The CODOH Revisionist Forum

This is a declaration by several leading figures from the Protestant/Reformed/Baptist camp. Apparently the responded to Christian Nationalist statements by other leading figures. Wherein the Holocaust subject came up.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm still investigating who said what in this discourse. But it seems as if the Holocaust Subject and the dubiousness of the claims has become more relevant again. The creators of this document found it significant enough to 'affirm' it in their document.

Written by the 'collaborators' I would assume.

Odd choice of dressing up as Paul/Saul/Shaoul to deliver it and to imply Cristian Nationalists are 'wolves dressed as shepherds'. Easy to frame up and dismiss as jewish inversion that way.

There are parts of it that I don't find unpleasant. Other parts are abhorrent.

Not being a Christian myself, I always find stuff like this curious.

Reading this statement from the beginning, it irritates me by referring to people without naming them. Who are the "some contemporary leaders and influencers" being condemned, for context? The author doesn't say. It becomes apparent with a bit of research that this is about Joel Webbon and associates, who, in fairness, should really be read in their own words rather than disparaged in this indirect way.

One of the primary authors and perhaps the primary instigator behind the Antioch Declaration is Douglas Wilson, but he in recent years has taken a trip to Israel organized by the Herzl Institute, spoken at Yoram Hazony's NatCon, and appeared on stage with numerous influencers who are wrapped up in Israeli money and Israeli politics. That is according to a recent article by one of Webbon's people:
https://nxrstudios.substack.com/p/paid- ... anding-the

So this declaration seems to be a clumsy attempt by the well-funded Zionist Right wing of politics to stave off revisionist views. The people it was aimed to defeat instead took a victory lap shortly thereafter.

There are a few interesting things to say about the statement itself.

The author admits that there was an ideological shift which "arose as a consensus after World War II". This is a reference to the Post War Consensus, already a big admission. However he frames WWII as merely the "tipping point" of this shift, which he says has its true origins in Enlightenment values. This is a political root cause analysis which I would think is out of place in a religious declaration. Regardless, it's very nearly the same as what Webbon says about the PWC and the Enlightenment. In this one respect the parties are barely distinguishable.

The author also says that the Holocaust narrative has "historical certitude", which is exactly the kind of strong language SanityCheck was advising against not long ago. Moreover, the author tells us that the very science of history is in danger if the Holocaust does not meet this perfect standard. But questioning the "so-called Enlightenment" is okay, he says, and so is denying his faith's traditional views on race and religion, which I need not go into here. One wonders why only a single historical event deserves immunity.

The author does not make any real attempt to defend the historicity of the Holocaust. No historian or institution is named. No line from the Bible is cited. The reader is cautioned against believing "the lies of secular elites", but when it comes to the Holocaust, the reader is asked to affirm secular history in a non-secular way.