The Gospel According to Laurent Guyénot
The Neo-Nazi Attack on the Bible
Reading time for this study is approximately 60 minutes. It is best read online and in its entirety at michaelhoffman.substack.com/
In the past year or so, the number of furious denigrators of the Old Testament I have encountered sputtering with anger toward Yahweh, has increased. These angry ones often invoke the writing of French author Laurent Guyénot as motivation/inspiration for their disconcert.
Michael Hoffman's Revelation of the Method is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
On January 26 the Unz Review online published Mr. Guyénot’s column, “The Biblical Lens and the Nietzschean Light.” It contains falsehoods representative of his oeuvre and running the gamut from egregious to laughable.
The shallow foundation of his didactic pronouncements rest largely on vitriolic slogans appointed for belief by the credulous reader’s assent to his personal authority.
Guyénot: Christians worship two gods, Christ and Yahweh, but claim they are one. Certainly, the God of the Old Testament plays a secondary role in Christian consciousness. He remains behind the scenes. But he nevertheless pulls a number of strings.
Hoffman: Outside of the the Arian heresy, which was condemned by the Universal Church at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., contemporary advocates of the belief that Jesus is separate and stands apart from Yahweh in a subsidiary role, include the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization.
The Church of the Ages, and the overwhelming body of Christians, worship Yahweh as Jesus, two of the three persons who comprise the Triune God. This is confirmed by the etymology of their names. In Hebrew the name of our savior is Yehoushua (“Yahweh saves”).
The shortened form is Yeshua—“He will save.” (In old “Middle English,” Yeshua was abbreviated as Iesu, which became “Jesus” in the English language of the early seventeenth century).
The attempt to separate Jesus from Yahweh is integral to Mr. Guyénot’s fiction. In truth, Jesus and Yahweh are the same: “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30).
Before the Arian heresy, the Catholic Church confronted the heresy of Marcion, who was active in Rome circa 130-140 A.D., during which time he published his Antitheses, an attack on the Old Testament, claiming it was “pseudonumou gnoseos” (“falsely called knowledge”). To derogate the Old Testament Marcion was impelled to surgically remove large parts of the New, and confect a non-Judaic Jesus.
The Nazis also faced the dilemma of how to disconnect Christian faith in the Bible on the part of a plurality of Germans, without launching a frontal assault on Jesus Himself, which in that era would have been a non-starter. The Nazis hit on the idea of suggesting in various ways that the Old Testament was “unworthy” of Jesus. Once that conditioning process was in play, the Hitlerists made headway in deprecating the Hebrew Bible altogether, eventually to the point of abhorrence. A theology like that requires either the outright desertion of Jesus, or the more diplomatic tack of excising His Gospel’s inescapable rootedness in the Old Testament. Thus pared down, not much remains other than an anemic, nominal acknowledgement that Jesus was “a good man” who offered the world a saccharine code of conduct: be nice and learn to share.
The Gospel According to Guyénot: Everyone who says he is a Christian is one
Guyénot anoints Arthur Balfour and Harry Truman, two flagrant opposers of Christ’s Gospel, as “Christians.” He writes:
Balfour was a Christian, that is enough. Truman was also a Christian — the Baptist kind — and arguably more so than Balfour. He did not particularly expect the return of Christ, but he had a soft spot for the biblical people, and that — plus two million bucks in a suitcase [According to John Kennedy, as quoted by Gore Vidal in his preface to Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Two Thousand Years, Central Connecticut State University, 1994] — counted in his decision to recognize Israel within ten minutes. He was very moved to receive as a token of gratitude an authentic Torah scroll, presented to him by the first president of Israel, none other than Chaim Weizmann (who had declared at Versailles in 1919, “The Bible is our mandate”).
Mr. Guyénot ascribes to himself an enormous prestige: on his ipse dixit, without otherwise citing the warnings of Jesus, His disciples and their historical posterity concerning pretend Christians (Matthew 7: 21-23), he proceeds to teach, through his pedagogy-by-proclamation, that Balfour and Truman were indeed Christians. By the same magical thinking one may announce that Joe Biden is a patriotic American, George W. Bush a peacemaker and Pope John Paul II a Conservative pontiff. It would seem that wishing makes it so.
In each biographical case, received consensus opinion, or the declarations of the men themselves, serve to maintain the putative truthfulness of their Christian identity. These opinions and declarations are easy to refute however, by observation. No loyal American maintains open borders as does Biden; no peacemaker wages aggressive war against the nation of Iraq that had done America no harm, as did Mr. Bush. John-Paul was a revolutionary, the first pope to enter a synagogue and declare to the assembled traducers of Jesus that they were the pope’s “elder brothers in the faith.” What faith might that be? Certainly not Christianity.
In mischievously labeling Balfour and Truman “Christians,” Guyénot is having fun with his readers; one might even opine that he is doing so at their expense, given that he is too smart not to know that, as Samuel Johnson observed, in the matter of ascertaining the identity of an individual, it is their example that is the accurate guide, not their precepts. Or as Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
If Balfour had been a Christian he would not have initiated the displacement of Palestinian Christians by anti-Christians. If Truman had been a Christian he would not have joined the higher degrees of Freemasonry, a system of Kabbalism for Gentiles; or incinerated the civilians of Nagasaki, the city in 1945 with the largest number of Christians in the Far East. By Guyénot’s criterion you’re forever a Christian if a baptismal certificate was issued in your name, or if you say you are. The categories of apostate and turncoat are, when it suits his purposes, irrelevant or inadmissible. His proverb is ‘by your fruits you shall not know them.’
The immediate motive for the Balfour Declaration is well known: it was given to the Zionists in exchange for their dragging the United States into the war. Chaim Weizmann was frank about it. In 1941, he reminded Churchill that, “it was the Jews who in the last war actually helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great Britain. They are ready to do it — and can do it — again.” In return for giving Churchill a Second World War, he asked for only one thing: a Jewish state in Palestine, which Churchill was more than willing to give him.
Ron Unz has deconstructed the preceding legend and readers ought to consult his study. Mr. Guyénot takes the braggadocio of Chaim Weizmann at face value, failing to anticipate the incentive to lie and take credit where credit is not due, as Unz demonstrates. Did Mr. Guyénot study the Unz article? If he did, he ought to have attempted at least a few sentences of reply or refutation. It seems there was no need. The Gospel according to Guyénot is sufficient.
The ultimate reason why the Christian world gave Palestine to the Jews is because the Christian world has always idealized biblical Israel.
Here he makes “the Jews” and “Biblical Israel” synonymous. For him they are an indivisible whole. In his recklessness he ascribes this fantasy to the entire “Christian world.” The dogma of the Catholic Church for at least 1500 years—upheld by Martin Luther and John Calvin thereafter— regarded the “Jews” as anything but Biblical Israel.
Guyénot: It is because Christians revere biblical Israel as the people created and loved by God that they allowed themselves to be seduced by the Zionist project of reviving Israel.
Who are these “Christians”? They can only be the denizens of a radical modernist departure from the historic true Faith, prior to which it was understood and taught for millennia that Biblical Israel was comprised of Christians, as the apostle who Catholics believe to have been the first pontiff, declared 2,000 years ago to his fellow believers in Jesus:
“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (I Peter 2:9).
If Mr. Guyénot were to say, “…modern apostate so-called Christians revere what they imagine to be Biblical Israel…” he would be speaking truthfully.
Guyénot: Certainly, it was the ruling elites who made Israel. However, until very recently, there was no divorce between the elites and the people on this issue. Holding it as an indisputable truth, or at least as an acceptable notion, that God had created Israel in biblical times, European public opinion, both Catholic and Protestant, was rather well disposed towards a project which explicitly aimed to revive this same Israel.
Here we have Catholics and Protestants absolved of believing their centuries-old “anti-Semitic” article of faith that the Israel of Biblical times had sentenced itself to death with the crucifixion of their Messiah in 33 A.D. —a sentence executed in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the Temple by the Roman legions, under Titus.
Institutionalizing the Torah sheBeal peh, that figment of the Pharisee imagination
After which there was no more Judaism, only a sad simulacra, a study-hall creed conducted in a place of worship appropriately dubbed a schul (school), and predicated on a gigantic, ever-expanding, self-perpetuating corpus of anti-Christian hate speech, misogyny and self-worshipping phastamagoria, emanating from institutionalization of the Torah sheBeal peh, that figment of the Pharisee imagination which they call the oral law.
This subversion of the Old Testament’s written law by a legendary oral one supposed to have also been given at Sinai, is the founding sacred dogma of the religion of the Talmud. This faux law was explicitly condemned by Jesus as nothing more than the “traditions of men.” Speaking to Judean Pharisees He declared: “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” (Mark 7: 6-8).
To conflate Biblical Israel with counterfeit Israel, as Mr. Guyénot does, is to confirm the veracity of the theology of the Pharisees and contradict the teaching of Jesus.
The “Bible” of the Pharisees is the Talmud of Babylon, the oral law committed to writing in the wake of the crucifixion of the Messiah — a fact known to the early and medieval Church of Chrysostom, Augustine and Aquinas, and to the founding fathers of Protestantism, Luther and Calvin and the inaugural scientific prodigy of Christian Talmud investigation, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger.
Guyénot makes another of his unfounded generalizations when he claims that “European public opinion, both Catholic and Protestant, was rather well disposed towards a project which explicitly aimed to revive this same Israel…”
A 20th Century Pope Slams the Door shut on Zionism
Forty-four years prior to the creation of the bandit state, on January 26, 1904, Theodore Herzl obtained a private audience with Pius X to obtain the pope’s blessing on the Zionist movement and its objective of founding a “state of Israel” in Palestine. This was the response of the pontiff:
“Noi non possiamo favorire questo movimento. Non potremo impedire gli Ebrei di andare a Gerusalemme—ma favorire non possiamo mai. La terra di Gerusalemme se non era sempre santa, è santificata per la vita di Jesu Christo. Io come capo della chiesa non posso dirle altra cosa. Gli Ebrei non hanno riconosciuto nostro Signore, perciò non possiamo riconoscere il popolo ebreo.”
(“We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people”).
This refusal did not emanate from the iconoclastic outlaw pen of some Louis Ferdinand Céline writing in a decaying mansion in the suburbs of Paris; nor was it the fulmination of a scorned monk secluded in the mountains of Calabria. It was articulated in Vatican City by the Sovereign Pontiff of the Roman Church, fully representative of the public faith of that Church for millennia.
Explain again, Mr. Guyénot, your notion that “because Christians revere biblical Israel as the people created and loved by God that they allowed themselves to be seduced by the Zionist project of reviving Israel.”
Pius X was not seduced. Neither were the hundreds of millions of Catholics in his flock. Among many Lutherans, and conservative Protestants in general, skepticism toward the machinations of Zionism was acute.
Mr. Guyénot’s imposture depends upon the theological and historical illiteracy and amnesia of his readers, without which his house of cards would tumble and his credibility along with it.
Guyénot: Zionism is biblical from head to toe. If the statements of the Zionists themselves are not enough to convince us, then let”s look at their actions: they have settled in biblical land, claim the biblical capital (Tel Aviv will not do), and give biblical names to the lands they have stolen; they resurrected the biblical language; they apply the biblical law of endogamy (mixed marriages are not recognized in Israel), as well as the biblical law of eighth-day circumcision (virtually all Jewish male babies are circumcised in Israel). What more do we need to admit what they keep saying: everything Zionist is biblical. We can even say that everything biblical is Zionist, as the two are so intertwined.
Guyénot makes the silly statement that “everything Zionist is biblical. We can even say that everything biblical is Zionist…” This tautology evokes laughter. It is so evidence-free that one surmises it must be another of his jests.
What a surprise his claim would be to the atheists, agnostics and Communists who founded the Zionist state in 1948 and dominated it for the next 25 years —to discover that they are true to the Old Testament’s teachings.
Mr. Guyénot repeatedly makes the blunder of mistaking a burlesque for the real thing. Of course the Zionists sought the prestige of identifying their modern ideology with ancient Israel. Certainly they would, in pursuit of that burlesque, “give biblical names to the lands they have stolen” and claim to have “resurrected the biblical language.”
Guyénot admits as much when he writes, “Moshe Dayan, the hero of the Six Day War, also a self-proclaimed atheist, titled his memoir Living with the Bible.”
“A self-proclaimed atheist” who asserts that they “live with” the Word of God, is perpetrating a bipolar fraud on the public, which Guyénot compounds.
Moreover, contrary to Ben Gurion and Laurent Guyénot, Israeli “Hebrew” is not a revival of the language of the ancient Hebrews. It possesses a morphology that is Semitic, combined with Slavic and Germanic elements. To call it “Hebrew” without qualification is a scam. It is an artificially concocted jargon.
Here’s another of his jokes: Pope Francis once said that, “Inside every Christian is a Jew.” We can also say that inside every Christian is a Zionist. This applies not only to “Christian Zionists,” who are self-consciously Zionist, but to Christians in general, who are Zionist to the extent that they are biblical. Christians found legitimate the rebirth of Israel as a nation in Palestine, and strongly disapproved of the Arabs who resented it.
Quoting Pope Francis on any matter of the Christian faith is self-indicting. Guyénot rehabilitates the much disputed Christian credentials of Francis, the pontiff who, on June 23, invited Andreas Serrano to the Sistine Chapel so he could bless him for his “artistic gesture” of submersing a crucifix in a vat of urine. Serrano’s objet d’arte was titled, “Piss Christ.”
As reported by Fortune, “Francis acknowledged that some in the crowd — there was Andres Serrano, of ‘Piss Christ’ fame — sometimes use confrontation to make people think. But he said their aim was to find harmony and beauty…Like the biblical prophets, you confront things that at times are uncomfortable…”
Guyénot: “Christians helped Jews to recreate Israel” (never mind about Pius X, Charles Coughlin and a few hundred million others)
Guyénot deprecates Pope Pius X by insisting that “inside every Christian is a Zionist.” Every Christian? Who can believe this?
Ten years before the founding of the Israeli state, an implacable enemy of Zionism, Rev. Fr. Charles Coughlin, hosted a weekly radio broadcast in the U.S. with an estimated 30 million listeners. He and his vast audience were a bulwark against Zionism and Talmudism. All of this history is ignored by our teacher and helmsman, who supports his insupportable claims with reckless caricatures and gossamer-thin slogans.
Guyénot’s delirium mounts: Christians believe that ancient Israel had a divine right — nay, a divine duty — to steal land from Canaanites and massacre entire cities. Christians helped Jews to recreate Israel, on the assumption that they were the legitimate heirs of ancient Israel. Now connect those two dots, and what you see appearing is a simple truth: Christians granted Israel the divine right to massacre whole populations. …We may protest, but that is the irresistible logic of history that has been set in motion by Christianity. From the moment it sanctified the Hebrew Tanakh, Christianity has been working, wittingly or not, for the recreation of Israel, that cancer of the world.”
To sustain the preceding, one has to toss fifteen centuries of history, the entire epoch of Christian resistance to anti-Christian Judeans. True Christians who believed that it was the Church which was now Israel, having superseded racial Israel and replaced it, thwarted the plots and ambitions of Talmudists and would-be Israeli sicarri for well over a thousand years. Cooperation with those forces would have been impossible in the 20th century had the Church of Christian Biblical Israel not been infiltrated, subverted and nearly conquered. One doesn’t fault the authentic article because a counterfeit has usurped it and stolen its name. Regrettably, it is this fake which has gulled—or deranged— Guyénot.
Observe the double-minded framework of this particular proclamation of his:
“The Jews wrote a book that says God gave Palestine to the Jews, and Christians have taken that book seriously for two thousand years. By choosing Christianity, Western civilization has accepted everything written in this book written by the Jews: jealous God, chosen people, promised land, divine right to genocide, and so on. In doing so, Christendom granted the Jews immeasurable power.”
This is his monotonous theme song. He then demolishes it with this admission:
Granted, it (Christianity) did not give the Jews unlimited license to steal and kill: according to Christian doctrine, God was disappointed with the Jews and decided to unilaterally withdraw from the alliance, in order to constitute instead the Church…
The poor guy then forgets what he wrote above seventeen hundred years of Catholic and Protestant theology and states:
“Therefore, the main responsibility of the Christian world today is to stop pandering to Zionist madness, and to say to the Jews: no, you are not the chosen people.”
Ah, but the actual Christian world did so, monsieur! Where have you been these past oceans of time? Christ’s Church exists today wherever two or three are gathered in His name. It is that ecclesia that continues to stand for the ancient Gospel faith contra the regime of Talmudic-Zionism and Kabbalism.
Surely Guyénot grasps a cardinal fact of theology and history: the true orthodox Church taught, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, that the ecclesia of Jesus Christ replaced racial-national Israel as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world. The New Testament declares that it is the Church which is “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), the “seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:29), “the circumcision” (Phil. 3:3), the “temple of God” (Eph. 2:19-22).
Only a rebel against the Gospel of Jesus would join with Mr. Guyénot in assigning to “the Jews” an exclusive eternal Biblical birthright, contrary to everything Jesus, the apostles, Church patriarchs, medieval theologians and the early fathers of the Reformation believed: that the Biblical birthright was transferred to the believers in Jesus, the authentic children of Abraham, as Jesus defined them.
In the famous passage in the Gospel of John 8: 31-44, Jesus clarifies the identity of the children of Abraham upon which the Biblical promises depend. He makes it clear that Abraham’s children are those who believe in Him; those who do not are of the infernal opposer.
Guyénot can proceed all he likes to obstinately misidentify all the betrayers of this Gospel. He can persist in calling CINOs (Christians In Name Only), Christian, but it will not serve one iota to transmute them into followers of the Way of Jesus.
His premise is unique for insinuating that in the extensive history of masquerades and false fronts, mountebanks and double-agents, Christianity has been immune. Throughout recorded time every one who has said he is a Christian really was! Voila, we can thereby assign to them collusion with every philo-Zionist felony imaginable. A giddy fatuity like this would be unworthy of a grammar school term paper, yet it has managed to attract a considerable following online.
Historic Christianity’s Faithful Witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ contra the revolutionary betrayal by modern Pulpit Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing
Charles Provan in The Church is Israel Now taught that national Israel will never again possess a unique role or function apart from the Church. The New Testament Church is the True Israel that has forever superseded the racial nation of Israel as the people of God. There is no longer any place for ethnic Israel in salvation history. The prophecies addressed to the people of Israel henceforth belong to the people of the universal Church of Israel, whose head is Jesus and whose members from all races constitute the ecclesia — the assembly of those who have been called — the sheep found among the nations of the earth who have been chosen by the Sovereign will of Yahweh to believe in Jesus as the Messiah-King and Savior.
“The Church completely and permanently replaced ethnic Israel in the working of God's plan and as recipient of God’s Old Testament promises.” — Ronald E. Dipose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought
“ It may seem harsh to say that ‘God is done with the Jews.' But the fact of the matter is He is through with them as a unified national group…” —Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (1957)
Gary M. Burge, Prof. of New Testament Theology at Wheaton College, writing in Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to ‘Holy Land’ Theology (2010), pp. 56-57:
“The Gospel of John’s theological portrait of Jesus and the land echoes and develops themes heard in the synoptic gospels. In those gospels, Jesus’ disregard for the territorial interests of His generation stands out. He does not value Jewish nationalism tied to divine claims for the land. He does not engage in consultations that might secure the land from the Roman occupation. He is even willing to bless the occupier…
“In the Fourth Gospel, the land is subsumed within John's theology of Christological replacement/fulfillment. Christ is the new avenue to God, the…nexus between the Father and his people, the exclusive place of revelation and glory. What Judaism sought in its festivals and institutions, it can now find in Christ. Would it sought in its Temple is now fulfilled in Christ. And the energies Judaism directed to the land must now be redirected to the One Vine of the Vineyard who encompassed in His life the very promises life in the land had to offer.
“The earliest readers/hearers of John's gospel would have been surprised to meet Christians who claimed a territorial theology. They would have been surprised to think that Christians still believed they could find in the land blessing or promise or life apart from the divine life located in Jesus.
“This instinct so deeply anchored in Johannine spirituality… explains how this community (made up of Jews and Gentiles) was content to remain living in Ephesus…They felt no need to live in the land. And this view—that every land might now have a divine claim on it—soon became the hallmark of Christian life and mission in the earliest days. Not surprisingly, Christians refused to fight for the land in the great war of A.D. 66–70. They fled, according to Eusebius, to the great Decapolis city of Pella…Nor did Christians fight for the land in the Bar Kokhba rebellion of 132–135. The vineyard they loved was centered on Jesus and his life and this could be gained in any country.”
O. Palmer Robertson, Professor of Theology emeritus at Westminster Theological Seminary, in The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (2000), pp. 48-49:
“But should the Jewish people, quite apart from their lack of faith in the Messiah who has come, receive the blessings of the Messiah's reign if basic principles of justice are violated in the process?
“And if the land of the Bible belongs to participants in the new covenant…then it would belong to all who are the seed of Abraham by faith, whether Jews or Gentiles or Palestinians (Galatians 3: 26–29. The promises of redemption have never been offered to people without a true faith in the Messiah sent by God. In the past, those who did not exercise proper faith were driven out of the land and regarded as not God's people. On the other hand, any person who exercises true faith in the Messiah sent by God has been declared to be heir of all God’s promises.
“Recognizing the validity of a claim to the redemptive land of promise, however that promise may be understood by a group of people who are identified in some way other than by faith in Jesus Christ, inevitably involves a return to the shadowy realm of the old covenant provisions of redemption….
“The recognition of a distinctive people who are the recipients of God's redemptive blessings and yet who have a separate existence apart from the Church of Jesus Christ creates insuperable theological problems. Jesus has only one body and only one bride, one people that he claims as his own, which is the true Israel of God. This one people is made up Jews and Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah.”
Romans 11, particularly verse 26, is frequently deployed by modern tergiversators to rescue and enshrine some vestige of race-based salvation in the New Testament Church, in view of the fact that Yahweh’s covenant with Israel is eternal. This eschatological bagatelle was dismissed in the early and medieval Church by patriarchs such as St. John Chrysostom, who wrote in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew that at the end of time, “Jews must believe in Christ otherwise they will utterly perish.” St. Augustine in The City of God, affirmed that in the last days any Jews saved would obtain salvation solely by their conversion to faith in Jesus; there being no other basis for it: “In that day the Jews—those of them at least who shall receive the spirit of grace and mercy—shall repent of insulting Him (Jesus).”
John Calvin noted in his study, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and Thessalonians that the “all Israel” who will be saved identified in Romans 11:26, is a reference to the Church composed of Jews and Gentiles.
Furthermore, in Calvin’s treatise, Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, he teaches that the only hope for the Jews who, “from their unconquerable obstinacy it might be inferred that they were altogether cast off and doomed to eternal death, is as Paul justly concludes...some remnant will come to Christ and obtain that salvation which He has procured…” The “all Israel” that will be saved at the end of time denotes all the members of Jesus/Yahweh’s Church of Israel, elected unto salvation by their belief in Jesus.
M.J. Erickson in A Basic Guide to Eschatology (1998) p. 123-24, adds, “…this will be brought about through their being converted and integrated into the Church rather than through God resuming the relationship He had with them as the chosen or covenant nation, in the Old Testament.”
Charles D. Provan, Ronald E. Dipose, Loraine Boettner, Gary M. Burge, O. Palmer Robertson, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, John Calvin and M.J. Erickson don’t exist in Guyénot’s shuttered world. They are not “the Christians.”
The axiom incumbent on us to believe by Mr. Guyénot having stated it, consists in his absurd asseveration that all Christians are Zionists. Hence, all the Fathers of the Church, all the popes, saints and reformers either were not Christians, or they were all advocates of the Jews gaining a nation in Palestine and somehow didn’t know it.
Martin Luther — Guyénot’s ventriloquist’s dummy
It gets worse:
“Germany was the heroic nation ready to lead Europe toward emancipation from the Bible hoax. She had been the first European nation to free herself from papal oppression. The last book written by their national hero Martin Luther bore the title: On the Jews and Their Lies, and warned Germans that, “the sun has never shone on a more bloodthirsty and vengeful people than they are who imagine that they are God’s people who have been commissioned and commanded to murder and to slay the Gentiles.”
Mr. Guyénot the Bible-detester, briefly detours from his main topic to make Luther, the Teutonic Bible-lover par excellence, serve as his ventriloquist’s dummy—made to play a part in Guyénot’s yarn about “Germany’s heroic emancipation from the Bible hoax.”
The religious leader who transformed the mass of Germans into vernacular Bible-readers, who risked his life to defend the Bible against the unscriptural sale of indulgences and the toxic situation ethics of Nominalism which had emerged from the German Catholic University of Tübingen, is quoted with approbation because he said some nasty things about Jewish people, which apparently absolves him of his Biblicism in Guyénot’s eyes. This is bipolar.
Moreover, it amounts to preaching to the choir. How would anyone not predisposed to loathe the Bible find Guyénot persuasive?
The Expropriation of Nietzsche
His polemic is largely a carnival of abuse, not an empirical argument, and it leads to a familiar calumnious cul-de-sac, the equation of the Hitler movement with German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
Guyénot: Germans never identified as a chosen people in the biblical manner. They had their own glorious history, and their paradigm was that of the Roman Empire. The Nietzschean Zeitgeist climaxed in 1933.
The reference to 1933 is to the ascendance of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. Nietzsche is then dragged into it. Zionist academics and their camp followers also attempt to stain Martin Luther and Friedrich Nietzsche with the brush of Nazi chauvinism and megalomania.
In fact, Luther and Nietzsche were two of the most bitter critics of their fellow Germans, and of German egoism in the history of early modern letters, similar to the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament, who tasked the Israelite nation for their self worship.
Luther and Nietzsche were too astute to encourage the rabbinic ideology of self worship in the Germans, which would later bewitch Hitler. The führer denied moral superiority to Judaics, and then encouraged that vanity in Germans.
Nietzsche is deployed by Neo-Nazis and their allies to play an assigned part in the script that characterizes him as a 19th century European Jew-hater. This yarn has been incorporated in the elaborate taxonomy which some classification-obsessed academics have erected in the attempt to establish a philosophical and theological “Road to the Shoah,” with Luther and Nietzsche in starring roles as the heavies.
Missing are the details of Nietzsche’s profound analysis of 19th century Jew-hate and its progenitors. Their mediocrity of soul incensed him. “He regarded the anti-Semitic movement of the 1880s as a mutiny of the mediocre ('anti-Semitic nincompoops’), who unjustifiably play themselves up as the master race just because they consider themselves Aryans…He contended that because Jews had had to defend themselves against centuries of attacks, they had become resolute and clever.” (Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography [Norton, 2001], p. 338).
Christians tend to dismiss Nietzsche because of his harsh statements about our Faith, which varied and must therefore be taken as a whole, in context, rather than having individual, inflammatory statements represent the weight of his entire gestalt, which would be a distortion.
After embracing Nietzsche as a rebellious young man in my “existential” years and then dropping him when I returned to my Christian faith, I took him up decades later, after my colleague, the late Charles Provan, began to study the Cambridge University edition of Nietzsche’s works, so as to refute his attack on the Apostle Paul. What interested me was the fact that for Provan, Nietzsche continued to be a force to be reckoned with; still worthy of confrontation and serious consideration. Chuck was a deeply religious Christian scholar. If Nietzsche was a living presence for him, this was testimony to Nietzsche’s vast and diverse audience and continuing relevance, beyond neo-Nazi ideology’s cheap exploitation of his brand.
Nietzsche exhibits an ambivalence toward Jesus. Though he attacks Jesus for what he regards as His allegedly decadent, other-worldly denial of this life, he also affirms and commends Him for having overthrown the Pharisaic god of vengeance, born from the ersatz “torah” of oral transmission. Nietzsche believed that Christ accomplished this feat by being a truly unique being, one incapable of hating anyone—who sanctifies the “pure of heart” and promises salvation to those in whom there is no Talmudic spirit of revenge.
Nietzsche was scandalized by “Christians” who never underwent the change of heart that Jesus preached and who, as in rabbinic Judaism, sought to jail, torture and kill their “heretic” rivals and military enemies. The “Aryan” Christian movement particularly nauseated him in this regard.
However much he may have fallen short, Nietzsche was a man of integrity who sought to journey as far as possible in arduously questioning the unexamined propositions of our civilization.
He did so without being infected with the venomous ill-will often found among Zionist and Talmudic critics of our patrimony. Nietzsche’s intentions were pure, even if in the end, the terrible ferocity of his quest destroyed him.
Honesty like his is what we admire in the revisionist history fraternity as we seek to transcend herd mentalities. It is worthwhile for mental and spiritual acuity, as well as for devising new, victorious approaches toward the problem of oppressive Talmudic and Zionist power—to challenge ourselves by confronting Nietzsche’s thinking, especially when he turns inside-out our most cherished beliefs about “their” Judaic perfidy and “our” own goodness.
This writer is not espousing Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy, which evolved considerably during his lifetime and represented the grave error of attempting to revive pagan Nordicism. I am however, using Nietzsche’s analytical tools and methodology—the means he used to detect fraud and discern in self-described anti-Semitic movements elements of the Pharisaic mentality itself.
From the standpoint of principle and philosophy rather than strategy and tactics, in Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche described Second Temple Judaism as the progenitor of “slave morality” and “the revenge of Judea on Rome.” Nevertheless, Nietzsche pointed out that the very fact that Judaism could bring about such a revolution against Rome was a sign “of the great strength of the Jews as a people. They were able to create a new form of life in a situation that would have caused...weaker peoples to disappear.”
Who then is superior and inferior in the struggle for “survival of the fittest,” which was an essential part of Hitler’s weltanschauung?
Hitler claimed the mantle of Nietzsche and Darwin and proclaimed a struggle for survival unhindered by “slave morality.” Hitler and his cabal then lost that struggle and went down to total defeat, with the German nation reduced to ashes. By Hitler’s own yardstick, his Nazis were, therefore, not as racially “fit” as their foes.
Nietzsche’s penetrating insight into the anti-Judaic movement of his day centered on the fact that it stemmed from weakness, from the “ressentiment” felt by inferiors for those who surpass them. In other words, that it was itself a “vengeful slave” movement.
Postscript: I reserve to a future date the possibility of trying to deconstruct Laurent Guyénot’s other enormity, his embrace (perhaps unconscious), of the heresy of Marcion, which he has managed in certain circles to revive, and which serves as a sneak attack on Jesus Himself, who quoted or referenced the Old Testament favorably no less than 180 times. Mr. Guyénot’s indictment of the Hebrew Testament as a genocide handbook sans extenuating circumstances of an exculpatory nature, emanates, albeit only in part, from his failure to discern the fundamental difference between two distinct Hebrew language categories, which in almost all English versions of the Old Testament are translated erroneously, and rendered as linguistic equivalents. Lastly, Chuck Provan, the eminent Christian Bible exegete who had almost the entire Old Testament committed to memory, considered the Old Testament exceedingly hostile to Israel. I cannot do justice to his extraordinary hermeneutic in a paragraph or two; an attempt must await my next opportunity to address the contentions of the enemies of the Word of God.
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE CONTRA CANCEL CULTURE
Copyright©2024 by Independent History and Research
We are grateful to the paid subscribers who make these studies possible.
COMING SOON TO THIS SUBSTACK COLUMN: “The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Prequel to the War Between the States.” This nearly book-length revisionist history will be available to paid subscribers. Sign up for a paid subscription today!
Michael Hoffman is the author of the banned 2008 textbook Judaism Discovered(1,102 pages), and nine other volumes of history and literature, including The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome and Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People, as well as 122 issues of the periodical, Revisionist History®.
He is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and a former paid consultant to the news department of the New York Times. His books have been published in translation in Japan and France. Listen to his broadcasts on his Revisionist History® podcast, and find him on X (Twitter). Michael resides with his family in Idaho.
Revisionist History® is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as the trademark of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816. All Rights Reserved.
Michael Hoffman's Revelation of the Method is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.