Holocaustianity, Part 4: A Christian Critique of the New World Order
The internationalists unleashed a torrent of pluralist policies that radically redefined Western nations and values.
The UN’s establishment introduced a profound philosophical tension: how can a global framework uphold “human rights” and “self-determination” while imposing universal norms that constrain them? Rooted in the unmoored Enlightenment ideals of godless human reason and universal equality, the UN’s Charter seeks to regulate nations, claiming a moral authority that rivals Christ’s lordship. Recall the words of Christ after His resurrection, here repeated from Matthew 28:18-20 (KJV):
“All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…” (Emphasis added)
Christ’s vision of nations sees distinct peoples living under divine law, subjected to Him as King of their national kings. The UN’s secular dominion, by contrast, lacks this divine mandate, erecting a structure of man-made international edicts akin to Babel’s tower, attempting to reach to the heavens to claim Christ’s authority. Its philosophy of collective security and “human rights,” while promising “peace, peace,” assumes a godlike authority over the nations, dictating norms that conflict with the ancestral patrimonies that God ordained for them. This duplicitous tension—between national “self-determination” and global mandates—echoes the Enlightenment’s foolish rejection of biblical inspiration and divine hierarchy, prioritizing unmoored human reason over divine revelation and usurping the ordo amoris that arranges love for God, kin, and neighbor, rooted in the very structure of the Decalogue, far above any man-made universalizing ethos.
Practically, this tension manifests in the UN’s governance. The Security Council’s veto, held by five powers, creates a man-made hierarchy that undermines the very “self-determination” the UN claims to uphold for all peoples—favoring Allied victors over weaker and defeated nations. The UN’s imposition of a Jewish state, driven by the postwar narrative, granted one people a homeland while displacing another, revealing a selective application of “human rights” that contradicts God’s impartial justice, rooted in Biblical righteousness, not postwar favoritism.
Likewise, the Universal Declaration’s emphasis on human autonomy overrides collective self-determination, pressuring ancestral groups to abandon their God-given patrimonies for a homogenized order that elevates individual liberty over filial duty and national cohesion. Western nations, in submitting to this secular framework, surrendered their biblical calling to seek their Creator and Father through their distinct God-given fatherlands, as Paul describes while speaking to the Greeks in Acts 17 after affirming their pious quest for their unknown God. This Allied overreach, extended amid wartime crises, entangles Christians in a globalizing system that subverts the Great Commission’s call to disciple nations under Christ, instead discipling the world under hypocritical human rules that defy Godly justice.
The UN’s Enlightenment-driven philosophy, divorced from biblical tradition, imposes a man-made morality that threatens the tapestry of God’s created order. By imposing norms like pluralism and individual rights, it challenges the premodern Christian understanding of nations as distinct ancestral families, each with a divine purpose to seek their Heavenly Father as an extension of their honored national fathers (Acts 17:27). This natural order is not a “Nazi” idea, but a Christian one, rooted in Scripture and creation. We have allowed the devil to wield the searing traumas of Holocaust testimonies to unstitch the divine boundaries of national distinctions entirely, to flood the nations of old Christendom with corrosive multiculturalism, and to erect a globalized order under his deceptive sway. Is it any wonder why Christianity has waned in the West, as we herald a new era of ethno-religious pluralism, while our national fathers are reviled as backward relics of a racist past?
The UN’s secular universalism, amplified by the narrative of Holocaust suffering supplanting the suffering Christ as the motivating driver of human repentance, mirrors the “worldly philosophies” Paul warned against in Colossians 2:8, enticing believers to conform to a human creed rather than Christ’s eternal truth. The practical result—a global order that erodes national distinctions—threatens the Church’s mission to uphold God’s design, raising questions about whether the UN serves a Christian framework or a Satanic order.
Does the United Nations, with its lofty name and gilded halls, honor Christ’s universal authority over the nations, or does it raise a new Babel, uniting peoples in rebellion against God’s truth? Consider how the very title “United Nations” mocks God’s design to apportion humanity into separate peoples, reviving the primal sin of Babel and heralding the profane dominion of Babylon the Great. Recall the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32: “… ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples…” (Deuteronomy 32:7-8, ESV). We can see an affirmation of God’s design for divided nations—not a globalized order. Consider that phrase again: “when He divided mankind.” If God divided mankind into separate nations, and never once told man to reunite in a geopolitical scheme, then why is man choosing to unite again?
From a Christian perspective, the UN stands as a satanic counterfeit to Christendom, claiming a supranational authority that rivals the Church’s mission to disciple nations under Christ’s commands (Matthew 28:19-20). Its name evokes the hubris of Genesis 11, where humanity writ large sought to “make a name” for itself, defying God’s scattering of peoples into distinct “families of the earth”—a Divine expression meaning “nations” throughout Scripture. By promoting a pluralistic order that undermines these divinely ordained ancestral divisions, the UN subverts God’s created order, which sets nations apart as distinct families to seek their Creator through their national patrimonies. Its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while disguised in benevolence, elevates human autonomy over Biblical fidelity. Its establishment of modern Israel as a haven for ethnic Jews reveals its duplicity, upholding Jewish ethnoparticularism as a vital project while condemning European ethnoparticularism as “evil Nazism.”
Have modern Christians, swayed by this hypocritical postwar narrative, yoked themselves to a globalist agenda that not only dishonors Christ’s inheritance of the nations, but also shatters the ethno-religious fabric of Christendom itself?
The UN’s Security Council, with its veto-wielding powers, assumes a godlike authority, dictating terms to nations in defiance of God’s impartial justice. Such a structure recalls Psalm 2, where rulers “take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed,” forging a new world order that casts off Christ’s divine reign over all nations. The faithful must test this globalizing institution against Scripture, asking whether its vision aligns with Christ’s call to disciple nations or serves the international ambitions of a Babylonian brood. The UN’s secular creed, facilitated by the trauma of war and grounded in the religious mythos of the Holocaust narrative, entangles our nations in a system that replaces piety to kin and patria with a universalism that denies God’s created order.
As faithful Christians, our conscience must remain captive to God’s Word, not human charters. All who know Christ as Lord must reject this pluralistic counterfeit to Christendom, restoring the Church’s mission to proclaim Christ’s untainted gospel, so that all nations may bow to Jesus alone as the supranational Authority, fulfilling the promise of His inheritance. Let us pray for discernment to cast off this worldly yoke, honoring our Heavenly Father and our earthly fathers in a renewed Christendom rooted in divine truth under the authority of Christ alone.
Unfortunately, the modern Church was not immune to the internationalizing shift led by the United Nations, and instead of making disciples of all nations as Christ commanded, it was itself discipled and trained by the internationalists at the United Nations into its secular globalizing ethos. The UN’s crisis-driven moral order, propelled by media portrayals and international trials, extended from politics to pulpits, binding Western Christian thought to a new secular framework that exalts global unity over God’s creational distinctions. As these global structures solidified with the aid of the Holocaust narrative, their trauma-forged imperatives seeped into the modern Church, prompting hasty accommodations that bent theology to worldly guilt, reshaping Christian responses in the wake of Nuremberg’s wrenching testimonies.
Hasty Theological Compromises in the Postwar Church
The intense focus on reported German atrocities being litigated by Allied powers at Nuremberg provoked an empathetic and fervent response to the trials from many Christians. In 1948, following intense media coverage of the trials’ wrenching depictions of Jewish suffering, the liberal World Council of Churches convened in Amsterdam, declaring antisemitism to be “a sin against God and man.” This urgent statement, following the shock and guilt inspired by the Nuremberg accounts, urged Protestant and Orthodox churches to renounce historical Christian anti-Jewish attitudes and doctrines, laying the groundwork for broad theological reform. By prioritizing human guilt over biblical fidelity, this international declaration set a precedent for subordinating Scripture to a humanitarian mandate. Their hasty response, driven by the urgency of postwar empathy, risked muting scriptures like Acts 7 or 1 Thessalonians 2, where Stephen and Paul confront vicious opposition to God’s servants from numerous generations of Jews, whom Paul said “both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men…” (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16). Thus, a postwar reckoning began to reshape Christian theology, aligning churches with a global humanitarian imperative to suppress any critique of Jews, even at the cost of Scripture’s timeless truths. Have we not, in our zeal to atone, muted the very voices of Scripture that warn against such stiff-necked opposition from those who reject the Lord?
Yielding to this new moral paradigm, the Catholic Church followed suit, hastily reshaping its theology to align with postwar imperatives, where trauma-driven guilt of Nuremberg’s atrocity narratives spurred liturgical revisions that subordinated Christian fidelity to a secular mandate of interfaith reconciliation. At the end of the war, Israel “Eugenio” Zolli, Rome’s former Chief Rabbi who had just converted to Catholicism in 1945, met with Pope Pius XII to urge revision of the traditional Good Friday prayer, pressing for the removal of the adjective “perfidious” from its portrayal of Jews who reject Christ and oppose the gospel. Subsequently, in 1948, Pius addressed such Jewish concerns by clarifying that the Latin perfidis—derived from per fidem decipere, “to deceive through trustingness”—merely meant “unbelieving,” rather than “treacherous.”
A recent study on the historic change to the centuries-old liturgy entitled “In the Wake of the Holocaust: Massimo Vitale, Pius XII, and the Battle over the Good Friday Prayer for the ‘Perfidious Jews’” confirmed that the Vatican’s shift was driven by the Holocaust narrative. Thus, just as the Holocaust supplanted Calvary in the modern mythos, its empathy-inducing gravity also supplanted the New Testament’s faithful portrayal of faithless Jews not merely as “unbelieving,” but also as deceitful, entrapping, murderous, and treacherous—in a word, perfidious. In 1949, French-Jewish historian Jules Isaac met with Pius XII, expressing concern with the Good Friday prayer as written, and in his influential book Genèse de l’antisémitisme (“The Genesis of Antisemitism”), portrayed the prayer’s use of perfidis as one aspect of the larger demonization of Jews that had catalyzed the reported Nazi atrocities. Given this mounting political pressure, in the following decade, Pope John XXIII formalized the change, revising the church’s ancient prayer to meet postwar expectations spurred by Jews invoking Holocaust suffering to demand reforms in Christian theology and practice. This Catholic capitulation to Jewish advocacy marked the beginning of broader changes that would come in the 1960s with the more radical documents of Vatican II—upending centuries of church teachings on the Jews in mere decades.
This hasty ecclesiastical compromise sparked by Nuremberg’s traumatic testimonies, with Christians yielding to the pleading of Jews for a concession against Biblical truth, marked the beginning of broader cultural, religious, and political reforms that radically reshaped Western theology. Just as trauma-driven errors in other arenas—like “gender-affirming care”—blend false compassion with compromise, sidelining God’s design one surrender at a time, so too did these Christian accommodations repay reported Holocaust evils with the doctrinal evil of theological compromise, extending the war’s shadows by bending divine truth to worldly guilt—with zero spiritual benefit to Christ-rejecting Jews, despite the most empathetic of intentions.
As we have seen, the modern Church was not immune to the moralizing sway of the Nuremberg Trials and the testimonies of trauma and terror invoked by Jews to elicit changes in Christian doctrine in their earthly favor. Similarly, the Church likewise succumbed to the moral dictates of the United Nations which, with its Universal Declaration, seized for itself the mantle of Christ over all the nations of the earth, seeking to make disciples of all Christians, teaching them to obey its secular tenets of multiculturalism, antiracism, and religious pluralism, against the ancient spiritual and filial duties to God, kin, and country that preserve Christ’s eternal possession of distinct tribes and nations for glorification the eschaton (Revelation 7:9). Thus, the postwar Church was itself discipled into a secular ethos meant to undermine Christ’s very inheritance by initiating an attack on Christendom’s ethnoreligious core through the sacralization of suicidal European guilt and the ascension of humanity’s new scapegoats, for whom every act of enmity and subversion against Christian Europe could be framed as self-defense in light of the reported Holocaust.
As this trauma-driven agenda refashioned Western Christianity through a secular sacralism wielding international political edicts, social pressure, and Jewish media influence, redefining Christian principles and eroding the Church’s biblical witness with internationalist teachings, the UN’s “denazifying” ethos extended into our national heartlands to purge conservative resistance and erode all support for the preservation of the ancestral patrimonies of European Christian civilization.
“Denazification” Meets Conservative Resistance in the West
Postwar “denazification” aimed to eradicate Nazi leaders and ideologies from Germany after the Nuremberg Trials. Yet this effort was not limited to Germany alone; the denazifying agenda swept across the Western world on a moral and conceptual level to reshape culture and political thought against perceived fascist tendencies. This effort led to a deliberate rejection of all forms of European patriotism, nationalism, kingly authoritarianism, and colonialism, rebranding them as pathways to Nazi evil that must be excised to prevent recurrence—even if it meant dismantling European civilization itself.
As a result, the postwar anti-Nazi mindset not only fueled societal changes in Germany, but also reshaped the West’s self-conception, associating any collective pride with the purported evils of the defeated Germans. Great Britain’s rapid liquidation of its empire in the wake of the war, abandoning colonies built over centuries and even aiding black communist terrorists in Rhodesia to overthrow white settlers, stemmed from a guilt-driven anti-colonialism that equated European Christian expansion with Nazi aggression, resulting in the slaughter of British kin and the destabilization of entire regions under the guise of moral atonement. In repudiating all European nationalism and Christian imperialism with self-denigrating zeal, has the modern West undermined the natural order that God established for the protection and preservation of nations in the tapestry of His inheritance? Most Christians in the New World owe our historical faith to the colonialism conducted by Christendom’s former kings, yet the new postwar order condemns the very rails on which the gospel spread to this hemisphere. Instead, the anti-gospel of the Holocaust narrative swept across the West, mingling with liberal abolitionist heresies to plunge European civilization into a navel-gazing, guilt-driven inversion of God-ordained hierarchies, elevating empathy and honor for demon-worshipping tribes over the European Christians who brought them the gospel through the means that God ordained—including, yes, slavery and colonialism, neither of which are Biblical sins. Yet today, young students in US History classes spend more time learning about the Trail of Tears, the scourge of slavery, and the tales of the Holocaust than anything else in American history—as one observer recently put it, “the average US History education is just ‘White people bad’ on repeat.”
Despite the enthronement of this new postwar religion, imposed on Christendom by the progressive Allied victors and Jewish interests after the war, the accompanying calls for international Holocaust remembrance and broader Christian reactions to its atrocity narratives did not solidify uniformly after the war; instead, they unfurled and surged in sporadic swells, propelled by media portrayals, political movements, and geopolitical currents. In spite of the growing influence of Holocaust remembrance with the founding of Yad Vashem in Israel in 1953, the 1950s overall saw a marked lull in Western attention on the reported Nazi evils, later lamented by Jewish scholars like Deborah Lipstadt and others who noticed the muted public response, even among postwar Jews, amid Cold War priorities and societal reluctance to affirm testimonies of wartime atrocities. The term “holocaust,” for example, was typically linked to Cold War fears of a “nuclear holocaust,” rather than denoting Jewish suffering, as the proper noun—“The Holocaust”—had not yet solidified in the postwar vernacular. Likewise, lingering skepticism of wartime atrocity propaganda, with memories of false and exaggerated claims after World War I, led many to question reports of a secretive industrialized genocide.
In 1951, Colonel John Beaty, a Christian anti-communist and former U.S. Army Military Intelligence officer who had assembled daily intelligence briefings for the White House and top leaders during the war, published his bestselling book, The Iron Curtain Over America, where he warned of Jewish influence in Communism’s rise, disputed the “six million” Jewish death toll as untenable, and condemned the Nuremberg Trials for violating Western legal standards. Despite fierce criticism from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Beaty’s book garnered endorsements from several retired World War II generals. Senator William Langer, former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Beaty’s book “ought to be compulsory reading in every public school in America.”
Thus, while censorship efforts grew at the behest of postwar Jews, the 1950s allowed conservative American Protestants like John Beaty and his military and political allies to explicitly deny the Nazi genocide, forcefully condemn the Nuremberg narrative, and publicly critique insidious Jewish influence—without facing severe reprisals from employers, politicians, or pastors. Even so, efforts were underway to silence such voices, ensuring that the grip of Holocaustianity would not be prevented by early resistors.
The Postwar Purge of the American Right
Despite the lingering liberty enjoyed by patriotic American nationalists in the early 1950s, the decade saw a clash of old conservatives against a growing alliance of increasingly institutionalized internationalists, shutting out the remnants of ethno-religious particularism in the West. In America, a surge of moral coercion from postwar ideological “denazification,” fueled in part by the Nazi atrocity narratives that portrayed nationalism as an evil spark of ethnic division and portrayed “appeasement” as the cause of global conflagration, increasingly eroded the pre-war nationalism of the America First Committee and the Old Right’s isolationism, which had long been anchored in America’s founding principles.
Prominent figures like Charles Lindbergh, the celebrated aviator and a leading voice in the America First Committee, had warned against foreign entanglements and the influence of interventionist lobbies—views smeared as “anti-Semitic” even before the war’s end. Lindbergh’s prewar speech in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941, critiquing the internationalist agents pushing America toward war—including Jewish interests—drew fierce backlash, foreshadowing the postwar suppression of such nationalist and “anti-Semitic” sentiments.
In 1953, William F. Buckley Jr.—“the crown prince of postwar conservatism,” per Berkley’s Journal of Right-Wing Studies—met with Willi Schlamm, an Austrian Jewish journalist and ex-communist, to launch the National Weekly magazine, later renamed to National Review, which sought to redefine American conservatism in the mid-1950s, rejecting the isolationism of the Old Right and the “antisemitism” of the John Birch Society, who, like John Beaty, warned of leading Jewish influence in communism’s rise. The post-Nuremberg global order, led by media portrayals and survivor testimonies, impelled this mainstream conservative rejection of right-wing nationalism, framing such views as perilous echoes of Nazi ideology. Buckley’s National Review, aiming to make conservative ideas respectable to media elites (many of them Jews), purged the American right, marginalizing the elements its editors later described as “the anti-Semites, the John Birchers, the nativists and their sort.”
This shift threatened to mold conservative Americans to the world’s cosmopolitan pattern, defying Paul’s charge in 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 to be transformed into Christ’s image, not the darkened visages of those who reject Him. In the decades following the war, the internationalists not only managed to constrain the boundaries of American conservatism, but also unleashed a torrent of pluralist policies—global interventionism, economic internationalism, and mass multicultural migration—repaying evil with evil on a continental scale, with a timeline of crisis-driven changes that radically redefined Western nations and values, directing us farther from the harbor of Christendom’s fathers.
Building on the moral weight of the Nuremberg narrative, the trauma-fueled agenda flooded politics, culture, and ultimately the Church, pressing conservative believers to increasingly adopt philosemitism and multiracialism, forsaking Biblical fidelity and filial piety for worldly conformity to an antichrist agenda. Zealous internationalists used media propaganda, educational indoctrination, Holocaust memorialization, political oppression, and controlled opposition to steer conservatives from biblical and national fidelity toward a new globalist order. Driven by the horror of Holocaust tales and the resulting acquiescence to ideological denazification across the West, this philosophical realignment subordinated biblical and national distinctions to a globalist ethos—dimming the Church’s prophetic voice to the nations.
