoned in the course of time

In the 1970s, mention of the word “Dachau” elicited the same horrified shudders that “Auschwitz” does today. But when I visited that camp in 1979, imagine my surprise to see that German historians had been permitted by their rulers to place a sign near the “gas chamber” that declared that no one was gassed to death at Dachau.

Likewise, any number of American WW2 veterans involved with the “liberation” of Buchenwald swear up and down that they “saw the evidence of the holocaust” with their own two eyes.  Yes, the conditions were harsh. Yes, many perished there in the cold or due to unjustly harsh treatment — the Reformed pastor Paul Schneider for example. But no one suggests anymore that anyone was gassed to death at Buchenwald. Buchenwald was a punitive labor camp: nothing more, nothing less.

Today, the idea that jews were turned into lampshades has been exploded.

Likewise, the stories about human soap — now abandoned.

Human hair for mattresses — absurd. No mattress stuffed with human hair has been produced. Think about it. If human hair had been seen as a desirable commodity, would not the Germans have first started a program of human-hair recapture from the civilian barbers — where the hair would be clean, not lice-infested, and plentiful, coming from repeat customers? Yet no such program has ever been made public.

By an amazing coincidence, it appears that all of the camps liberated by the Western allies have now been cleared of the charge of being death camps. All the camps still listed as “death camps” were liberated by the Soviets.

7. Even the Soviet accounts have been slowly revised and otherwise rendered suspect

It is now admitted that the main gas chamber at Auschwitz was reconstructed after the fact — “to reflect how it really was,” of course. (See other details about Auschwitz in the three videos that begin here.) The number of victims at Auschwitz has been revised downward by millions, yet the total number is never affected.

8. There is precious little actual eye-witness testimony

Examining the accounts carefully, one often finds the testimony qualified by “I heard that…” or “someone said that…” This is known technically as hearsay.

9. The detailed “eye-witness” testimony is often mutually contradictory

Some of the original “eye-witnesses” claimed the death chambers worked by electrified floors. Some said the floors were designed to open up and dump the bodies into railroad cars underneath that could haul the corpses quickly to their graves.  Others said they worked by evacuating the air. Others said the holocaust occurred by people being thrown alive into burning pits. None of these tales are accepted in the official account any more.

10. The detailed “eye-witness” testimony is often absurd

Adolf Eichmann spoke of blood spurting up out of the burial grounds.

The prison confession of Rudolf Gerstein, whose story is amplified in the movie Amen, is a serious case in point. His details are simply impossible. The pile of clothes would be ten stories high. The body counts would pack more than one victim per cubic foot of space. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), Gerstein died in Allied prison under suspicious circumstances before he could be cross-examined.

11. Eye-witness testimony that runs against the official story is always discounted, making the account look like a non-falsifiable dogma

Red-cross reports on camp inspections, for example.

12. Video pictures, absent verbal testimony giving the interpretation, are nearly worthless

We have all seen the footage of bulldozers pushing emaciated bodies into mass graves after the war. But who were the victims? Germans starved to death by the infrastructure destroyed by Allied napalm? Prisoners that died of typhus because the means for dealing with it was similarly destroyed? Without a narrative, including dates, times, and places, raw images are worthless.

At Buchenwald, there is a picture showing a mass of bodies. As time ran out toward the end of the unconditional-surrender destruction of Germany, these corpses could not be buried or cremated in time. It is now known that Buchenwald was not a death camp.

The maker of the Night and Fog documentary admits they were operating with little documentation. See my review for some of the absurdities in that film. Staring at the images in that “documentary” confirmed me as a skeptic. (It can be dangerous taking evidence too seriously.)

13. Doing the “numbers” by census report is unsound

First, jews are reluctant to be counted, even by themselves (see Wex’s explanation for this). Second, a reduction in number obviously does not prove foul play, let alone identify the killer. Third, some census figures I have seen show the jewish population increasing during WW2. This matter needs to be gotten to the bottom of.

14. The general German concession of guilt does not pass the smell test

Nuremburg led to a remorseful owning-up by the Germans. It was neither, “Ja, we did that, but you need to hear our side,” nor, “we didn’t know about it therefore we are not guilty.” There is just stunned, remorseful silence: a peculiar combination of assuming guilt even while incognizant.

For example, the interview of Traudl Junge that frames the movie Downfall shows that she was unaware of the holocaust, though she served as the personal secretary of Hitler. Yet she feels guilty because Sophie Scholl was her age, and Sophie “knew.” But the movie expanding on Sophie Scholl’s life does not put words in her mouth different what any pacifist might say in general terms. What is the chance that Sophie, living in Munich, “knew” while Hitler’s personal secretary did not know?  How does Traudl now “know”? Because the Nuremburg Trial proved it. All the years at Hitler’s side, right up to the end, divulged not a hint of it.

(III. General nature of historical evidence)

15. The evidence for the holocaust is quite different from the evidence for other historical “facts”

Think of the difference between denying the holocaust and denying, say, the existence of George Washington, or denying that the battle of Gettysburg took place.

To do either of the latter examples, one would have to deny the entire continuity of the historical narrative, including finally one’s own existence in a coherent world. But to deny the holocaust, the rest of the narrative of history remains intact.

Suppose someone denied that the Battle of Gettysburg ever happened. But there is the field that can still be visited, with bullets still findable in the soil, and mass grave ditches. There are the official field reports. There are the thousands of soldiers’ memories, that were integrated into the shared experience of the nation and, above all, their families: widows and comrades, that lived next door to others, and whose descendants still live among us. There were the books written later by the generals that were actually there. These all match the newspaper accounts written as the event was happening. At the end of the day, there is no integrated history of the world if there was no Gettysburg: then the whole world might as well be a figment of my imagination.

This comprehensiveness and coherence that would be lost is hardly the case if it turned out there was no holocaust.  The stories of the players and the newspapers are perfectly coherent and comprehensive without a holocaust: indeed, neither the newspapers nor official statements of the time even mention a holocaust in any kind of compelling way.

(IV. Evidence of fraud)

16. Many of the salient elements of the narrative were broached before the corresponding fact could have occurred

The “six million” figure was broached several times, long before it could have been a fact.

My favorite is the reference to “gassings” in the Charlie Chaplin movie The Great Dictator, produced in 1940, and long before the alleged “final solution” proposal at Wannsee. (A correspondent suggests it was a reference to WW1 gas. However, since the Allies also used gas in WW1, it would have been awkward for Chaplin to bring this up in his parody of Hitler.)

17. The Nuremburg trials have many marks of a show-trial

The Soviets were major players as prosecutors and judges, coming off their own show-trials of the previous decade. The American staff was loaded with resentful and vengeful jews. There was very little cross-examination. There is evidence that torture was used and threatened.

18. The number of “holocaust survivors” is huge, and continues to grow

Just a couple months ago, our local rag trotted out another victim of suffering during the Holocaust, who had remained completely silent for sixty-five years!

Before they think about it, people think the vast number of survivors is proof of the holocaust. It is the opposite. It is evidence against.

19. The story has grown, and grown, and grown

Evidently, the memoirs of Churchill, Eisenhower, and de Gaulle make scant mention of the Holocaust by any name. The director of the movie Judgment at Nuremburg states that he found that college audiences found his material incredible at the time — the early sixties. The Holocaust only became big business in the seventies. And it continues to grow.

Normally, don’t we expect details of history to be most vivid near the event, and fade with the passage of time?

(V. politicized nature of subject)

20. Revisionists are attacked in a way that is entirely unfair, ad hominem, and even criminal

Robert Faurisson has been beaten up physically, and endlessly reviled in print. Revisionists are routinely accused, without any evidence other than the content of their conclusions, of being neo-Nazis or fascists. Above all, see also #24.

The charge of “anti-semitism” as the only motive that could lead to questioning the story is question-begging. Perhaps the attackers should entertain the converse: could it be that seeing how questioners have been ridden roughshod over is the very thing that pushes some toward “anti-semitism”?

21. Questioning the official story is usually not answered by unassailable facts, but by appeal to the authority of the establishment guild

And this is particularly weak when we realize that the guild is self-perpetuating: dissenters are not allowed in, or are forcibly removed. When discussing the identity of King Tut, we might expect some objectivity from the academic guild, but when discussing a subject for which publishing the wrong answer will lead to losing the royally-rewarded tenure track, academics themselves should be honest enough to recognize their bias. Read the story of Germar Rudolf, and ask how many other academics you have ever met would be willing to sacrifice the cushy academic life for Rudolf’s destiny. Consider this list of people fired, exiled, and persecuted in Switzerland for doubting the story. Shame, and double shame!

Now add to this the threat described in #24. It is hardly surprising that the guild is united around one story.

The appeals to authority are often coupled with a condescending sneer that suggests that only perversity could even raise the question. Compare this to how someone that believed the earth were flat and the sun revolves around it would be answered. Can you imagine how absurd it would be if the only answer ever given to such a person were, “all the university Physicists disagree with you”?

Anyone – including non-Physicists — that can’t rattle off two or three infallible proofs that the earth is round and is rotating on its axis has no right to claim those beliefs.

Anyone that can’t rattle off half a dozen infallible proofs for the holocaust has no right to scoff at the questioner.

22. The manner in which jewish suffering is highlighted, and the suffering of others minimized, smacks of propaganda

The very term “holocaust” is virtually copyrighted. The Armenians are not allowed to refer to the Armenian holocaust. Nor are the Tutsi in Rwanda. Nor, the Cambodians under the Pol Pot. All these people are only allowed to mention their story as a footnote to the One Really Important Story.

23. Likewise, the way in which the noses of the “liberators” is rubbed in the muck smacks of propaganda

Virtually every American city of any size has a holocaust memorial. I thought we were the liberators, that we should be praised. No; we are to feel guilty also.

Finally, the clincher:

24. Almost everywhere in Europe, people that question the holocaust story are thrown in prison

Pacifist artist Ernst Zundel was dragged from his home in Tennessee, shipped to Canada, and then sent to Germany, where he sits in the slammer. Note that the charge of “inciting racial hatred” is identical to the “charge” of denying that the Nazis killed millions of Jews. Note also this chilling statement: “German prosecutors were able to seek his extradition on the ground that a Web site he ran was accessible in Germany.” What site is not accessible in Germany?  By this criterion, no one is safe that publishes such material on the web.

David Irving — thrown into the slammer in Austria for denying the holocaust – in a speech he had made seventeen years before!

Gerd Honsik  — extradited from Spain and thrown into the slammer in Austria – for holocaust denial

Gaston-Armand Amaudruz — Swiss citizen, thrown in prison – for holocaust denial

Fredrick Toben –  sentenced for publishing “anti-Semitic material” – which are detailed as (1) suggesting the Holocaust did not happen, (2) questioning whether there were gas chambers at the Auschwitz death camp, and (3) hurting some jews’ feelings by challenging their intelligence.

Some of these have already been freed. On the other hand, the list is not complete.

Not since the Gulag Archipelago was in full swing has the expression of heretical opinion been treated this way. Does anyone suggest throwing flat-earthers in prison, or Gettysburg-deniers? This shows that the holocaust is functioning as a state religion — in an age that pretends horror at religious persecution.

What academic wants to be thrown in prison, or (if he is American) put in a position of not daring to step foot into Canada or Europe?

What young academic wants to jeopardize his chance for the life-long gravy-train known as tenure?

What academic, tenured or not, wants to face a national campaign by ADL terrorists to have him removed from office and rendered unemployable?

Academics today is all about “getting funding.” What is amusing is that in the very era, our own, when every historian is keenly tuned in to the “material factors” that might have “influenced” the Nicean Council, or even a Luther, seem totally oblivious to the material factors that are patently and undeniably steering their own work!

The “academic consensus” in any matter that is so politically and (above all) financially charged as this subject is, has no value whatsoever. It is unfortunate, but true.

When people are thrown in prison for expressing a belief, it is virtual proof that something is going on with the power-holders other than commitment to truth.

Conclusion

These considerations do not prove that the holocaust story is false, but the consideration I have outlined do prove that investigating it is not a sign of insanity or bad faith. On the contrary, the mockers and persecutors of revisionists must answer the charge of bad faith, if not outright dishonesty.

The landscape has changed for me, and I think the landscape will be changed for anyone that takes a couple years, part time, to look into these matters.  For me, the burden of proof has decisively swung to the side of the received story.

Why does Westminster Theological Seminar continue to honor him with an awkward day off in the middle of the winter term? Anyone can guess: Because Martin Luther King, Jr. is a popular Negro, and they want to “reach out” to the Negro community with Reformed theology, by “showing solidarity” or whatever the current buzzword might be.

The only problem is, honesty is more important than being Reformed. And Negroes see right through the condescending prevarication of honkies that take this kind of stand.

If enough of them ever do adopt Reformed Theology, and do so honestly, then they will be the ones to rise up and condemn Westminster for this dishonest and immoral capitulation to political correctness. As a post-millennialist, I think that day will come. Or, perhaps WTS will have stopped this charade by then. That, too, would be a small yet significant sign to give one hope that progress is possible — or at least, an occasional correction of a wrong turn.

Machen the Magnificent

There are general stylistic changes that I will not dwell on, but which could be unpacked by someone with greater literary skill than myself. In particular, the style in the proposed revision is too self-conscious. By trying to explain everything on the way, it opens itself up to the charge of superficiality. The concrete and specific is often replaced with the abstract and vague. On the other hand, even the attempt at precise definition in the opening section is a move in the wrong direction, I submit. There was an exemplary vagueness at times in using ordinary language, which left the teeth to judicial precedent rather than precise definition. For example, expressions in the current book like “it is altogether fitting” skate a fine line between requiring something and not. It is not exactly a requirement, yet the fact that the wise men of the church commend something as “altogether fitting” means it should not exactly be regarded as optional either. Where the judicial line falls will depend on precedent, the kind of visitation exercised in a Presbytery, and so forth. But now, the book declares explicitly that such sections “are not mandated” (line 67). If not mandated, why bother with them at all? In short, often the concrete is replaced by the abstract, increasing vagueness when the concrete is superior; and often common-sense language is replaced by precise definitions, revealing however that judicious ambiguity is sometimes superior.

In the remainder, I will offer criticisms and warnings tied to specific sections.

Catholicity and worship

In lines 204-206, the proposal says

No favoritism may be shown to any who attend. Nor may any member of the church presume to exalt himself above others as though he were more spiritual, but each shall esteem others better than himself.

This sounds very spiritual, but a skeptic might call it merely windy. Name one OPC anywhere where this has been a problem? What kind of behavior could be addressed by such a canon? Clearly, it is to sandbag for the more radical suggestion that follows:

The unity and catholicity of the covenant people are to be manifest in public worship. Accordingly, the service is to be conducted in a manner that enables and expects all the members of the covenant community —- male and female, old and young, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, healthy and infirm, people from every race and nation —- to worship together. (208-211)

This has too many modern political buzz-words or concepts not to be suspect. You know that people are going to appeal to this “principle” to advocate a more female-friendly worship service, or a more youth-friendly service, or a “service that is not so stodgy, so waspish — how are we going to attract minorities with this kind of worship service?” But this is a wrong view of “catholicity.” Catholicity does not mean bending to the cultural or age-specific desires of everyone, in a democratic sense. Catholicity properly understood, is a principle of intersection, not union, to use set theory language. It is a principle of conjunction in the logical sense — i.e. that which has been the case everywhere — not conjoining in the sense of appending.

Moreover, catholicity is not the only nor even a trumping principle. We should grant national settlements and some local custom. It is quite wrong to suppose that the “national settlement” should be overthrown by some tendentious appeal to catholicity, even apart from the fact that such catholicity is usually wrongly defined.

In continues:

I.B.4.d. Because God’s people worship not as an aggregation of individuals, but as a congregation of those who are members of one another in Christ, public worship is to be conducted as a corporate activity in which all the members participate as the body of Christ. (213-215)

This is needless. If it means everyone should sing the psalms and hymns, that is obvious — why waste print mentioning it as some highfaluting principle?

But the danger that this kind of vague generality can be used as a wedge for all kinds of appeals to special music, children’s choirs, and what not else is palpable to anyone with experience.

No more long, boring sermons

1.C.3.b. Worship should be conducted with regard to the time, taking care that neither reading, singing, praying, preaching, or any other ordinance be disproportionate one to the other, nor the whole rendered either too short or too tedious. (302-304)

In other words, someone on the committee thinks the sermons are too long.

“Too tedious” is unfitting for a manual. This is pure subjectivity.

Would anyone counter, “no, I think we need some tedium”?

If not (and obviously, not) then this is a canon without objective referent.

Furniture Now Required

I.C.4.a. Because the pulpit, baptismal font, and communion table facilitate the part of worship which is performed on behalf of God, it is fitting that they be positioned so as to draw the focus of the congregation upon the Word and sacraments, and that they be easily accessible and visible to the entire congregation throughout the worship service. Because the Word is primary and the sacraments serve to seal the Word, it is fitting that the pulpit be in the position of prominence. (309-313)

The reference to “baptismal font” and “communion table” assume that these exist and not only exist, but should be “visible to the entire congregation throughout the worship service.” This is certainly debatable, especially in view of the “Reformed tradition,” earlier vaunted. Where in Scripture could one possibly justify the notion that gazing on an unused baptismal font is necessary, and not even just once, but throughout the worship service?!

Note that gazing on the communion table (if one exists) is not at all the same as having communion. This is at best a second order reflection, and I think it would be very difficult to justify this gazing as a proper element of worship from Scripture. And I would like to see someone try.

Let’s examine the issues surrounding these pieces of furniture that are now apparently required — even though it is apparently not even required that one have a building to begin with! (The Covenanters often met out in the woods. We may someday have to do so again.)

I. Baptismal Font

Why does there need to be a permanent “baptismal font” if there is not going to be a baptism?

1. When there is a baptism, there needs to be a source of water. Where did this notion of a “baptismal font” come from, and when did such a thing become a requirement? Where in Scripture is there an argument for a baptismal font?

2. As a matter of convenience, some may choose to have a piece of furniture with a basin that can hold water for use in a baptism. If an architect or someone else wants to refer to this piece of furniture as a “baptismal font,” that is his right. If some other source of water is utilized — a stream out in the woods, a spigot coming out of the wall, whatever — that is also okay.

3. Moreover, it may be deemed convenient, if and when there is such a piece of furniture, to leave the piece of furniture in place semi-permanently, so that people don’t have to lug it back and forth from storage. There is nothing wrong with that.

4. But that is different from assuming that there will be a permanent thing referred to as a “baptismal font” which must be the “focus” of the congregation, “easily accessible” (whatever that means), let alone “visible to the entire congregation throughout the worship service.” Where did any of those unwarranted ideas come from?

II. Lord’s Table

1. For churches that do not have communion every week, there should be no requirement for a permanent piece of furniture, though it might be convenient to have such. I.e. follow the same arguments as above with baptism. The Scottish church, baptists like Spurgeon, and others set up real tables as needed so the people could sit when communion was being served.

2. The table(s) may be left set up semi-permanently if it is deemed convenient to do so.

3. For churches — like most American Presbyterian churches —  that have gone from a table or tables that are actually used, to a single symbolic table, it is far more important that the symbolism of sitting around the table be maintained than some notion of “being visible to the entire congregation throughout the worship service.” The proposed unwarranted pseudo-principle was actually used in a conservative (non-OPC) Presbyterian church I attended to justify placing the “communion table” up on the stage, thereby destroying the symbolism of eating at a table. (The next step was the pastor elevating the bread, “not to venerate it” of course, but so that it would be “visible to the entire congregation.”) This is how shaky foundational principles work themselves out into very bad practice that ends up destroying the actual biblical principle, just as it eventually did in popery.

Though it is out of sequence to mention it here, in passing let me mention that a careful reading of 419-435 shows that the existing principle, “the celebration of the sacraments should be accompanied by the preaching of the Word” has been eliminated. This is a serious shift in a direction contrary to the unified voice of the Reformers.

Congregational Singing

I. Songs and Musicians

I.C.4.b. Because musicians and musical instruments serve the part of worship that is performed by the congregation, it is fitting that they be positioned with or behind the congregation. (315-316)

This refers to something as if it is assumed that it exists. Are Reformed churches now required to have musicians and musical instruments? If not, then statements like this should be qualified with a phrase like “if they are present at all.”

II. The hated reference to “choral”

There is a phrase in the current book that has been subject to endless ridicule by the left wing in the OPC, namely this one:

Let the tunes as well as the words be dignified and elevated. The stately rhythm of the choral is especially appropriate for public worship. (III.6).

The new draft deletes this.

I don’t wish to quibble about the exact wording. Perhaps there could be a better way to describe the matter than “choral,” though I can’t think of how, at least with equal brevity. However, there was great wisdom expressed in the deleted principle, regardless of how it is worded. The writers did not limit the notion to the German chorale, but the Scottish tunes were obviously included within the intended semantic range, and others (French, Irish, and so forth), as can be seen by scanning the selections in Blue Trinity.

The choral is a concretization of two important features of congregational singing, one objective, and the other subjective.

1. The music should be dignified (solemn, grave, stately, regal: pick the best word). There is a semantic range. That is the objective side.

2. The subjective side of the “choral” concept emphasizes sing-ability for a group consisting of all levels of musical training and appreciation, i.e. a congregation. Above all: simple rhythm, simple melodies, and melodies that can be, yet need not be, sung in harmony. Negatively, it excludes syncopation, wide melodic leaps, and aggressive rhythms. In extracting these principles of congregational singing, one can either simply state abstract principles — in which case it is not a directory, it is a chapter from a Systematic Theology — or you can apply the principles concretely. Specifying the choral is the church speaking concretely.

Deleting that in favor of an abstraction is a serious defection. Nothing is established, nothing ratified; in effect, it is now wide open.

The OPC opened the tent door by approving the seriously defective “Red Trinity Hymnal” several years back. Now, the worst aspects of that move are being translated into a “principle.” It is one thing to approve a defective instrument for voluntary usage; it is something else to change a constitution to ratify its worst aspects.

It was a good section, and a serious loss to change it, as we will see even more in the following.

III. The Content of “Songs of Praise”

II.B.2.c. Congregations do well to sing the metrical versions or other musical settings of the Psalms frequently in public worship. Congregations also do well to sing hymns of praise that respond to the full scope of divine revelation. (525-527)

The first sentence is similar to the existing document. The second sentence, however, innovates in two different and very important ways.

A. Many people probably do not realize that the second sentence takes a definite position in  a long-standing debate. The debate is between those that argue that the content of song should be given directly by the word of God, versus those that think that the church has freedom to write its own songs.

The argument is analogous, though not settled, by a hypothetical debate between those that argue for reading from the Word of God, versus those that would suggest there should be just a general reading of something edifying. Many people would rightly balk if the “reading from the Word” were replaced with a general “reading,” which might to be sure be taken from Scripture, but might also be taken from worthy Christian writers, such as C. S. Lewis, or Augustine. I mention this not to engage the debate, but only to help those that have not thought about the song issue to understand something of the sentiment as well as content of one side of that debate.

That is the context of the statement given in the new version.

One of the arguments used by the man-made-song advocates is a modus tollens, that we may schematize this way:

1. the church’s song must include the full scope of divine revelation
2. If church song is limited to Scripture songs then the church’s song does not include the full scope of divine revelation
3. therefore, church song is not limited to Scripture songs

The proposal affirms (2) implicitly, but without proof or debate (at least that we know of). (2) has been denied by many. John Murray argued for limiting worship song to Scripture; the OPC did not ratify his position, but allowed it, taking an intermediate position. The intermediate position resulted in the “Blue Trinity Hymnal” where the hymns approved for worship were limited to Psalm-like in content, and stately and dignified in tune. In view of all this, consider the wise wording of the existing Directory:

Since the metrical versions of the Psalms are based upon the Word of God, they ought to be used frequently in public worship. Great care must be taken that all the materials of song are in perfect accord with the teaching of Holy Scripture. (III.6)

This may be unpacked as the following propositions:

1. The Psalms must be used in worship, frequently

2. Whatever song is used must be in accord with Scripture

Note that these propositions can be affirmed by the Murray-position; they can also be affirmed by the non-Murray adherents, provided they are at least willing to include Psalms in addition to songs of non-inspired composition.

In contrast, the new version expresses these two propositions.

1. The Psalms may be used in worship

2. Non-scripture-songs may be used in worship.

Both of these propositions express a major shift from the previous version.

First, Psalms may be used, but they are not required to be. This represents a backing off from the earlier stance, and in particular a drawing back from the dominant original Reformed “tradition” (which is elsewhere vaunted). Psalms are no longer required; they are only permitted, with some tepid commendation.

Second, non-scripture songs are explicitly permitted. The delicate ambiguity of the present version has been changed. This may seem like a technicality, since it was the animus imponentis that man-made hymns were allowed by the existing wording. However, the words chosen were ones that could also be subscribed by Murray-theory-adherents. The new words could not.

The revision would not only demur from Murray, it would exhume his coffin and drive some extra nails into the lid.

Note that this is a move away from catholicity. Fewer Reformed Christians can subscribe without perjury to this version than could subscribe to the current version. This is a serious defection. It is motion in the direction of (1) loosening the requirement of psalm singing, (2) requiring all to acknowledge that man-made songs may be used. Exclusive Scripture-song advocates will presumably now need to take an explicit exception here. That is a revolution, not a tweak.

B. Second, note that in the new phrase, “hymns that respond to revelation,” even more is being asserted than explicitly allowing non-inspired specific content. It is also allowing something more than non-inspired content consistent with revelation, namely, poetry that “responds” to revelation. In this way, the way is opened up for the kind of Methodist back-woods revival songs that my Methodist father used to scorn as “diddly-dees,” which are all about the feelings that gush forth from my heart. The best of these were put into their own section in the Blue Trinity, with the implication that they were not appropriate for formal worship. (One of the serious defects of the Red Trinity was eliminating this categorical distinction.) However, it is a horrifying thought to think that a “principle” that would allow this kind of junk is now being made part of our constitutional documentation.

IV. Musical accompaniment

An exactly parallel argument should be made with respect to musical accompaniment. There is a strong Reformed inheritance that the singing should be without musical accompaniment. The OPC has permitted either view.

As with the content of song, a parallel shift is proposed.

The current version says, (III.6, middle)

No person shall take a special part in the musical service unless he is …

Again, this is a proposition that can be subscribed to by adherents of either position. The anti-instrumentalist regards this as the empty proposition

for all x, if x accompanies then x must be etc.

As such, this is true. But it leaves untouched, formally, whether there should be any x that accompany. (To use the standard illustration from logic: We can agree that all trespassers will be prosecuted. We can also hope that there are no trespassers.) It leaves the permitting of the referent to the conscience.

Now contrast the new version:

2.e “Musical gifts are properly used in public worship to assist the congregation in its worship of God… No person may take a special part in the musical service unless he is …” (535-538)

Thus, the new version asserts not one but two propositions. The second is similar to the previous shown above.

1. Musical accompaniment is permissible

2. for all x, if x etc.

This is no longer subscribable by the anti-instrumentalist; the previous version was. It is thus less catholic. It now requires the loosened view common in the American, though still resisted even in the nineteenth century by Girardeau, Dabney, and many others. Another departure from catholicity.

Public recitation of a creed

The existing book does not mention the reciting of a creed. Many OPC churches do of course have such an exercise as part of their worship. But the Scottish inheritance did not have it, and “strict” Regulative Principle adhering churches do not have it to this day. There was some kind of gentlemen’s agreement that doing so would not be disciplinable, but it would also not be required or even commended.

The new version innovates, in the section “Confession of Faith” (546-547)

II.B.3.b. It is also fitting that the congregation as one body confess its common faith, using creeds that are true to the Word of God, such as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed.

As with the topic of song content and accompaniment, this is a move from one allowing wiggle room (in both directions) to one that takes a positive stand. Before, both positions were allowed. Now, one must admit that public recitation is “fitting” or, presumably, be forced to take an exception.

Apart from the fittingness as such, it can be questioned whether the Apostles’ Creed as originally intended is “true to the Word of God.” William Cunningham, in his Historical Theology, vol. 1, pp. 79-93, gave a number of arguments against reciting the Apostle’s Creed. Have his arguments been answered by the OPC? I seriously doubt it. Most Reformed that defend the Apostle’s Creed are advocating an interpretation of at least two of the clauses that is anachronistic and idiosyncratic. Is it, then, only while holding such a view that the OPC will mean to say “it is fitting”?

In all three topics, one must ask (1) has the issue been isolated and thoroughly debated? and (2) even if so, has the majority pondered not only their strength to be able to pass such a motion, but whether it is consistent with the principle of holy catholic church to do so? Whether it is wise, and prudent to do so?

The Blessing.

The Aaronic benediction has been changed from the existing III.4 which kept the singular second person, “the Lord bless thee and keep thee etc.” to allow the plural “the Lord bless you and keep you.” (447-453) This is a degradation that changes the meaning for the worse and should be resisted.

The Wedding

Predictably, the woman’s vow of obedience is changed (not to mention the defective shift from the singular to plural mentioned above in a different context) from

wilt thou love him, cherish and obey him, so long as ye both shall live?

To:

Will you love him, comfort him, respect and submit to him even as the church submits to Christ, and forsaking all others keep yourself only unto him as long as you both shall live?

In one sense, I have never understood why Christian women, under the influence of feminism, think they prefer to say “submit to” rather than “obey.” Obey is something everyone does that has a boss. (Most men have to obey many men. Most women only have to obey one man.) Submission goes way beyond that, to a bending and accommodation of the will to another that mere simple obedience does not do.

Thus, in an odd way, the new form is harsher, stricter, than the old way.

However, it is so only to those that ponder these things deeply. At a surface level, it is an accommodation to feminism.

Moreover, it replaces a vow that can be easily verified and tested against behavior, with one that is more vague and uncertain outwardly. Obedience can be verified objectively; submission, with more difficulty, if at all.

The theological deep meaning of the marital roles is a proper subject for marriage counseling, sermons, reading, and mortification. But it is not wise to take vows that cannot be kept. It tends to make one a perjurer. One becomes accustomed to not being able to do what one “vowed” to do. Therefore, I am not breaking the vow in a new way, I’m just shifting where I place the inevitable line.

The same comment can be made in respect to the man’s vow, which now states the impossible and thus always false, and thus non-falsifiable

will you love her as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her

instead of the simple and verifiable old version,

wilt thou love her, honor and cherish her, so long…

Conclusion

There are a number of other defections that could be mentioned, but any reader that has tracked with what I have presented will be able to discover them for himself, and anyone that is not with me would not suddenly “click” by reading a few more.

There are some good things that could be said about the document also; however, now is not the time for that. The time for that is when revisions are still being made and makable. Now, it is an up-or-down vote by each Presbytery. At this stage in the process, the only question is, are there objections to the proposal sufficient to vote it down, regardless of any good things that it might also contain. I have highlighted some bad things about the proposal that I think are sufficient to warrant rejecting it, and urge any Presbyters that may read this to carefully consider voting against it.

1. The time-compression of a film can give the misleading impression that the bombings and assassinations were daily fare in Germany. One must remember that they were stretched out over ten years (though there were several dizzying bursts, as in May 1972), and “life goes on” just as it does for us in America despite the urban crime that is daily happening all around us. Nevertheless, the events did create a social tension that was felt by everyone (and still is).
2. It does not have time to stop and reflect on the underlying issues.
3. Poetic license has been taken. The gang is shown as sexually libertine, Ensslin shouting “fu@%ing is the same as shooting” to the confused Arab at one point. But gangsterette Brigitte Mohnhaupt, released from prison a couple years ago, has sued the film for defamation for depicting her in a promiscuous situation. So this is a danger of filmmaking that must be kept in mind: what is real and what is extrapolated?

I have had general acquaintance with the story of the Baader-Meinhof gang for at least three decades now.  There are ethical issues and tactical issues, all of which may have continuing relevance as it looks more and more as though our people are going to have to rise up, eventually, and attempt another war of independence sometime in the next generation. And that war will clearly not be lines of clam-diggered musket-shooting gentlemen facing each other.

Here are some striking features about the movement:

• The gang was marked by intense loyalties, so that much of the action was aimed at rescuing captured comrades and/or inducing the government to release them. Usually, the targets were deliberately selected as responsible for the persecution of their comrades, or as willing agents of a system that needed to be destroyed because of its injustice. Thus, a distinction needs to made between this group and terrorists that select victims at random.
• Though ruthlessly violent, quite possibly a majority of the major players were young women.
• Though the movement was self-consciously leftist, it is interesting as being a peculiarly non-jewish and even anti-jewish form of leftism, even while seeing itself as “anti-fascist.” Thus the American jewish press, that is (to say the same thing more briefly), the American press, has been somewhat more negative toward the gang compared to its normally indulgent attitude toward leftist terrorists. By itself this is a reason to take a closer look.
• In addition to some wild-eyed fanatics, the movement included some serious intellectuals, including especially Horst Mahler, who in the meantime has become a full-blown National Socialist. What is interesting is that he does not see his current position as a radical break with his earlier activities. Mahler will be worth while discussing in much greater detail anon.

Some Key Events

Though the Huffman site linked to above should be consulted to get the fuller story, it might be helpful to extract a briefer summary as a preliminary orientation. It will probably aid to scan these events prior to viewing the film, as the events depicted may be confusing without some prior orientation.

To set the context, one needs to recall the student demonstrations during the 1960s on US campuses, which protested the Vietnam War, oppression by right-wing dictatorships, and world hunger. Similar demonstrations took place in Germany, but there, there was in addition a guilt-driven specific reaction to the “fascism” of their parents’ generation, which many thought was continuing under the guise of American-dominated capitalism. In contrast, the American youth movement was to a far greater extent merely hedonistic, since in rebelling against their parents’ generation they were rebelling against a generation they had been taught to regard as “heroic” in its “struggle against fascism” in WW2. Thus the German rebellion was more existential, touching the deep sinews, while the American rebellion was much more egocentric. I will come back to this theme in a future post.

Now, there was a great deal of balderdash in those demonstrations, on either side of the Atlantic, and many were probably instigated and pushed by communist front groups. However, we must recall that there are many different motivations that might lead a young person to show up at a demonstration. There is the hard core, but they are few. For others, it is just something to do. One is part of an “event” that is covered on the news. You get to hang out with friends. There are those that feel sympathy from youthful idealism even if it would not have taken this form spontaneously. There are those that are curious onlookers, who would like to be there, especially if something big might happen. So the presence of a huge crowd does not necessarily mean much. It is the small subset that have true concerns and are not pawns of communist governments that should be of particular interest for us.

In my condensed summary, I will lay particular emphasis on persons and events of international status. Many shootouts, cop-killings, and gang member killings are left out of this account for introductory brevity.

Andreas Baader

1. June 2, 1967:  There is a massive demonstration against the visiting Shah of Iran, in which Benno Ohnesorg, a pacifist that probably was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, is shot by police, quite possibly by accident. It becomes a cause célèbre. The date lives on in memory and is even taken on as a name by a later RAF affiliate.

2. A new “Bonnie and Clyde” dynamic duo emerge from the protest movement, Andreas Baader and girlfriend Gudrun Ensslin. They bomb a department store, and are soon arrested, in early April, 1968.

3. A week later, leftist agitator Rudi Dutschke is gunned down by a citizen in cold blood.

Ulrike Meinhof

The leftist movement pins the entire blame on the Springer Press, and mobs their headquarters. Springer publishes many of the garish tabloids that are read by millions of the working class in Germany. It was considered not only right-wing in orientation, but provocative and scandalous in its approach. The incident was important, among other reasons, because it drew the attention of the brooding, intellectual leftish girl-journalist Ulrike Meinhof.

4. March 1970, the nascent gang is formed, initially under the leadership of lawyer Horst Mahler. Baader has been let out of prison on a technicality but the sentence is reinstated and he is now a fugitive. On April 3, he is apprehended again.

Irene Goergens (l.), Ingrid Schubert (r.)

5. May 14, 1970, the gang pulls off a sensational rescue of Baader. Meinhof, using her reputation as a serious journalist, arranges for an “interview” of Baader for a book to be written. The interview is to be at an off-site Research Institute, and the prison administration is somehow gulled into allowing it. At the Institute, two girl gang members, Irene Goergens and Ingrid Schubert, who had earlier made themselves known to the guard by showing up to use the reading room, “happen” to show up again during the Meinhof interview and, recognizing them, the guard lets them in. A little later Ensslin and another gang member show up at the door with guns, and Goergens and Schubert buzz them in.

Gudrun Ensslin

The gang shoots their way out. The movie shows that Meinhof was supposed to stay behind and feign lack of knowledge but at the last minute bolts with them. Whether that detail is “historical fiction” or not, I don’t know. But as a result of this incident, the Springer press dubs the gang “Baader-Meinhof.” Pastor’s Kid and Baader’s girl Ennslin seems to have been the actual feminine force of the gang, and Baader did not become the top leader until a little later, but Springer’s name stuck from that moment on.

6. After the break, the gang goes to Jordan to receive guerrilla training from a Palestinian group. However, the libertine Germans are more than the Arabs can bear, and after two months they are sent packing.

Horst Mahler

7. In September, Mahler organizes the simultaneous robbing of four banks. One is stymied, but three are successful, netting 200,000 DM, and leading to a surge in recruitments, including Jan-Carl Raspe and film student Holger Meins. This is the first in a long string of bank robberies used to finance the outfit.

8. October 8, 1970, a meeting is ambushed by police, leading to the arrest of Mahler and Goergens among others. Andreas Baader, still at large, becomes the head of the gang.

9. July 15, 1971, a couple of gang members bolt from a police roadblock in Hamburg.

Petra Schelm

Shots are fired; gangsterette Petra Schelm, age 20, is dead.

10. September 1, 1971, Horst Herold is made head of the new Budeskriminalamt (BKA), a federal-level investigating unit similar to our FBI, which is established for the first time in Germany, in response to the RAF gang. This man is well-played in the movie by Bruno Ganz, who played Hitler in the film Downfall.

11. Dierk Hoff is recruited in December, and becomes the bomb fabricator. His most infamous invention is a bomb shaped like a large helmet that a woman can wear over her belly to look like she is pregnant to smuggle the bomb into buildings.

Irmgard Moeller

12. Over a 12 day period in May, 1972, the US Army HQ in Frankfurt is bombed by Baader, Ensslin, Meins and Raspe, killing American Lt. Col. Bloomquist; the Augsburg police station is bombed by gangsterettes Moeller and Luther in retaliation for the earlier shooting in that city of one of the gang members; Baader, Meins, and Enssler set off a huge car bomb in Munich; the car of Judge Buddenberg is bombed by Baader, Raspe, and Meins; the Springer Press building in Hamburg is bombed by Meinhof and Stachowiak; the US Supreme Command in Heidelberg is bombed (Moeller and Luther again), killing three Americans.

13. Over a two-week period in June, in three episodes, Baader and Meins, then girlfriend Ensslin (who foolishly let a gun bulge out of her jacket while shopping), and finally Ulrike Meinhof, are all nabbed.

Holger Meins

14. The “Black September” terror attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics takes place, seen by the whole world.

15. On March 3, 1973, Palestinian terrorists kill American diplomats in Khartoum. Among others, they demand the release of the Baader-Meinhof gang, but their demand is not met.

16. November 9, 1973, Meins dies of self-imposed hunger strike. Riots break out as a result, and the next day, Judge Drenkmann is assassinated by the gang.

17. The same month, Meinhof’s suggestion of an interview between Jean Paul Sartre and Andreas Baader actually takes place!

18. Feb. 27, 1975 the CDU (~our “Republican”) candidate Lorentz is kidnapped in Berlin. Five terrorists are released as ransom and given a plane that takes them to Yemen. However, Horst Mahler refuses to be released under these circumstances. Lorentz is released unharmed.

Susanne Albrecht

19. May 21, 1975, the big trial begins in Stuttgart in the newly constructed Stammheim prison courtroom. The courtroom was constructed at a cost of DM 15,000,000. The roof is covered with jagged razor wire to prevent helicopter landings and steel nets to prevent any potential airborne bombs from doing damage, and the entrance has a sophisticated metal detector.

20. May 9, 1976, Meinhof hangs herself in her cell.

21. June 7, 1976, the famous hijacking of an airline from Israel to Idi Amin’s Uganda. A number of the gang are involved. They demand the release of Baader-Meinhof gang as well as others. The Israelis swoop down and kill them.

22. April 7, 1977, the gang murders Attorney General Siegfried Buback in Karlsruhe.

Brigitte Mohnhaupt

23. July 30, 1977, upper-class Susanne Albrecht with Brigitte Mohnhaupt and Christian Klar “pays a visit” to the home of Jürgen Ponto, a friend of her father’s and chairman of the Dresdner Bank. They gun him down.

24. Sept 5, Hanns-Martin Schleyer, an important industrialist, is kidnapped after no fewer than three bodyguards around him are gunned down.

25. Oct. 13, 1977. In concert with the Schleyer kidnapping, Palestinians hijack a Lufthansa plane to Mogadishu, Somalia, demanding the release of the Baader-Meinhof gang. A German swat team secretly lands there and storms the plane, killing or capturing all the hijackers.

Jan-Carl Raspe

26. As a result of this, the gang leaders throw in the towel. Baader, Ensslin, and Raspe commit suicide in their respective cells. They were in communication with each other by using jerry-rigged radios hooked up to the power lines. A day later, Schleyer is murdered and his body dumped. (Later, Nov. 13,  Ingrid Schubert hangs herself.) On Oct. 27, Baader, Ensslin and Raspe are interred in Stuttgart, with thousands in attendance. The public plot was provided, against public outcry, by order of Mayor Romfred Rommel, son of the great WW2 General.

Thus ended the so-called “German Autumn.” A film (Deutschland im Herbst) was made by the New German Cinema group to document the events, with a leftish spin.

This was the high-water mark. The gang continued for two more decades, but the founding nucleus was gone.

Guises of Inge Viett

There was a time when we would have all written this movement off as simple communist evil. The suspicion can scarcely be suppressed, that the gang was helped by and thus collaborated with communist governments — think of the procurement of weapons, the communications gadgets, the forged documents, the ease of international travel, the network of safe houses. (Some [e.g. Susanne Albrecht and Inge Viett] actually escaped to the “German Democratic Republic” and cooperated with the Stasi, being arrested only after the wall came down.) Baader, Ensslin, and Meinhof all abandoned their own children for the “cause.” Moreover, if the depiction of personalities in the film is accurate, Baader and Ensslin were simply crazy self-indulgent fanatics. However, as mentioned above, there is some reason to doubt the uniform accuracy of the film on such points. Above all, Mahler does not write them off completely, so we should not either. And Ulrike Meinhof cannot be written off at all so easily.

Even if someone accepts support from a communist state — and I am not suggesting that this was true of all the gang members by any means –, this doesn’t tell the whole story from a human standpoint. People are not just cardboard characters called “agent of X.” They have a story, that sometimes leads to willingness, for a cause, to embrace death, to inflict death, even to commit suicide. They must be distinguished from worthless people that betray their country for money.

Not just the case of Horst Mahler, but our new insight into the American problem, is cause to reflect on this matter with more nuance than we all would have once. We too think we are facing a regime that is simply going to act according to its nefarious plan and ignore all objections; a regime that is deaf to appeal. Our rulers meet at midnight to pass laws they haven’t read, on weekends and holidays. We are going to have to extract a number of threads carefully. More will need to be said before the right way to think about this arc of recent history can be considered resolved.

The movie can be rented from Netflix or members can watch on-line as one of their freebies.

Warning: there is a lot of violence, occasionally reaching the intensity of the assassination of Sonny in Godfather. There is also some full nudity, but I should qualify that by observing that the nudity, as often is the case in German films, is not particularly erotic and thus does not seem voyeuristic. There is something perfunctory about its presence in German films. (I can just hear the producer talking with his screenwriter: “Hans, Abe just called from Hollywood. If we want them to distribute the film in America, they insist there be at least one sex scene. Do you think you can work it in?”) German nudity has a tradition going back to the barbarian days, when the women goaded their men into realizing the cost of military defeat by baring their bosoms as the men marched into battle. I wonder if the German appropriation of nudity is as a result somewhat different from that of us, as consumers of jewish Hollywood. It may help explain the acceptance of photography even in the street-level press that shocks our Victorian sensibilities, despite the generally exemplary German Sittlichkeit. Nevertheless, fair warning.

You mean you kill people... at the behest of your superiors?

predicted, going to crank up at least one of the middle east wars, not end it as promised, is just too good. It looks like the “Senate investigation” right out of Godfather II.

As Fredo said, “Hyman Roth owns him.”

True then, and true now.

One line of criticism of their project is the ecumenicity of Prelatic and Evangelical, which is nicely parodied here. I would only add, that if the particular points of this manifesto are all they could come up with, then why not become even more ecumenical and invite like-minded Unitarians and atheists? True, they sign it “as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” but that comes at the end of the short statement, there is no attempt to show implication, and they are not signing it as authorized agents of the representative church of any of their branches. Why even mention that the group of signatories happens to include — and no more than hap can be claimed — individuals that are members of three branches of Christendom?

However, let us drill deeper. The three points, shorn of all the committeespeak, and put in plain English, are these:

1. Burning babies to death in saline solution is not a good thing.

2. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

3. Those that affirm the first two points should not be imprisoned and black-listed.

Is it not odd that as noisy “followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” they don’t think to mention the public blasphemy of his holy name in the movies being poured down the throats of the nation’s young people? At the end of the day, I suspect these men know whose bread needs to be kept buttered above all else.

On the other hand, in the full-text version, they do find time to praise historical Christian involvement in democracy, abolitionism, first-generation feminism and the American Civil Rights movement, even though there were undoubtedly more Christians rightly opposed to those movements than engaged in them. The great Plagiarist and Adulterer is also cited favorably.

Nevertheless, the three points are a summary of where we have arrived politically, sufficient to point out that this is not the stuff for polite position papers: it is the stuff of revolutions. If we had real leaders, they would be advising us as to whether it is time for men to rise up with arms in defense of their families and property, and kill the wicked usurpers – and if it is not time, explain how we will know when it is time. We certainly do not need more double-minded men writing up the minutes of their tea parties for the whole world to see. I don’t know which I dread more: a new string of conferences, special discounts available if you send your money in right away, or the inevitable “get the message out” fund-raising letters, no doubt coming soon. Meanwhile, the dragon yawns, his most essential principles having been conceded once again.

Putting Reformed in scare quotes sets up an ambiguity from the very beginning — and indeed, one can’t get closer to the beginning than the first word of the title. The predicate, “is not enough,” is also unspecified — not enough for what? Let us unpack each one separately:

1. “Reformed”

Let us consider how Wilson uses the word and how the word should be used. Just getting this straight would, I think, clear up much confusion in the church world today.

Exactly why the word is put in scare quotes is never explained. In the Forward, Wilson clearly wants to define Reformed as a category that can be claimed by someone, apparently anyone, holding to “the teaching of the Westminster Confession” or the “historic Reformed faith” (p. 7). He suggests that “this is a debate between the Enlightenment TRs (ETRs) and the historic reformed” (p. 9).

A little later he implies that the term when scare-quoted indicates a person as above but who has ossified, who has not continued to advance. “Because of the Reformational commitment, it is still necessary to say that to be Reformed is not enough. We must certainly live up to what we have already attained, but together with this we must not be allowed to assume that the last significant attainment was in the middle of the seventeenth century.” (p. 13). He unfortunately then quotes the bogus semper reformanda canard — it is “not something we should all chant together right up until someone actually tries it. ” Haha — but don’t let’s chant it either, shall we?

Thus Reformed in scare quotes seems to indicate that “Reformed” is a label that can be claimed by anyone holding certain beliefs, and moreover this claim to be Reformed is not sufficient to settle the questions in the book since it may harp back to a set of beliefs formulated in the 17th century: something more is needed.

But this move is unclear. If anyone claiming to be “holding to the teaching of the Westminster Confession” gets to be referred to as Reformed, and then Wilson making the same claim gets to say “that’s not enough,” then “Reformed” is indeed just a word in quotes. It has little if any value. Let me explain.

“Reformed” is properly not the designation for Calvinism any more than “Catholic” is a designation for Thomism. There is clearly an association, but the entailment is the opposite of how Wilson is using the terms. (It is not just him; the mistake is commonly made by friend and foe.) Instead, we should say that Calvinism is associated with the Reformed church, because the Reformed church in its judicial decisions historically embraced tenets compatible with Calvinism. Had the Synod of Dordt ruled for the Remonstrants, then Arminianism would be the “Reformed” doctrine. Thomism is associated with Catholicism, because the Roman Catholic Church endorsed Thomism. Now consider the converse.

Does some unchurched guy emerging from his study get to make the announcement, “As a Catholic thinker, I endorse Thomas”? Not at all. Agreeing with every word Thomas wrote does not make one a Catholic. Being admitted as a communing member makes one a Catholic. Then one could say, “Though a Catholic, I demur from Thomas at various points.”

Does some unchurched guy emerging from his study get to make the announcement, “As a Reformed thinker, I say ‘Reformed’ is not enough”? Not at all. His claim is just as presumptuous as the churchless guy (or worse yet, a Baptist) claiming to speak as a Catholic, just because he believes this or that also taught by the Catholic church.

What I am suggesting, in other words, is that a great deal of clarity would be injected into the current discussions by defining Reformed doctrine as “that which is taught by the Reformed church,” and a Reformed man as “a member of the Reformed church.” Reformed (with a capital R) is a name that designates a particular church settlement at the time of the Reformation, which has come down to us today by historical continuity reflected in succession of ordination.

If this seems strained or odd, play the logic out with Catholic (with a capital C) or Orthodox (with a capital O). The logic will immediately be clear.

One does not become “Reformed” in any ecclesiastically-meaningful way by starting a club with the word “Reformed” in it, like the “Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches” (CREC). So indeed, putting “Reformed” in scare quotes may have expressed a primal intuition of a real issue.

2. “Is not enough”

Once this is understood, the predicate can now be analyzed. “Reformed” is certainly “enough,” because being in the Reformed Church suffices, so we believe, to be in the holy catholic church “out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25.2).

One could certainly point out that hypocrites should derive no assurance from their church membership. But then, the point would be, not that “being Reformed” is not enough, but that “being a church member” in general is not enough.

One could point out, that “being a member of the Reformed church” is not “enough” to permit one to announce his opinion as that of the Reformed church. Again, that is true but fatuous. It applies to every member of any church, unless it should be the pope (if his claims can be sustained).

One could grant that “being Reformed” or “being Lutheran” or being anything else “is not enough” for this, that or the other thing — like being a good engineer I suppose. But so what?

3. Wilson: what is he?

With that background, it simply needs to be pointed out that Douglas Wilson is not a member of a Reformed Church. If the unchurched man cannot come out of his study and announce, “I as a Catholic think…” nor “I as a Reformed thinker say…” then neither can ten such men band together and say, “we be a Reformed church.” There is only one way to become a Reformed man: and that is to join the Reformed Church. Not announcement, but joining is called for.

What makes the book so silly is that all kinds of analysis is given relevant to what it means to take covenant vows, and so forth, all of which is like a eunuch giving marriage counseling. Auto-ordained Wilson in the self-proclaimed CREC dares to instruct on what it means to be in covenant! As if blabbing on and on endlessly about being in covenant puts one in covenant!

4. “The” covenant

Lest it be thought that I am harping too much on the title, an extension of the semantic analysis can be made in respect to the word that could be said the book purports to be “about,” namely covenant. “One of the great reformational needs in the Church today is the need for us to understand the objectivity of the covenant, and so that is the thrust of this book” (p. 13). So the first point is that Wilson needs to join the Church before talking about what the Church needs to do. But the second is like unto it: “the” covenant is never specified. There are several covenants in Scripture, and even more sub-covenants or covenant administrations. So what possible sense is there in referring to “the covenant” as if there is only one? The “objectivity of the covenant,” so stated, is an empty abstraction.

It may seem like a mere semantic quibble, but it is not. Read the book while constantly asking, “what covenant is Wilson talking about” and you will see the problem.

It is not that the book has nothing good; but when the verbal legerdemain is removed, we must borrow the words of a wag who said “where it is original it is unsound, and where it is sound it is unoriginal.”

Douglas Wilson. “Reformed” is Not Enough. (Moscow, ID: Canon) 2002

The proposal electrified the world, and arguably, led to substantial disarmament, if not the fall of the Soviet Union.

Or perhaps the fix was in on this too. We are starting to learn “the rest of the story” on many aspects of “the Gipper.” But let’s assume the best at least for a moment.

I have not heard a zero-option proposed for the Middle East: namely, Iran would not be permitted to have nukes, and in exchange, Israel would destroy all of its nukes, and permit free international inspections to verify it.

Why has a zero-option not been proposed, do you suppose?

Robert E. Sherwood

Enter Robert E. Sherwood, playwright and playboy, to save the day. He pulled off a most amazing feat, producing a play in which every evil action or attitude of anyone anywhere is portrayed as simply a lapse into Nazism. Yes, the invasion of Finland that filled people with disgust appeared to be carried out by the communist Red Army; but this was only because they had temporarily forgotten their ideals and succumbed to the temptation to act like Nazis. Indeed, perhaps they were as innocents actually being manipulated by Nazis to carry out a Nazi agenda without even knowing it. Therefore, America needed to awaken and prepare to wage war against the Nazis.

The title of the play was “There Shall Be No Night,” from Revelation 21:25 or 22:5. However, it does not purport to be a Christian answer to the global situation. The main character explains that the deeper meaning of Revelation is theosophical rapture in one’s own mind:

Kaarlo: We can all use the Book of Revelation to substantiate our own theories. It’s an eternally effective device. I have heard evangelist charlatans quote it to prove that if you do not accept their nonsense and pay for it, you will most surely burn in hell.  But there is something profound in those words I quoted. That unknown Jewish mystic who wrote that — somehow, unconsciously, he knew that man will find the true name of God in his own forehead, in the mysteries of his own mind. “And there shall be no night there.” That is the basis of all the work I have done. (Scene 6)

The play premiered on Mar 29, 1940 — just two weeks after the “First War” against the Finns and 24 days after the Soviet massacre of 25,000 Polish officers and intellectuals in cold blood at the Katyn Forest.

The play can be summarized adequately by describing each character, for there is not much in the way of plot: the propaganda proceeds by chit-chat among the players, and the small amount of action is merely implied by the dialogue.

Dr. Kaarlo Valkonen, Finnish psychiatrist, takes every chance to pontificate about insanity, of which waging war is one manifestation. The Russian Revolution was an idealistic breakthrough of sanity, even as the work of Freud and Pavlov and himself is a marshaling of science toward curing humanity of its mental problem. Despite his pacifistic tendencies, however, he comes to see that Nazism is the one thing that will prevent man from rising to greatness, so he finally takes up arms himself.

His wife, Miranda, is New England-born, and represents the “can’t we all just get along” attitude of the typical American. She had two ancestors, representing two sides of America: “rugged heroism” — that one “died happy” –, and capitalism — that one “made a nice fortune selling shoddy uniforms to the army.” She is inclined to favor the latter as a role model for their son, like the proverb “better a live dog than a dead lion,” but the play is meant to rekindle the former motif, and trigger a properly anti-Nazi warlike spirit in other Americans.

Their son Erik, being of mixed American/Finnish blood, represents the conflict between patriotism and love of fun and romance. In the end, he realizes that he must fight for “freedom” and against Nazism in every form. He dies, but not before impregnating his girlfriend Kaatri. She is persuaded to flee to America to raise the child away from all the insanity, thus becoming a symbol for women and children that can rebuild and “carry on the blood” after the men have died fighting Nazism.

Affable German Consul Dr. Ziemssen frankly announces everything about Germans that Sherwood believes about them. In this way, Sherwood does not have to defend his prejudice, since his straw-man “opponent” admits the same view.

A few examples from the text of the play itself will show just how blatant New Deal rhetoric can be; indeed to the point that it is rather amusing in retrospect.

All evil comes from Nazism

Erik and his girl are discussing the Soviet buildup (Scene 2).

Erik: The American government — all governments — are being pulverized with fear by this Soviet propaganda. They want to pulverize us, too, so that well give them what they want without a struggle.

Maybe Erik is waking up to the Soviet threat? Alas, no:

… It’s all bluff — it’s all an imitation of the Nazis.

Kaatri: But when the bluff doesn’t work, suppose they go on imitating the Nazis — suppose they do attack?

Note the Soviets appear to be the aggressor, but if so, they are only “imitating Nazis.” Later (scene 5), Joe, the fighter pilot, describes his feelings after strafing a column of Germans.

Joe: They were Nazis. It gave me a thrill. All this time, in fighting the Russians, I’ve felt just a little bit uncomfortable — you can imagine it, Dave, after my experience with the Loyalists. You know, I couldn’t help saying, “God forgive them — for they know not what they do.”… But when I saw those Nazis — those arrogant bastards — and I could even see the looks on their faces, — all I could think of was, “God forgive me if I miss this glorious opportunity.” I let ‘em have it! It was a beautiful sight…

Dave: I thought it was about time for the Nazis to be taking a hand in this war. No wonder the tide of battle has turned. I guess they’ve decided there has been enough of this nonsense of Finland’s resistance. Probably they want the Russians to get busy somewhere else.

The idea is that the Russians when they are aggressive are simply the tools of the Nazis, not acting according to their own ideology and interests. In scene 7, incredibly, the Germans continue to be referred to as the actual aggressor:

Joe: This city might hold out for a long time, like Madrid.

Dave: I hope not. Because if it comes to a siege, you’ll see German battleships out there, doing their bit in the bombardment. I wouldn’t like to be here when that happens.

A bit later, Dave grants that the Soviets have a role, but:

Dave: Three months ago, the Soviet troops marched in…. The cause of revolution all over the world has been set back incalculably…. The Soviet Union has been reduced from the status of a great power to that of a great fraud. And the Nazis have won another bloodless victory.

Incredibly, the result of the Soviet invasion of Finland is… a Nazi victory over Finland.

Again and again, the play drills in that if the Soviets do something bad, it is falling away from the ideals of the Revolutionists, and instead, imitating Nazis.

Communism is good

In scene 1, son Erik says he is studying economics and sociology. His father chimes in.

Kaarlo: And skiing. He can’t make up his mind whether he wants to be another Karl Marx, or another Olympic champion.

Thus, Karl Marx is set up as the great exemplar of economics: the analogue of an “Olympic champion” of skiing.

Dave: Have you been much in the Soviet Union?

Erik: Oh, yes. We lived there when father was working with Pavlov.

The “oh, yes” shows enthusiasm at the memory of the Soviet Union. The only thing worth mentioning about that country is the science, the good work.

Dave: And you really believe they might invade this country?

The “really” indicates that it is inherently incredible to think of the USSR invading another country.

Erik: If there were counter-revolution in Russia, anything might happen. Or the Nazis might come that way. We have to be prepared.

Thus it is explained how such a thing could happen. It could happen if there were counter-revolution, i.e. if the Marxist revolution were overthrown by reactionaries! Or, what amounts to the same thing, the Nazis might get there first. There is some banter about punch, then:

Dave: Of course, the Nazis have been highly successful in terrifying people of the Bolshevik menace. But all the times I’ve been in Moscow, I’ve never seen anything but a passionate desire to be let alone, in peace.

Notice all the assertions here. Any fear of the Bolsheviks is caused by Nazi propaganda. Dave has been in Moscow a lot and all he has seen is the desire for peace. Just like Walter Duranty, only here it is being said with a straight face.

The German confesses that world conquest is the goal

Later, in scene 3, when the German Dr. Ziemssen urges his friend to leave Finland, he reveals this bombshell:

Ziemssen: You think our enemies are these — these Communists who now invade your country?

Kaarlo: Yes. That is what I think.

Ziemssen: The Russians think so, too, but they are wrong. We are your enemies, Herr Doktor. This Finnish incident is one little item in our vast scheme. We make good use of our esteemed allies of the Soviet Union….

After a bit he continues

Ziemssen: The same is true of every nation that we conquer; we shall see to it that none of them will ever rise again … This is a process of annihilation. It is a studied technique, and it was not invented in Moscow. You will find the blueprints of it, not in Das Kapital, but in Mein Kampf. …

Kaarlo: Do you approve of this technique?

In answering, Ziemssen indicates that the Germans even plan to enslave their fellow Aryans, the Scandinavians:

Ziemssen: Naturally, I regret the necessity for it. But I admit the necessity. And so must you, Dr. Valkonen. Remember that every great state of the past in its stages of construction has required slavery. Today, the greatest world state is in process of formation. There is a great need for slave labor. And — these Finns and Scandinavians would be useful. They are strong; they have great capacity for endurance.

The memes continue to be planted that the German goal was world conquest, including the outright lie that they desired the conquest of the new world:

Kaarlo: Where can one go to escape this world state?

Ziemssen: An intelligent question, Herr Doktor. I assure you that the United States is secure for the present. It may continue so for a long time, if the Americans refrain from interfering with us in Mexico and South America and Canada. And I believe they will refrain. They are now showing far greater intelligence in that respect than ever before. They are learning to mind their own shrinking business.

America must give up its isolationism

In Scene 3, while the doctor encourages his wife to leave the country, the meme is planted for Americans pondering their role. Miranda’s attitude is to mirror the American isolationist view — understandable but untenable.

Miranda: I don’t think [Erik] would be particularly happy or proud to hear that his mother has scurried to safety at the first sound of a shot fired.

Kaarlo: Erik has American blood in his veins. He will understand.

Miranda: Oh! So that’s it! His American blood will tell him that it’s perfectly reasonable for me to run away. You evidently share Kaatri’s opinion of me.

And later, American non-involvement is likened to Pontius Pilate.

Dave: [Pilate] knew that this was a good, just man, who didn’t deserve death. .. But when they cried, “Crucify Him!” all Pilate could say was, “Bring me a basin of water, so that I can wash my hands of the whole matter.”

Summary

In summary, the play drives home that Soviet aggression, to the extent that it was not just a manipulation by the Nazis and under their control, was a lapse from the glorious ideals of Marxism. American must therefore wake up and crush the Nazis.

It is no wonder that Sherwood was fingered to become an employed shill for the New Deal. The question for a grad student in history to pursue is to discover how he became such a doctrinaire apostle for the “cause.” A good place to start would be his Hollywood connections, who rewarded him richly for minor editorial work. He hung out with a number of them during his California jaunts. Therein is probably to be found the story behind the story.