Christ Is King = Antisemitism?

Letters from O'Brien #50

Usually, I wouldn’t write yet another letter so soon, but such idiocy has been taking place - and in such rapid succession - that I’m compelled to follow up my previous letter on Candace Owens…

The mask of legitimacy has fallen from the Daily Wire in a matter of days, and as it fell, we are served this claim - that the term ‘Christ is King’ is antisemitism. This is - I must remind you - coming from a conservative organisation. As I said before, the Straussian Conservatives run this movement, and they desire to bring about the same destruction of western Christianity that the progressives and Karl Popper-loving libertarians do.

This strange trend - labelling ‘Christ is King’ as an antisemitic trope - began thanks to Daily Wires Andrew Klavan. An ethnic Jew, Klavan converted to Christianity twenty years ago. Now, however, he seems to be standing against his own King, The Christ; Klavan has claimed that using the term Christ is King is a deliberate attack against ethnic Jews, and even more strangely, that people should stop trying to convert Ben Shapiro, because his family and friends would be ‘devastated’ if he became a Christian (and, of course, the economic fallout). Now, I hope Shapiro converts, but of course his salvation cannot hinge on other people, and every Christian should know this; Jesus said he came to bring a sword and that division within families will happen. If Klavan understood the bible, he would know that Shapiro is not ‘exactly where God wants him’ as he put it, because the New Testament says that the ‘will of God’ (despite the protests of the protestant Calvinists) is for all men to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.

But the real issue of the moment is this ‘Christ is King’ contention. Why is it that this phrase supposedly evokes ‘antisemtisim’? Well, according to those espousing this theory, from Andrew Klavan to the popular Christian YouTube known as ‘Council of Trent’ (real name Trent Horn, an ethnic Jew), there is no clear or definable reason as to why this is antisemitic, it just is. Interesting, isn’t it? But read between the lines and another truth becomes evident; most of the people pushing this narrative online appear to have a similar underlying logic, and that is that the ‘context’ and ‘tone’ of the phrase invokes antisemitic themes. What is it inferring? Recently the Overton window has shifted dramatically, and more Americans are onboard with returning to a truer, earlier form of conservatism based around Christian values. Thus, the phrase ‘Christ is King’ is increasingly used, not only as a religious call, but as a national rallying call for the people of America.

Well, it is here that we come to the core of the matter. As I have mentioned before, these ‘conservative commentators’ are usually followers of Strauss and his philosophy. This means that their idealised society cannot have any religious undercurrent, and especially no guiding principles derived from the bible. So essentially what the Straussians are arguing is that the phrase ‘Christ is King’, when used as it currently is, insinuates the desire for a Christian America, and this is perceived as a threat to the ‘open society’ model they stand for.

Understand that the primary desire of the mainstream conservative movement in America (specifically under the guidance of these Straussians) is to prevent a return to a true sense of traditional conservatism. This is why all serious issues are obfuscated, and in its place are surface level manifestations of cultural demoralisation - such as trans issues, gay issues, and all manner of wokeness - but never the core underlying factors; that the liberal experiment has failed. This even extends out into other areas. Note how most call western civilisation the byproduct of ‘Athens and Jerusalem’, playing into the Straussian belief that Aristotle and the antiquity philosophers (and by extension their paganism) discovered ‘universal rights’, and that we adopted them to build the west. This is the same nonsense parroted by the neo-reactionary pagan movements. It’s false. The Greeks were important, but pale in comparison to the distinct role Christianity played in establishing modern Europe (who under paganism struggled to unify anything) and later America. Europe was only united once in its history, and that was during the Middle Ages, thanks to both the threat of the Islamic Caliphate, and because of alliances between Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

The Straussians desire absolute conformity to the liberal idea (Karl Poppers open society) and opposition to this is to be stamped out immediately. And what bigger opposition is there to the open society than a society built on Christian values (like the founding fathers intended)? Now it should be obvious that the mainstream Straussian conservatives’ hatred of this idea makes them, by definition, anti-American. I have been saying this ages, and I will continue to say it; true Americans must understand that the country - as defined by the Declaration - is under occupation. It stands against Christians, it stands against morality, it stands against true liberty, and thus it stands against everything the founding fathers - and by extension the Christian English heritage they took pride in - stood for.

Frustratingly yours,

O’Brien

---

Consider supporting Notes From The Past - Interesting history in videos that may not always keep to the ‘narrative’.