Gavin McInnes Arrested

Or, at least, that appears to be the case, pending confirmation:

Former Fox News host Gavin McInnes was apparently arrested on Thursday night after law enforcement gained access to his New York studio while he broadcast his network’s Thursday night live stream.

Shortly after his “Get Off My Lawn” live show began, police officers believed by subscribers to be federal agents gained access to the studio. McInnes, who founded the web network after being canceled on social media, was heard on the live stream having a heated verbal exchange with officers before leaving the studio. McInnes’ stream was left unattended for over an hour before it ended.

McInnes, standing at his desk, told the off camera law enforcement officers, “Yeah. Alright, I’m happy to do that. I’ll get a lawyer, and we will sit down and have a conversation. We’ll schedule a meeting, and I’ll sit down with my lawyer.”

The officer’s response to McInnes was not within range of the microphone, but after he spoke McInnes replied, “I didn’t let you in.”

What appear to be chirping noises made by police radios can be heard in the video, but viewers reported only silence after McInnes left the frame until the stream was taken offline.

Prior to the Thursday night incident, McInnes told viewers of that he had reason to believe he was under some sort of surveillance.

My assumption is that this is probably not connected to anything McInnes said or did, but is related to the recent raid on President Trump’s residence in Florida, and the way in which the FBI is attempting to build a case to arrest the president on grounds related to January 6 and the Proud Boys. If they don’t have anything useful on Trump, they’ll need to be putting pressure on people who might be able to give them something they can use to conjure up an indictment.

Unless, of course, it was this public act of shameless and unequivocally transphobic hate speech that landed him in hot water with the federal thought police.

Brittany Griner is a dude.

Gavin McInnes, 8 August 2022

Needless to say, the media won’t react to this arrest in anything like the manner they would if a CNN or ABC News host was taken into custody live on air. So keep that in mind the next time you hear them yapping about “freedom of the press”.

UPDATE: Or maybe it’s just pathological attention-seeking….


A Good Start

Fake President Biden announces the first step in what we can hope is a path to forgiving all student debt and banning all student loans.

The president will forgive debts of up to $20,000 dollars for students who went to college on Pell grants and $10,000 for students who did not receive Pell grants. Debt forgiveness only applies to individuals earning less than $125,000 or couples filing joint earnings of $250,000.

Don’t make the mistake of defending the wrong thing because bad or stupid people happen, for whatever reason, to be doing the right thing for a change. Student debt is a scam, it should never have been legal in the first place, and the law preventing student debt from being discharged.

Make no mistake: if you’re on the side of the bankers and the Boomers and the universities here, you are absolutely and without question choosing the side of evil. And there is no amount of solipsistic argumentum ad personalem is going to make your argument any more convincing or moral, or any less economically ignorant and churlish.

Don’t forget the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant either.

Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

And FFS, discharging debt is not inflationary, so don’t even think about trying to cite that sort of media ignorance at anyone. In a credit money economy, debt-forgiveness is literally deflationary.

UPDATE: Stonetoss shows how to silence the Boomercon critics.


Was Mar-A-Lago a Trap?

Karl Denninger thinks it might have been:

It has now developed that the Raid at Mar-A-Largo was supported by an affidavit that positively identified both the presence of documents that were retained or taken by Trump in violation of Federal Law and where they were.

The FBI was specifically interested in Trump’s “newer” safe, so presumably that’s where they were told the documents were.

Except…. The safe was empty.

Trump has refused to release the copy of the warrant served on him, which is his right. But let’s take a slanted-eye view of this, which upon learning that very specific information was presented to the Judge immediately came to mind.

Let’s presume Trump believed he had a mole in his organization and he thought he knew who it was. And let’s remember that the DOJ and FBI did screw him with Russiagate, which they knew, it was developed, was bullshit and yet used it to go after him anyway, and even worse, fed it to Congress as Articles of Impeachment. That was an active scam and nobody was prosecuted for it, while if you did the same thing as a false report to them you could and would go to prison for it.

Further, Trump knew the Archivist was sniffing around because they’d contacted him back in February and he turned over a bunch of stuff. Ok.

So let’s put forward the theory that he leaks that he has something particularly juicy, very illegal for him to have retained and its in the safe.

He leaks this to one — and only one — person.

The raid happens.

It’s certainly an intriguing theory. And President Trump is certainly devious enough to have gone along with such a plan. But only time will tell; if the raid is followed up by a world-shocking arrest of him, that would tend to signify a very different situation.

I’m more than a bit dubious myself. What would this accomplish besides unmasking yet another traitor inside Team Trump?


The Daily Kabuki

I think we all know what Miles Mathis is going to conclude about the “Alex Jones trial”:

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones immediately took to the airwaves after the verdict in his defamation trial on Friday – which will see him be forced to pay nearly $50million in damages to the family of slain six-year-old Jesse Lewis.

Lewis was among the 20 children who were shot dead by crazed gunman Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012. Another six people were killed in the massacre.

For years Jones claimed on his InfoWars platform that the shooting in Newton was a ‘false flag’ operation perpetrated by the US government to further gun control.

In his Friday broadcast, Jones claimed the trial against him was ‘coordinated and run’ by billionaire philanthropist George Soros and ‘operatives.’ He did not identify the other ‘operatives’ by name.

The host also accused Judge Maya Guerra Gamble of being a ‘blue-haired SJW’ and insinuated that she was corrupt by saying that she ‘altered the record of the trial.’ ‘SJW’ stands for Social Justice Warrior.

The fact that the UN and the governments of the post-West are now going to such extreme lengths in order to try to prevent people from even whispering their doubts about the official narrative only serves to further convince the intelligent observer that literally nothing they say even remotely corresponds with reality.

Inversion theatre is the order of the day.

The only thing they’ll accomplish with these highly publicized efforts is to ensure that the reality patrol – aka “conspiracy theorists” – becomes even more focused on obtaining rock-solid evidence disproving the narrative before publicly expressing any doubts about it. This is why I no longer pay any attention to “current events” reported by the media. If they weren’t fake in one way or another, they wouldn’t require legal muscle to enforce their “truth”.


The Racism is Shocking

These South African rapists are fortunate that they didn’t commit their gang rapes in Sweden.

A teenager who was among eight models viscously gang-raped by an armed gang of illegal miners in South Africa while they were shooting a music video has described the horrific attack and told how she and her sister had their virginity ‘stolen’ by the men.

Nombosino, 19, whose name has been changed, and her 21-year-old sister had accepted a £15 a day job to model in a gospel music video when they were ambushed by the gang near an abandoned gold mine close to Krugersdorp on July 28.

The teenager, who feared for her life at the hands of the heavily armed gang, told how the men raped the black and Indian women but left the three white women who were among the 22-strong production crew alone.

The models and crew, the youngest of whom was 19 and the eldest 37, were raped up to ten times each over several hours by the criminals.

While these vibrant gentlemen wouldn’t face any jail time or have to worry about being deported from Sweden for committing gang rapes, they would almost certainly have found themselves imprisoned for the horrific crime of racist not-rape.

Ain’t Clownworld grand?


Close Your Account

Before they do it for you, you thought criminal:

Halifax customers are closing their accounts today after its social media team told them to leave if they don’t like their new pronoun badges for branch staff in what is being branded one of the biggest PR disasters in British business history.

Britons have been pulling out millions of pounds in investments and savings as well as cutting up credit cards or transferring balances to rivals after they accused the bank of ‘alienating’ them with ‘pathetic virtue signalling’.

The row began this week when Halifax tweeted its 118,000 followers on Tuesday revealing that it would allow staff to display their pronouns on their name badges, in a post that read ‘pronouns matter’.

It showed a photo of a female staff member’s name badge, which featured ‘she/her/hers’ in brackets under the name Gemma, and said the policy was to help avoid ‘accidental misgendering’.

One customer replied: ‘There’s no ambiguity about the name “Gemma”. It’s a female person’s name. In other words, it’s pathetic virtue signalling and is seen as such by almost everyone who has responded to the initial tweet. Why are you trying to alienate people?’ Within 20 minutes a member of the Halifax social media team, calling himself Andy M, replied: ‘If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account’.

Andy M’s response has outraged customers, and seen hundreds claiming they will boycott the bank with many saying they have closed their accounts. Others have cut up their credit cards or getting rid of insurance policies.

It’s going to be fascinating to learn if corporations can survive without customers or if customers can survive without the services provided by corporations. Because it’s only a matter of time before corporations start exercising the rights they have granted themselves in their contracts of adhesion – the one-sided EULA statements to which one “agrees” by virtue of using the service or purchasing the product – to deny those deemed thought criminals their services.

On its website, Halifax say any customers they deem to be ‘transphobic’ could have their accounts closed.

Underneath a page titled ‘what we stand for’, they say: ‘We stand against discrimination and inappropriate behaviour in all forms, whether racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist, regardless of whether this happens in our branches, offices, over the phone or online on our social media channels.

‘Such action may include account closure or contacting the police if necessary.’

And as we saw with Patreon, this self-granted corporate right to police customer behavior has been, in practice, expanded to include places and platforms that have nothing to do with the corporation itself. This is another reason why the BRICS economy is going to completely swamp the converged neoliberal economy.


The Inversion Identifier

As I’ve observed in the past, you can accurately identify the wicked by their inevitable inversions. Even more usefully, you can reliably identify the evil position that the wicked have taken, and thereby make better decisions with regards to related matters, in light of those inversions. Consider Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s two contradictory positions on bodily autonomy.

Vaccines are the best way to finish the fight against COVID-19. That’s why we will make vaccines mandatory for anyone boarding a plane or train, or any federally-regulated worker. This is how we will keep everyone, including our kids, safe and healthy.

  • Justin Trudeau, 27 August 2021

No government, politician, or many should tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I want women in Canada to know that we will always stand up for your right to choose.

  • Justin Trudeau, 24 June 2022

The “My Body, My Choice” rhetoric in support of a nonexistent right to abortion has always been nonsensical. In most legal jurisdictions, a woman has no right to put certain substances inside her body, drive with certain quantities of legal substances inside her body, place her body in certain specified locations, or charge other individuals for hourly access to her body. This has been true for decades, if not centuries, and with the occasional exception of the latter example, no one seriously attempts to dispute these laws on the grounds of bodily autonomy.

But the obvious contrast with the vaccine mandates is simply too recent and too stark for the pro-choice advocates to get any traction at all with a resort to their historical rhetoric. I suspect that’s why we’re mostly hearing it from female entertainers and a few low-wattage politicians like Trudeau rather than the narrative-reinforcing propaganda corps, because the massive government invasion of bodily autonomy inherent in the vaccine mandates has had the unintended effect of auto-neutralizing the abortion rhetoric.

As Ian Miller notes on Outkick:

It’s nothing new for politicians and public health authorities to be hypocritical. But their ability to blatantly disregard the principles of bodily autonomy and personal control over health decisions just a few months ago means it’s impossible to take them seriously now.


Roe v Wade Overturned At Last

It’s a good day for America. The ex post facto creation of a Constitutional “right” to an abortion has been, correctly, overturned and undone:

A deeply divided Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, overruling the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and leaving the question of abortion’s legality to the states.

The court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization upheld a law from Mississippi that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, roughly two months earlier than what has been allowed under Supreme Court precedent dating back to Roe.

In siding with Mississippi, the court’s conservative majority said the Roe decision was egregiously wrong in recognizing a constitutional right to an abortion, an error the court perpetuated in the decades since.

The majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization upends nearly five decades of precedent and allows stronger state restrictions to take effect—including total abortion bans. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been preparing for the shift for years, bringing laws forward that further restrict or assert protections for abortion.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.”

– The Supreme Court of the United States of America, 24 June 2022

Damn right it doesn’t. It never did.

Isn’t it telling how the forked tongues appeal to FIVE WHOLE DECADES of precedent while cheerfully ignoring centuries, even millennia, of precedent when it suits them? Never give them an inch, because they will always attempt to claim it was a mile. Anyhow, the idiotic legal fiction that based on nothing more than one justice’s imagined “emanations and penumbras” has finally been rejected, as it should have been back in 1973.

Full credit to President Donald Trump, without whom this historic decision would never have taken place. A curse has been lifted from the land.

Now it’s time for the states to methodically ban the satanic practice and crush every evil organization that seeks to bring it back.


Starve Harder

It will be informative to see the extent to which Russia cares about “international opinion” in light of the death sentences announced for three mercenaries employed by Ukraine:

International fury as two Brits Shaun Pinner, 48, and Aiden Aslin, 28, are sentenced to death by Russian separatists after they joined the Ukrainian army and were captured during the siege of Mariupol.

Brits Shaun Pinner, 48, and Aiden Aslin, 28, were captured in Ukraine in April during the siege of Mariupol. The so-called supreme court of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) issued the death sentences on Thursday. Moroccan national Saaudun Brahim has also been sentenced, reports said. Video showed the trio in a cage.

The trio were accused of being ‘mercenaries’ after fighting for Ukraine’s armed forces in the battle for the city. Russian media reported that they would appeal. The court is not internationally recognised, the BBC reported. UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss condemned the death sentences as a ‘sham judgment with absolutely no legitimacy’. No10 said it was ‘deeply concerned’.

I’m just curious what sort of leverage the “international community” thinks it has at this point. What are they going to do, pile on a few more sanctions, further inflate the currency, raise fuel prices, and starve harder?

I assume Russia will swoop in and make a useless gesture of magnanimity by trading the three mercs for three Russian prisoners-of-war, but it will be telling if it simply washes its hands of the affair and permits the DPR to fulfill the sentence.

And it’s certainly interesting to read the comments from British readers who genuinely want war with Russia over this. They really don’t grasp the fact that it’s not the 19th Century anymore and Britain no longer rules the waves.


Some Thoughts on Hitler

In the aftermath of having been publicly accused of harboring “sympathies for Hitler” by certain individuals in the Swiss media on the basis of a single accurate reference to National Socialism, I’ve been cataloguing the public record of my statements in my books, columns and blog posts concerning the late leader of Germany over the last 21 years on the advice of the lawyers. As it happens, I went into some detail on the subject in the first part of Chapter XII of THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST, published by BenBella Books in 2008.


“Now, you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven.”

– Cardinal Ximinez

It would be impossible to write a book of this sort without addressing the three subjects that inevitably come up when atheists are contending with Christians. Just as atheists anticipate the need to answer for Stalin and Mao, Christians are expected to answer for the Inquisition and the Crusades. And both sides recognize the need to deal with the Hitler Question. Like Einstein,(1) the Führer made enough ambiguous statements to leave the matter up for discussion, unlike Einstein,(2) no one is eager to claim Hitler and his National Socialists as members of their intellectual camp.

The Unholy Trinity have no choice but to concern themselves with the matter, of course, and they do so largely in the manner that one has come to expect from them.(3) Harris wastes eight pages attempting to tar the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII with guilt by insufficient opposition,(4) then on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, declares that Auschwitz was a logical and inevitable consequence of the Christian faith.(5) Hitchens also complains about the Catholic Church and relates a few irrelevant anecdotes about Italian Fascists and Irish Blue Shirts, but then shows genuine insight when he notes that the Hitler regime shows us “with terrible clarity what can happen when men usurp the role of gods.”

Dawkins, on the other hand, demonstrates that he is perfectly capable of presenting a reasonable case when he chooses to do so and lays out some reasonable evidence for the reader to reach his own conclusion on the matter. He avoids making the common case for Hitler’s religious faith on the basis of his abused childhood,(6) wisely, considering that one could apply precisely the same argument to Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins himself. Instead, after quoting Hitler’s public statements which state outright that he is a Christian, and a very devout one at that, Dawkins quotes private statements which reveal a deep hatred for Christianity surpassing that possessed by even the most militant New Atheist.

“It is possible that Hitler had by 1941 experienced some kind of deconversion or disillusionment with Christianity. Or is the resolution of the contradictions simply that he was an opportunistic liar whose words cannot be trusted, in either direction?”(7)

It is worth noting that most of the statements which indicate Hitler’s Christian faith were made in public, prior to 1934, when he was still a politician running for elected office. Given his subsequent actions once he had secured political power, there is no reason to believe that Hitler meant them any more sincerely than George W. Bush intended to keep his promise to pursue a “more humble foreign policy” three years before he launched an invasion to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. But Hitler was no atheist, neither was he agnostic, the evidence tends to suggest that he was a pagan(8) who was skeptical, but open to the possibility of acquiring temporal power through supernatural means.

The Thule Society which founded the German Workers Party that was the predecessor of the Nazi Party was an esoteric society connected with the occultist Madam Blavatsky and the Theosophists. Hitler was the 55th member of the DAP, which was renamed the National Socialist German Workers Party, or NASDAP, only four months after he joined on October 19, 1919. While the Nazis suppressed their early connection with the Thule Society and even arrested its founder, Rudolf von Sebottendorff, when he published a book about the relationship between Hitler and the society, the Nazi interest in esoteric matters, primarily on the part of Heinrich Himmler and the SS, is well known and has played a role in everything from Charles Stross’s excellent novel, The Atrocity Archives, to Wolfenstein 3D and the Indiana Jones movies.

It is not known to what extent Hitler shared Himmler’s enthusiasm for the supernatural, but it is reasonable to assume that if he was as skeptical about its existence as the New Atheists are today, he would not have allowed the Reichsführer-SS and founder of the Studiengesellschaft für Geistesurgeschichte, Deutsches Ahnenerbe(9) an annual budget of the modern equivalent of $5.6 million to spend on occult research, medical experiments and expeditions to Sweden, Syria, Iraq, Finland and Tibet.

And yet, if Dawkins is not quite able to definitively conclude that Adolf Hitler was not a Christian, Robert Wistrich, the professor of modern Jewish history at Hebrew University, has no such qualms.
In “Hitler and the Holocaust”, Wistrich writes:

“Indeed, the leading Nazis – Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Goebbels, and Bormann – were all fanatically anti-Christian, though this was partly hidden from the German public…. The conviction that Judaism, Christianity and Bolshevism represented one single pathological phenomenon of decadence became a veritable leitmotif for Hitler around the time that the “Final Solution” had been conceived of as an operational plan.”(10)

But the most convincing proof that Hitler was neither an atheist nor a Christian can be seen in two documents that the various New Atheists and Wistrich were probably not aware of at the time they wrote their books. The first of these was prepared by the Office of Strategic Services in preparation for the Nuremburg trials in 1945. Released to the public in 2001, the report from the archives of of Gen. William J. Donovan, special assistant to the U.S. chief of counsel at the Tribunal, is a fascinating description of the Third Reich’s methodical plan to coopt, pervert and ultimately usurp the Catholic and Protestant churches of Germany. As an editor of the the Nuremberg Project for the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion described it: “They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity.”(11)

The first installment, entitled “The Nazi Master Plan; The Persecution of Christian Churches”, shows how the Nazis planned to supplant Christianity with a religion based on racial superiority. The report, prepared by the Office of Strategic Services – a forerunner of the CIA – says: “Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked… complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion.”(12)

The second document is equally significant. It is the 30-point plan for a National Reich Church, drawn up by Alfred Rosenburg, the Nazi ideologist who was Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories and head of the Centre of National Socialist Ideological and Educational Research. Three of its more significant points are as follows:

  1. The National Reich Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
  2. The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.
  3. The National Reich Church does not acknowledge forgiveness of sins. It represents the standpoint which it will always proclaim that a sin once committed will be ruthlessly punished by the honorable and indestructible laws of nature and punishment will follow during the sinner’s lifetime.

One need not be a theologian to recognize that whatever religion happens to lurk behind a church that does not recognize the forgiveness of sins and is determined to suppress the Bible, it is not Christianity.

Although the only logical conclusion is that Hitler was neither a Christian nor an atheist, there are still lessons that Christians and atheists can learn from his pagan totalitarianism. Christians must recognize that it is possible for their institutions to be infiltrated and utilized for evil purposes even as they religiously attend church and participate in the mainstream of society. Had more German Christians demonstrated the courage of the evangelical Confessing Church and openly opposed Hitler, as did the pastors who signed the 1934 Barman Declaration,(13) much tragedy might well have been averted. Despite the deception that was undeniably involved, Christians have no excuse for being blind to such things, not when they have been warned in the Bible to be on their guard against deceitful wolves in sheep’s clothing.

As for atheists, they must recognize that science is a deadly foundation on which to build future utopias, and it should make them more than a little uncomfortable to consider the striking similarities in the following three quotes, one from a Humanist, one from a New Atheist and the other from a leading Nazi.

  • “Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.“ – Bertrand Russell
  • “The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler
  • “Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.” – Christopher Hitchens


  1. I concur with Richard Dawkins on this point, despite a few metaphorical statements about God. It is not reasonable to conclude that Albert Einstein was anything but an agnostic or atheist.
  2. What is unexpected, however, is how much the Nazi Martin Bormann’s description of a metaphorical God sounds almost exactly like Albert Einstein’s as described by Richard Dawkins.
  3. Given the non-polemical nature of his book, Daniel Dennett commendably sees no reason to mention the matter.
  4. Harris, The End of Faith, 104. Harris finds it extraordinary that no German Catholics were excommunicated, but then, other than Hitler, there were no former Catholics in the Nazi hierarchy. The most notable Catholic, former Reichkanzler Franz von Papen, was jailed after speaking out against Hitler after Kristallnacht and was acquitted at Nuremberg.
  5. How strange that it should happen only once in more than 2,000 years, and at the behest of a few fanatical anti-Christians, no less. I further note that the Buddhist Harris neglects to mention the fact that Professor Walter Wüst, who commanded the SS-Ahnenerbe under Himmler after February 1937, publicly declared that Hitler’s ideologies corresponded with those of the Gautama Buddha.
  6. I seem to recall someone informing us that a Catholic upbringing is even worse than sexual abuse for a child.
  7. Dawkins, The God Delusion, 276. Given that Hitler was not only a politician, but a stunningly effective one, the answer has to be yes.
  8. Hitler once made an interesting statement to Bormann about the foolishness of restoring Odin worship, which he refers to as “our old mythology”. As he goes on to talk about getting rid of Christianity, it’s apparent that his goal is to create a new and better Teutonic mythology compatible with science and philosophy.
  9. The Study Society for Primordial Intellectual Science, German Ancestral Heritage, usually known as the Ahnenerbe, was an SS department set up by Himmler to investigate the ancestral German heritage. It is this group which attempted to find the Holy Grail and other mystic treasures, as portrayed in the movies. The Atrocity Archives, by Charles Stross, are probably the most interesting fictional portrayal of this occultic bureaucracy; my own novella which briefly touches on the subject, “The Lesser Evil”, can be found in the short story collection entitled The Altar of Hate.
  10. Robert S. Wistrich, Hitler and the Holocaust (New York, 2001), 131-132
  11. Edward Colimore, “Papers Reveal Nazi Aim: End Christianity” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 9, 2002.
  12. “Nazi Trial Documents Made Public”. BBC News, January 11, 2002. The entire OSS report can be downloaded in four PDF files from
  13. “We reject the false doctrine that the Church could have permission to hand over the form of its message and of its order to whatever it itself might wish or to the vicissitudes of the prevailing ideological and political convictions of the day.” The Barmen Declaration, The Confessing Synod of the German Evangelical Church, 1934.

PS: If anyone can send me the transcripts of my debates with Andrew Anglin and Greg Johnson on the subject of National Socialism, that would be appreciated.