& Roman
Christian Order
Read Christian Order
Main Page


August-September 2011

Benedict and the Jews
- Part I -

I: The Ultimate Anti-Semitism?

As they sift through the post-conciliar rubble seeking clues to explain the disintegration of Catholic faith and life in our time, historians of the restored and revitalised Church Militant of the distant future will shake their heads and sigh, heavily and often.

Rummaging beneath the official narrative of rictus-grinning bishops and New Springtime pap churned out by the CINO press in the latter-20th and early-21st centuries, the Christian Order archives will provide researchers with the shocking truth about the overseers of post-conciliar chaos. Our raw documentation and analysis of local prelates like Worlock, Hume, Murphy O'Connor, Winning, O'Brien, Konstant, Nichols, Smith, McMahon, Hollis, Kelly, Crowley, Conry, Budd, Longley, Evans, et. al., along with their noxious counterparts on every continent who lauded the corruption when not passively condoning it, will astound them.

Scanning the abject laundry list of crimes dutifully laid out in our pages, they will finally concur with Paul VI that the "smoke of satan" did indeed enter the Church on his watch; since only "diabolic disorientation," Saint Lucia of Fatima's inspired description of the Church hierarchy of her day, could possibly account for the prolonged period of dereliction, complicity and treachery described. And in that light, euphoric CINO press accounts of 2012 celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Council that sparked the Catholic sell out will bemuse and befuddle them. "Celebrating what and whom?" they will ponder. "The Masonic infiltrators and the fashioning of Vatican II in their humanistic image and likeness? The crisis of pontifical authority? The de-facto schism of local Churches which logically followed? The Protestantisation of worship? The annihilation of Catholic identity and purpose? The eclipse of faith, morals and discipline? The corruption and decimation of the priesthood and religious orders? The collapse of the Roman curia into a time-serving, untrustworthy, ineffectual heap?"

Indeed they will establish "celebration" of decay and dissolution as the leitmotif of post-conciliar delirium; an era where no opportunity was lost to extoll a post-conciliar vice as a virtuous landmark in Church history. They will scratch their heads and ponder, for instance, how to reconcile the decomposition of the Holy Mass with John Paul II's exultant 1988 Apostolic Letter on the 25th Anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, whereinthe liturgical meltdown was presented as a "radiant vitality" received with "joyful fervour" by the faithful.

They will note, however, that this was the disoriented pontiff who viewed Vatican II as a quasi-article of faith despite the generations sacrificed on its altar of pastoral experimentation. A spiritual holocaust long consigned to the pantheon of ecclesiastical infamies (the John Paul legend having morphed inexorably from charisma to culpability) historians will easily distinguish between the papal celebrity and the complicit pontiff who turned a Modernist vehicle into an idol; even to celebrating its tragic outcome beyond his last breath, in his final Will and Testament:

I would like once again to express my gratitude to the Holy Spirit for the great gift of the Second Vatican Council, to which, together with the whole Church — and especially with the whole episcopate — I feel indebted. I am convinced that it will long be granted to the new generations to draw from the treasures that this Council of the twentieth century has lavished upon us. As a Bishop who took part in the Council from the first to the last day, I desire to entrust this great patrimony to all who are and will be called in the future to put it into practice. For my part, I thank the Eternal Shepherd, who has enabled me to serve this very great cause in the course of all the years of my Pontificate.

Having thus identified "diabolic disorientation" as the cause of stubborn Conciliar fantasies, even posthumous papal ones, researchers will define the post-conciliar effect through another dictum: "Déjà vu all over again." A kind of insanity — repeating the same false-strategies over and over and expecting different results, even while celebrating the same failures — they will find it encapsulated in the dogged pursuit of Ecumenical Dialogue.

With the benefit of hindsight, the pontifical blindness in this regard will perplex historians even more than it staggers those who abjure papolatry to exercise their critical faculties in the here and now. For however much Pope Benedict spins his forthcoming Assisi III as a demonstration/celebration of religious freedom/solidarity in an increasingly secular world, it remains, on the contrary and despite the best papal will in the world, the continuation of a lethal compromise; one which for half a century has corroded faith and belief at every level of the Church, starting at the top, while undermining its salvific mission.

The only winners in the ongoing syncretic pantomime are the orchestrating Freemasons and their various acolytes and neophytes — the facilitators of Assisi I whose modus vivendi and modus operandi dovetailed with that of John Paul II: "a world figure who undoubtedly conveyed a certain Christian religious sentiment that, however, was never a call to the specific embrace and practice of the Catholic religion for one’s salvation, as the innumerable ecumenical and inter-religious happenings' he arranged and presided over made clear to the members of other religions who praised his open-mindedness"(1)

Suffused with this spirit of indifferentism radiated by the late pope, the Assisi franchise embodies the déjà vu nightmare. The third jamboree in the series this October promises more of the same, especially in light of the papal disorientation expressed yet again in Volume 2 of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Great Evasion
Released last March, Pope Benedict insists in his new book that the Church "must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews." He writes that "Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it 'as a whole' at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full." The historical duration of this "proper time," he says, cannot be calculated. He quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s advice to one of his predecessors, Pope Eugene III, that "a determined time has been fixed" for the conversion of the Jews "that cannot be anticipated."

Now, Benedict stated in the first volume of his book that he is not writing as head of the Church but, rather, as a private theologian — "everyone is free, then, to contradict me." We will freely return, therefore, to the theological-historical distortion occasioned by his selective reference to St. Bernard. Meantime, viewed immediately in corrosive ecumenical context, the Holy Father's rationalistic approach is spurious at many levels.

Most insidious, perhaps, is its effortless accord with the Masonic parameters of inter-religious dialogue. These dictate that salt-of-the-earth terms like "proselytism" and "conversion" are dirty words to be avoided or denounced, and most certainly never practised or followed through.

Last Easter, the French daily La Croix reported that a new Vatican initiative to open dialogue with the secular world, the "Courtyard of the Gentiles," should not be seen as an effort to convert unbelievers. Cardinal Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said: "Our task is to conduct a discourse on 'ultimate realities,' ... but also — and this is the programme for the Courtyard — the great existential questions: life, love, death..." Asked whether the Courtyard of the Gentiles should be seen as a place for evangelisation, however, His Eminence answered unequivocally: "Certainly not."

Voilà! — the much vaunted but sadly misnamed "New Evangelisation." More like the "Great Evasion"! In keeping with its interminable "dialogue" that perverts rather than converts, this latest project is not rooted in the urgent traditional query: 'How many souls can we convert to Catholicism?' but clearly dictated by the navel-gazing spirit of the Council's Gaudium et Spes: 'What is Catholicism's relationship with the world?'. The former signals belief and conviction; the latterdoubt and capitulation.

The new Apostolic Nuncio to the UK, Archbishop Mennini, boasts of his own perverse efforts in this regard. Formerly Nuncio to the Russian Federation, His Grace informed the Catholic Herald last March that "at the nunciature there was also a young [Orthodox] seminarian who had stopped studying in order to make some money. I would tell him quite often: 'You must not become a Catholic. You have to keep your faith in order to better serve your Church. ... You can go to Rome one day in order to study but you should remain a Russian Orthodox."

It would be shocking to hear a papal nuncio betray Christ and our holy Faith so brazenly if we did not know from harsh experience what Modernist time-servers they are and the key role they have played in filling episcopal sees across the world with their equally faithless brethren. Men like Cormac Murphy O'Connor, who, on 8 May 2007, informed BBC radio listeners that praying for the conversion of the Jews (and "things like that") is wrong and he was sure they would be removed from the Traditional Latin Mass. Previously, after selling out the Greek Catholics in the Ukraine during October 2006 talks with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexis II, he had spouted the same party line. "Proselytism isn't a word the Catholic Church would want to use," he sniffed.

Heaven forbid! That might endanger an Assisi movement strictly attuned to New Age babble about "awareness", "feeling", "experience", "expression", "visibility", "movement", "meetings", "vibrant", "energizing", "inspiration", "vision" — precisely the amorphous, humanistic, saltless terms used by Cardinal Amato of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to describe John Paul II and his pontificate (in order to justify his fast-track beatification)!

Pope Benedict's academically sterile evasion of the C-word merely perpetuates this notion of faith as a fuzzy feeling; an elastic "civilisation of love" that stretches to accommodate and save everybody, offend nobody and ensure a "peaceful co-existence of religions" — all perfectly tailored to a Masonic worldview. Never mind Our Lord's diametrically opposite view: "I came not to send peace, but the sword" [Matt. 10:34]!

It is one more blow to the missionary zeal of Catholics. Yearning to steer all souls towards the safe harbour of the one true Church "outside of which there is no salvation," they look beyond their contemptible shepherds to the Vicar of Christ for stirring words of encouragement and reaffirmation of Our Lord's "Great Commission" to convert all nations — only to find the same post-conciliar cant; the same lack of fire in the apostolic belly.

The great Jewish converts of yesteryear would be appalled. Alphonse Ratisbonne, for one. What would he have made of the Pope's lethargic counsel?! Instantaneously converted to the true Faith by Our Lady herself, who appeared to him in the church of S. Andrea delle Fratte, Rome, on 20 January 1842, his blind hatred of the Church immediately dissolved, giving way to an attitude completely at odds with that signalled by Benedict. Once ordained, and with the blessing of Pius IX, the evangelical fervour miraculously instilled by Our Lady saw

Fr Ratisbonne spend the rest of his life in the Holy Land labouring with his brother Theodore for the conversion of their former Jewish brethren. Salvation (of individual Jews), not Ecumenical Correctness and Theological Speculation, was the task at hand.

Sadly, the chasm between the Ratisbonnes and the Conciliar pontiffs is underlined by Pope Benedict's contrary, neo-Modernist take on the early Church. In the first volume of his book he even embraced the heretical speculation that St. John did not write his Gospel [see "A New Form of Blindness," CO, Nov. 2008]! Now, in volume two, he argues that the urgency of evangelization was not based so much on the idea that every human being had to know Christ in order to be saved, but rather on a "grand conception of history," according to which the Gospel had to reach all the nations in order for the world to fulfill its destiny. Until God’s plan comes to fruition, says Benedict, the "particular task" of the disciples of Christ is to carry the faith to the Gentiles, not to the Jews.

Although not going so far as to claim that the Jews can be saved without Christ, this papal view recalls the infamous 12 August 2002 joint statement by the National Council of Synagogues and the Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference. Entitled "Reflections on Covenant and Mission," it declared that "campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church." A participating rabbi confirmed that "neither group believes that we should missionize among the other in order to save souls via conversions." Cardinal Keeler, the U.S. Moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations, saw this unspeakable treachery as a "significant step forward in the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish Community in this country."

The statement was shot down in flames by EWTN's Fr. John Echert, who called it the stuff of "end times apostasy" that served "to reveal the thinking of some people who hold powerful positions in the national conference." He should take note that the Supreme Pontiff himself, albeit 'privately,' has now expressed much the same view, at least insofar as the unspeakable lack of urgency apropos Jewish conversion is concerned. Yet as the late Cardinal Avery Dulles said of the 2002 sell out, the Church cannot curtail the scope of the Gospel without betraying herself. "Once we grant that there are some persons for whom it is not important to acknowledge Christ, to be baptized and to receive the sacraments," he said, "we raise questions about our own religious life."

Those same questions arise not only when we downplay the "importance" of acknowledging Christ, baptism and the sacraments, but also when we dilute the urgency of that acknowledgement, always and everywhere for everyone! When the C-word becomes a dirty word, the Church betrays herself and the souls she was established to save in order to populate heaven.

Shoring up the Slanders

As with the scandalous "Covenant and Mission" (eventually disowned and corrected by the American Bishops Conference), the false dichotomy set up by Benedict's line of argument is that the Church has a history of "targeting" Jews; a preoccupying "concern" with their conversion which must stop.

Yet although acutely aware of the unique Jewish role and presence in salvation history, and the deeply held Christian hope for the re-grafting of the Jewish people onto the Catholic vine [cf. Rom. 11:25], the Church has no more "targeted" Jews than anyone else: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost...."

- Matt. 28:19.To suggest otherwise merely plays into the hands of age-old Jewish propaganda: suggesting a Catholic campaign of evangelical harassment of Jews, to complement 2,000 years of alleged victimisation by the Church, all leading to Auschwitz!

These endless slanders and bogus claims have been hardwired into Judaic consciousness by Jewish leaders who prefer victimhood and the (now lucrative) blame-game to taking responsibility for anti-Catholic diatribes and the self-destructive Jewish behaviour they facilitate. Not to mention their Olympian duplicity, summed up by Italian Bishop Carli of Segni:

The Jews today no longer want to be considered responsible for everything which was done to Jesus Christ by their ancestors, to whom even now they grant the benefit of good faith; but they demand that the Catholic Church of today should feel responsible and guilty for everything which, according to them, the Jews have suffered for the past 2,000 years.

Along with the brainwashed Jewish hoi polloi, godless Gentiles have gleefully embraced the Big Lie. Due to appear as Jewish moneylender Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, British actor Sir Patrick Stewart recently gushed to the Jewish Chronicle: "For me, Shylock's hate and loathing comes from decades of personal mockery ... it's an absolute indictment of Christianity." (Predictably, the forelock-tugging Stewart was coached for the role by a rabbi — who, we can be morally certain, failed to apprise him of the myriad Jewish crimes which endlessly provoked Christians, triggering violent reactions that redounded most severely upon decent Jews; the irreligious Shylocks, having fuelled the resentment, cruelly abandoning their religious brethren to the mob.)

On the one hand, the false implication that the Church has obsessively targeted Jews only feeds the vile slurs propagated by the self-designated Jewish elite and helps shore up their wicked worldview. At the same time, there is nothing the least untoward about focusing missionary efforts on a particular group. If successful and souls are brought from darkness to the Light, hallelujah! [cf. 1Peter 2:9; Acts 6:7] If it elicits a negative reaction, alienating the "targets" from Christ and His Church instead of attracting them, so be it. Simply "shake off the dust from your feet" and move on to more fertile ground [Matt. 10:14].

Imperilling the Imperative

Whatever the case, all that matters is the Catholic imperative: to win as many souls for Christ as quickly as possible, without fear or favour. Jews don't get a free pass simply because God has blinded them for the sins, heresies and anti-Catholic fulminations of their fathers, so as to make Christ a perpetual stumbling block and sublime Catholic truths sound irksome and noxious to their ears [1Peter 2:7-8]. Tough! As the Apostles preached at Pentecost and St Augustine confirmed: like all unbelievers, the Jews need to accept God's graces through Jesus Christ and repent of their sins.

Yet not only do they face an oppressive, self-serving leadership dependent upon perpetuating Jewish victimhood and monstrous lies about the Church, it seems the pope himself is now imperilling their salvation! Indeed the Good Friday prayer for the Jews was revised specifically to reflect this aversion to evangelism and the C-word, as admitted by Pope Benedict himself in Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times [Ignatius Press, 2010]:

I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united [emphasis added].

Biblical scholar Robert Sungenis lauded the pope’s new prayer:

Although the pope eliminated the word "conversion" from the 1962 missal, it is unmistakable that his reiteration of the "prayer for the Jews," since it is placed in a context of receiving salvation from Jesus Christ, is making the same demand on the Jews that Catholic tradition has required of them – that their salvation can only come from Jesus Christ and that they must submit to Him in order to become saved ["A Faithful Pontiff," CO, March 2008].

Other commentators were not as complimentary, finding a total lack of urgency in the new prayer for the Jews that now stands in stark contrast to the other two traditional prayers for conversion of various peoples. In his critique, James Larson pointed out "not only the extraordinary strength and intensity" of the language of the other prayers, but also "the immediacy of their intent":

These people [heretics and schismatics] are in immense danger now! They are in danger of perishing, are led astray by the deceits of the devil, and are in immediate need of rescue, repentance, and return.

[...] A similar intensity and immediacy is found in the prayer for pagans .... it is an intense, emergency situation — one of life and death, demanding deliverance and conversion now. Also clearly delineated is the twofold process — a "turning away from" (iniquity of heart, worship of idols), and a "turning to" (the true and living God and holy Church).

Finally, let us turn to the new Prayer for the conversion of Jews ... [it] is a kind of literary disconnect. The prayer is different. Its language and tone are different. There are no negative terms, no urgency or immediacy. And, unlike the other two prayers in which the meanings of every word and concept are crystal clear, there is a real obscurity here.

.... there are no negative evaluations: no errors, evils, iniquity, blindness, veil, darkness from which Jews must turn away or repent. The first half of the conversion act is simply not there.

In lieu of repentance and immediate conversion, says Larson, the new prayer suggests "an interior process of illumination that the Jews are to be allowed to pursue, free of any attempt at proselytism." He concludes:

All this is a sin against the Jews themselves. The unconverted Jew is always in a desperate situation requiring both our prayer for immediate conversion and our missionary activity. St. Paul writes:

For you brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus; for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end. [Thess 3: 14-16]

All of this was affirmed, either explicitly or implicitly, in the old prayer for the conversion of the Jews. All of this is undermined, explicitly or implicitly, in the new ["The First Essentialisation," CO, March 2008].

In fact, both critiques are correct. As Sungenis indicates, the Holy Father clearly does desire the conversion of the Jews through Christ alone. It is just that he does not want to upset his "Jewish friends" by making it a priority, preferring instead what Larson accurately interpreted as a sort of DIY "illumination" over time.

To further bolster and justify the lack of missionary zeal already revealed in Light of the World and reflected in the revised Good Friday prayer, the Holy Father has now launched a false appeal to patristics.

Bernard and Brem

In his recent review of Jesus of Nazareth, Part Two which appeared in the May 2011 edition of Culture Wars magazine, Robert Sungenis explains how Benedict XVI, in order to give credence to his novel views and re-interpretation of the Faith as understood by the hundreds of popes before him, is reduced to ferreting out "one famous personage of the past that agrees with him," and one other obscure source:

[Benedict] goes to the second millennium to find the French abbot Bernard of Clarivaux (d. 1153). [He] extracts a single quote from Bernard addressing Pope Eugene III, which states: "Granted with regard to the Jews, time excuses you; for them a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated. The full number of the Gentiles must come in first.... Why did it seem good to the Fathers... to suspend the word of faith while unbelief was obdurate?" and then backs this up with a quote from an obscure modern day abbess living in Germany named Hildegard Brem, who is commandeered as the sole authoritative commentary on Bernard's words. As such Brem states: "In the light of Romans 11:25, the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God, 'until the full number of the Gentiles come in'... On the contrary, the Jews themselves are a living homily to which the Church must draw attention, since they call to mind the Lord's suffering" (p.45).

So there we have it. An obscure nun from Germany who neither claims any private revelation from God nor notable scholarly career produces such an astounding and provocative ecclesiastical and eschatological commentary; someone who has never been cited by any scholar previously, or even heard of by the public before she appeared in [Benedict's] book, is the single source [he] uses to convince the reader that his new understanding of not preaching to the Jews is the "correct understanding [which] has always been there waiting to be rediscovered."

Staggered by this "shoddy scholarship" coming from a former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and taking up the Pope's invitation to freely critique him, Sungenis goes on to examine St. Bernard's claim, so conveniently accepted without question by Benedict:

Bernard says "it seemed good to the [Church] Fathers... to suspend the word of faith while [Jewish] belief was obdurate." Did they? Which Fathers does Bernard have in view? Unfortunately, [Benedict] doesn't delineate any, but that is certainly his responsibility if he is going to put Bernard in the hot seat. I don't know of any Fathers who taught such a thing and [he] gives us no names of any such Fathers in his remaining 250 pages. So we have the right to ask: why didn't [Benedict] investigate the claims of Bernard before he chose to give us this supposed "correct understanding"? Not only are there no Fathers who teach [Benedict's] view, there are no councils, no saints, no popes and no doctors who taught that the Gospel should no longer be preached to the Jews (save, apparently, for Bernard of Clairvaux, which is not exactly a consensus from tradition). There is a simple reason why. Regardless of how difficult it may be to preach to the Jews, not preaching to them is far worse, for it automatically consigns them to an ignominious fate that we wouldn't wish on our worst enemy, much less on the former chosen people of God who come from the loins of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In short, [Benedict's] compassion is misplaced. Catering to the pressure of the Jewish lobby today by postponing their salvation until tomorrow is not being sympathetic to them at all. The mess of political pottage [Benedict] will receive from the Jews in return for handing over our Gospel birthright can only come back to haunt him, if not destroy him. Naturally, today's Zionists are quite happy to allow the pope to think that God wants to exclude them, as a race, from Christian preaching. They are overjoyed to finally see that, from henceforth, Christians will put the onus on God to make a token gesture of Christian salvation to the last generation of Jews. The Jews themselves couldn't have thought up a better script to keep Christians off their proverbial backs, and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Benedict] more or less confirms our suspicions when he says: "In the meantime, Israel retains its own mission. Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it 'as a whole' at the proper time when the number of Gentiles is complete" (p. 46). What mission? Who gave it to them? Where is this written? Where did the Church ever teach this before? Since when is it God's responsibility to preach to the Jews? Does this imply that God will take away their free will and zap the whole generation with salvation? If so, where does Scripture teach such a thing? Unfortunately, [Benedict] doesn't even think of these questions, much less offer an answer to curious minds."

Tradition Chopped

One hastens to add that Sungenis, as ever, is firm but fair; his critique also commenting positively on some "very uplifting and insightful" passages in the book. Predictably, however, given the Holy Father's renowned liberal pedigree and neo-Modernist views which Christian Order has critiqued over many years, Sungenis rightly laments "a disturbing amount of dubious theological propositions; lack of scholarly exegesis; misuse of biblical criticism; and a general ignoring of Catholic tradition" throughout Jesus of Nazareth. And he truly states:

The problem is exacerbated in that I wouldn't expect most college professors to be able to sort out the problems in Jesus of Nazareth, much less would I expect the Catholic masses to do so. The latter... will take Jesus of Nazareth as Gospel, and that is precisely what frightens me most.

Understandably, readers do not readily separate Pope Benedict from his alter-ego Joseph Ratzinger; very naturally conflating the institution and the man. Thus, his schizoid 'private-public' persona spouting speculation in books and book-length interviews only fuels confusion, as with his recent condom musings in Light of the World [see "A Safer Morality?", CO, Jan. 2011]. This is particularly dangerous in Jesus of Nazareth, warns Sungenis,because Benedict "puts nothing less than 20 centuries of Catholic tradition on the chopping block." On page 44, after the fashion of all the post-conciliar pontiffs, "he claims to possess a better understanding of Jewish issues than everyone else before him, and more or less corrals the entire Catholic tradition as being an assortment of 'many misunderstandings with grave consequences'."

Sungenis re-examines Benedict's "exclusive," "unprecedented" and "destructive" interpretation of Romans 11: 25-27 ("blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in"), as well as Matthew 27:25 ("His blood be upon us and our children"). He also treats other problematic aspects of the book, including a very helpful explanation of the Protestant concepts of "atonement" and "expiation" which the Holy Father adopts in place of traditional Catholic nomenclature like "propitiation," "appeasement" and "satisfaction."(2) Although Benedict "is not as extreme as Luther and Calvin's putting Christ in the literal torments of hell, he comes close to the concept," notes Sungenis, "and for the same reasons."

Since the Holy Father, like his predecessor, was deeply influenced by the neo-Modernist icon Hans Urs von Balthasar, who promoted the quasi-Calvinist beliefs of the false mystic and Protestant convert Adrienne von Speyr, this is hardly surprising [cf. "The Dubious Adrienne von Speyr," CO, June/July 2004; "By Arts Entirely New," CO, April 2006].

Little wonder, then, that in the process of his mercifully frank critique, including fulsome praise where it is due (especially Benedict's excellent treatment of the Passover issue "in dealing with the apparent contradictions between John and the Synoptics... the best solution I've seen"), Sungenis sadly records that the book showcases "modern biblical scholars presented to us from the liberal and historical critical schools, many of them Protestants."

Rudolph Bultmann, a notorious liberal Protestant "unbeliever who didn't accept a word of the Bible as true," is one of Benedict's favourites. Although taking issue with Bultmann "from time to time," says Sungenis, Benedict quotes him "as if he's just a modern Augustine, and the reader is left with the impression that Bultmann is just as great, or even greater than our Catholic Church Fathers or other great Catholic doctors and saints." This is because the "destructive theological foundations undergirding Bultmann [i.e. his emptying the Bible of its contents] and many of the other liberals who are quoted as authorities ... are never revealed."

Moreover, the Catholics quoted by the Holy Father "are all from the liberal ranks and are partisan advocates of historical criticism. ... Without the slightest bit of shame, these theologians have no qualms in making the Gospels compete with one another to see who among them can get away with false statements and exaggerations." Sungenis concludes:

This is the sad state of biblical hermeneutics in the Catholic scholarly world today and [Benedict] unabashedly perpetuates this sorry condition. The German Protestants began the departure from an inerrant Bible back in the 1700 & 1800s and it spread like a disease all over the globe. Ever since the late 1940s Catholic exegetes not only imbibed the Protestant hermeneutic but surpassed it. What took the Catholic Church 19 centuries to construct and teach under such great believers in full inerrancy like Augustine, Thomas and Bellarmine, and which was made official by the great councils, was destroyed in little more than 25 years by Catholic liberals in the 20th century. Their onslaught wouldn't be half as bad except for the fact that there is not one alternative voice (those who follow the Catholic tradition) quoted in Jesus of Nazareth to even make it a fair fight.

Since he has invited us to contradict him if we think he is on the wrong track, we are obliged to state, therefore, that by ignoring the urgency demanded by the stark teaching of St. Paul in chapter 3 of Thessalonians, Pope Benedict is abandoning the Jews to themselves. By putting evangelical good works to one side and relying instead on a Protestant-like appeal to justification by faith in mass conversion alone, he leaves the individual, unconverted Jew benighted and bereft of his only hope: Catholic Truth.

Where is the fatherly solicitude and compassion in all that?

And it begs the question: if the Catholic conversion of each and every Jewish soul is God's merciful response to the merciless Jewish leadership and the perilous condition they brought upon themselves and their hapless people — is not thwarting this salvific plan the ultimate anti-Semitism?

II: Nostra Aetate & Rabbi Heschel

Naturally, we do not expect a response to such pointed queries. Although invited to criticise and contradict, our objections will hardly deter a Pope immersed in the disturbing Jewish and Protestant views that litter Jesus of Nazareth and many of his pre-papal works [CO passim]. Though ever hopeful, we are also realists. We understand that by temperament and training the Holy Father remains both unwilling and unable to make a decisive break with the party line he helped fashion at the Council, despite the fact it has taken heretical turns he never envisaged. Thus, where the Jews are concerned, he is continuing down the well-worn neo-Modernist path of undermining the fundamental Catholic doctrine of extra ecclesia nulla salus; the bête noire ofecumenical "dialogue."

He does so through his studied silence on the need for Jews to enter the Church to secure their salvation instead of counting on the salvific lottery known as "baptism of desire" (though even mention of that dicey option is avoided in his book). Instead, the Holy Father beats his breast in masochistic Conciliar fashion, recalling "with horror" the "many misunderstandings with grave consequences [which] have weighed down our history" (apropos the Jews). Not a word, of course, about the prudence, wisdom and justice exercised by his venerable predecessors in protecting both Catholic souls from corrupting Jewish influence, and the Jews from themselves (i.e. from violent mobs, often incited by abominable Jewish behaviour).

This tiresome walking on eggshells so as not to offend Jewish sensibilities — by hiding the Catholic light under a bushel and refusing to call a historical spade a spade — is particularly galling because it shows that our post-conciliar leadership never learn. And the lesson they refuse to take on board is that they are not dealing with authentic religious Jews who hold to the Torah (the law of Moses); souls who would be more likely to expect and respect unapologetic Catholic partners in "dialogue," however much they disagreed with them. Rather, the Vatican and the Western hierarchy are specifically dealing with and generally appealing to the JINOs (Jews In Name Only); Talmudic/atheistic/Zionist Jews who collectively constitute the vast majority of the diaspora and whose pathological hatred of Christ and His Church — aka "anti-Catholic Semitism" — never wanes.

As we have said before, this distinction between Torah Jews and the self-serving JINO elite and their ilk is absolutely essential to understanding the "dialogue" of the deaf that passes for ecumenism. In fact, "Catholic-Jewish relations" is a deceptive phrase for the "CINO-JINO relations" forged during Vatican II when Modernists like Cardinal Bea, head of the Vatican Secretariat for promoting Christian Unity, negotiated with anti-Catholic bigots like Jules Isaac over the Jewish component of Nostra Aetate, the Council declaration on non-Christian religions.

This perverse, "relationship" cemented episcopal kowtowing as the subsequent default posture before the New Sanhedrin of bully boys running lobby groups such as the World Jewish Congress [WJC], the American Jewish Committee [AJC] and the B'nai B'rith Masonic Lodge and its attack dog, the Anti-Defamation League [ADL]. These self-appointed gatekeepers of acceptable public discourse dictate their fascistic agenda to JINO affiliates and fellow-travelling CINOs and cowed neoconservatives worldwide.

(The lying, smearing, dictatorial chain that shut down Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice's London conference last June — after the "anti-Semitic" canard was unleashed against speakers Robert Sungenis and Fr Paul Kramer and those who defended them — was a routine example of this unholy alliance at work. An oppressive foretaste of the Catholic trials to come, we will consider this aspect in Parts II and III. In the interim, our back-cover advert in this edition supports the freedom of speech so wickedly suppressed in June, while the inside-back cover declaration confirms the studied ignorance and mendacity behind the character assassinations.)

Background Déjà Vu

In The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit [JRS], a monumental work of Catholic apologetics that sounds a clarion call to return to the Faith of Our Fathers, E. Michael Jones details the tug-of-war between faithful Catholics and Bea Modernists over the influence exerted by these powerful Jewish lobbies during Vatican II, as they attempted to subvert traditional Catholic teaching on the Jews.

Jules Isaac, the French Jew who set the revisionist ball rolling, embodied the deception. While presenting himself to John XXIII in 1960 as a diplomatic dove — a veritable ambassador of "the people of the Old Testament" who had lost family during the war — Isaac's own published works rested on two false premises which, as we have noted, endure to this day: 1) the Catholic Church had preached anti-Semitism for 2,000 years which 2) found its ultimate expression in the mass murder of Jews during World War II. From Isaac's opening gambit, therefore, it was all downhill thereafter, as the JINOs assumed control of the "dialogue":

Before long "the people of the Old Testament" were represented by international Jewish organisations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Rather than formulating the Catholic position on the Jews in the light of Catholic tradition, Cardinal Bea became a go-between between the Jewish organisations and the Council Fathers, who initially were also under the impression they were dealing with the "people of the Old Testament." Because the Council Fathers were favorably impressed by Jules Isaac's petition (as opposed to his books, which they had not read), Isaac was allowed to determine the terms of the debate, becoming the principal theorist for the Vatican's statement on the Jews. [JRS, 884-85]

In other words, the Fathers did not realise that they were dealing with a truly violent anti-Catholic agenda: with men peddling an oxymoronic "Christian anti-Semitism" who were not trying to "reconcile" with the Church but, literally, destroy her. It was left to experts like Viscount Leon de Poncins to sound the alarm that Nostra Aetate was destined to become "a weapon designed to overthrow traditional Catholicism, which they consider the chief enemy."

Of course, the idea of introducing an ill-defined term like "anti-Semitism" into the Council document, with all its prejudicial racial connotations, was explosive enough. But Cardinal Bea, a willing captive of the propagandising Jewish lobbies, was determined to do so. In this he was influenced by an old acquaintance, Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel:

Heschel wanted the Vatican to ban what he termed proselytizing, which meant a revocation of the belief that Jews had to accept Christ as their Savior to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He also wanted the Council to ban any reference to the Jews as an accursed race. The "cursed race" claim was a Jewish extrapolation from Matthew 27:26 in which the Jewish people "to a man shouted back [to Pilate, after he offered to release Jesus], 'His blood be on us and on our children'."

The real issue, the issue the Jews did not want to face, was the Jewish rejection of Christ, which was on-going not by occult force but because of Jewish will. By portraying this rejection as a curse, the Jews trivialized it and placed the onus not on their rejection of Christ but on the Church as the perpetrator of some occult voodoo spell, which, while harmless of itself, had caused prejudice, which led to persecution, culminating in the Holocaust.

B’nai B’rith wanted the Church to delete any language it deemed anti-Semitic from the Catholic liturgy. This was a tall order because the liturgy was based on Scripture that was, if not anti-Semitic, then certainly anti-Jewish. Virtually the entire Gospel of St. John and the Acts of the Apostles revolved around the conflict between the Jews who accepted Christ as their savior and the Jews who rejected him. Since those texts were central to any Catholic liturgy and full of invidious comparisons between the New Israel, the Catholic Church, and the Old, repudiated by Christ for its blindness and obstinacy, it was hard to see how dialogue could succeed. Unless, of course, the purpose of dialogue was something other than what it claimed to be.

Those who ultimately opposed the schema on the Jews claimed that ulterior motives drove the discussion from the beginning. Their fears were confirmed (three years after the fact) in March 1963, when a limousine picked Cardinal Bea up at the Plaza Hotel in New York and deposited him at the offices of the American Jewish Committee six blocks away. When Bea arrived, "a latter-day Sanhedrin" was waiting to greet him. The meeting, of course, was "kept secret from the press." It was also kept secret from the Vatican Council fathers. "I am not authorized to speak officially," Bea told the Jews. "I can, therefore, speak only of what, in my opinion could be effected, indeed, should be effected, by the Council." [JRS, 889-90]

Needless to say, the cardinal bought into the whole Jewish scam. And how typical and telling that he should have done so before the New Sanhedrin the very month after the defamation of Pius XII commenced in Berlin, where Hochhuth's Communist-backed play The Deputy opened in February 1963.

"Hochhuth's message was clear," says Jones. "If the incoming pope (John XXIII was dying; who would succeed him was unknown) didn't want to go down in history as another Pius XII, guilty because silent [over the deportation of the Jews during the War], he better pass the schema on the Jews." Cardinal Bea chimed in that he had primed the Jewish lobby on a Jewish statement to their liking and that they would not take no for an answer. But the incessant Jewish lobbying backfired:

Pamphlets on the Jews began to appear at the council. The Jews and the Council in the Light of Holy Scripture by Bernardus offered the most rational presentation from the official Church standpoint. Its message: Scripture states clearly that the Jews were voluntary deicides; the Fathers of the Church supported this doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the attitude of the Roman Pontiffs can only be interpreted as an affirmation that the Jews partake of a world-wide plot to destroy the Church. Hence, all should be wary of the Jew and not destroy a fundamental dogma of the Church. The tract of Bernardus was followed by Complotto contro la Chiesa, four thousand copies of which were distributed to the Council Fathers.

Later, in October 1965, Leon de Poncins showed up at the Council with thousands of copies of his pamphlet Le Problème Juif face au Concile, which "contained a brief history of the role of Jules Isaac in the preparation of the conciliar schema on the Jewish question and a summary of the theses."

In an article in Le Figaro in October 1965, René Laurentin, later the foremost promoter of the phony Medjugorje apparitions, cited Poncins’ tract as a "vigorously anti-Semitic document" which "had been liberally distributed to the [Council] Fathers." The message of Laurentin’s attack was obvious: as Poncins put it, "these 'anti-Semites,' who use a formidable weapon, the texts of Jewish authors themselves, must at all costs be silenced." Poncins was indignant. Isaac could call the Evangelists liars, but "because I simply quote Jules Isaac, Joshua Jehouda and others, I am described as a despicable anti-Semite."

Convinced the Council Fathers who passed the schema had not read their writings, Poncins had the novel idea of reprinting what Jews like Isaac, Jehouda, and Memmi wrote about the Catholic Faith. Poncins was equally certain

when Jules Isaac and his associates went to Rome, they were careful not to mention these passages in their books; they spoke of Christian charity, of ecumenical unity, of common biblical filiations, of Judeo-Christian friendship, of the struggle against racism, of the martyrdom of the Jewish people, and their efforts met with success since 1,651 bishops, cardinals, archbishops and Council Fathers voted to reform Catholic teaching according to the desires of Jules Isaac, the B’nai B’rith, and the World Jewish Congress.

Missing from the discussion were passages like Memmi’s diatribe against Catholicism: "Your religion is a blasphemy and a subversion in the eyes of the Jews. Your God is to us the Devil, that is to say, the symbol and essence of all evil on earth."

Jules Isaac is only slightly less intemperate. After making unsupported claims — "No, Pilate did not wash his hands according to the Jewish custom. ... No, Pilate did not protest his innocence. ... No, the Jewish crowd did not cry out: 'His blood be upon us and upon our children'." — Isaac has the temerity to call the Gospel of St. Matthew "obviously tendentious." After claims based on nothing more than his ipse dixit, Isaac appends a "therefore" to his non-conclusion:

Therefore the total responsibility of the Jewish people, of the Jewish nation and of Israel for condemning Jesus to death is a matter of legendary belief and not based on solid historical foundation. ... To maintain the opposite viewpoint, one would have to be intractably and fanatically prejudiced, or have a blind belief in a tradition which, as we know, is not ‘normal’ and thus ought not to be laid down as a rule of thought for even the most docile sons of the Church — a tradition which, moreover, is infinitely noxious and murderous, and which, as I have said and shall repeat, leads to Auschwitz — Auschwitz and other places. Some six million Jews were liquidated solely because they were Jews and thus brought shame not only upon the German people but upon the whole of Christianity, because without centuries of Christian teaching, preaching and vituperation, Hitler’s teaching, propaganda and vituperation would have been impossible.

Forty years later, rabbis were repeating Isaac’s charge almost verbatim at Nostra Aetate celebrations. In fall 2005, Israel’s Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger wrote in America:

Not only ignorant peasants or monks but also eminent theologians and spiritual teachers had attacked the Jews as the "killers of Christ," as a people now abandoned by God, a race deserving not its envied wealth but revenge for plots and acts against innocent Christians. ... Not only had the Jews of Rome been forced to live in a ghetto until the pope no longer governed that city ... but almost everywhere in Europe, Jews had been made to seem strange, sinister and repulsive. A long road of disgraceful preaching was one of the paths across the centuries which led to the Nazis’ death camps and in the end, not Judaism but Christianity was discredited.

Isaac dealt with the Church Fathers in simili modo. They were "all persecutors filled with anti-Jewish hatred, the inevitable forerunners of Streicher and others, morally responsible for Auschwitz and 'six million innocent Jewish victims'."

Poncins maintained in his tract that the Schema of November 1964 passed because the bishops were ignorant of Isaac’s true feelings toward Christianity, but, more broadly, they were ignorant of the difference between the Torah and the Talmud. The former is the Word of God; the latter is its antithesis. The Talmud, Poncins pointed out, was a post-Christian confection designed to keep Jews from converting to Christianity. After destruction of the Temple, "The Talmud ... replaced the Torah as the foundation of all wisdom and the guide in every detail of daily life." The point of the Talmud was "to consummate the definite break from triumphant Christianity." So "The imposition of the ideals of the Talmud on the new branch of Judaism has been the calamity of the Jewish people even to this day."

The Council Fathers did not understand the Jews had a fundamentally different understanding of what was going on at the Council than they did. What the bishops saw as a gesture of reconciliation, the Jews saw as "a weapon designed to overthrow traditional Catholicism, which they consider the chief enemy."

The schema was dangerous because "it put the Church in the position of the accused, guilty of the permanent, unjustifiable and unatonable crime of anti-Semitism for two thousand years." Beyond that, it questioned "the good faith and truthfulness of the Evangelists, of St. John and St. Matthew in particular; it discredited the teaching of the Fathers of the Church and of the great doctrinarians of the papacy by depicting them in distasteful colors; in short, it threatened to demolish the very bastions of Catholic doctrine."

Given the gravity of the charges Poncins laid at the feet of the Jews, it was not surprising that the pope withdrew the 1964 text. The 1964 text was Jewish, not Catholic. Poncins cites Malachi Martin’s hapless Jesuit confidante, Gus Weigel, as claiming "the declaration condemning anti-Semitism which was accepted by Cardinal Bea in 1964, was suggested by Zachariah Schuster, President of the American Jewish Committee." [JRS, pp. 926-929]

Enmity Unveiled

But there was another incident in late 1964 that surely clinched this subsequent reversal by Pope Paul. Not only did it underline the truth of Poncins' claims, it brought Jewish relations with the Church to breaking point. Edward Kaplan recounts the affair in Spiritual Radical [Yale University Press, 2007], a hagiography of Rabbi Abraham Heschel.

On 21 November, the day following the successful preliminary vote on the Jewish declaration, Heschel accorded an in-depth interview with Tel Aviv journalist Geula Cohen. A notorious female terrorist, Cohen had worked as a radio broadcaster in the 1940s for the murderous Stern Gang. During the interview she expressed utter contempt for Christianity: "But they are the murderers. For they are guilty not only of killing Jews but of killing God." She took great delight in referencing an editorial written by Heschel and published by the New York Times and Time magazine, in which he had vented his anger over a leaked draft of Nostra Aetate that did not include his desired prohibition against converting Jews. "As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities of the Vatican," he wailed, "I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death."

"This statement of yours made me proud," said Cohen. "Yet, I would have written it differently, saying: 'if this were the only way in which I would be permitted to live, I would have endeavored to send them [Christians] to Auschwitz'." Puffed up by Cohen's flattery, the egotistical Heschel let his mask slip, proudly insisting that his statement was actually stronger than hers:

[Christians] correctly understood that I was comparing them to the Nazis. If I had made the statement in a straightforward fashion saying "you are Nazis," it would have sounded ridiculous. My style of writing is by hinting, because truth is in the depths. There are those who would like to attack their bodies. I want to attack their souls. Today, there is no longer any place for religious wars as such. Today there is occasion for conversation and discussion. Do you consider the desire to discuss a sign of weakness?

Having thus confirmed the ruse of "dialogue" as rabbinical warfare against the Church, Rabbi Heschel went on to boast of his central part in the Vatican discussions. He embellished an account of his secret audience with Paul VI where he offered the Pope his services as an adviser on Jewish matters and handed him a memorandum pushing "non-conversion" and the usual rabbinical hobby horses. In fact, the Pope had politely accepted the memorandum from the terribly nervous and unimpressive Heschel but had rebuffed his offer of advice with the stinging retort: "Yes, Rabbi Zolli was a very good friend of mine and I knew him very well." Flabbergasted and distressed by this put down — Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome who converted to Catholicism after the war, being an apostate in Jewish eyes — Heschel well understood that the Pope did not want his advice. Nonetheless, he now asked Cohen pompously: "Have you noticed that what was introduced into the final text of the declaration is in the spirit of the words that I suggested to the pope?"

The sensational Cohen interview appeared in the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Christmas Day, 1964. It caused shock and horror throughout the Vatican, among Jewish allies and opponents alike, all the way up to the pope. As an agent of the American Jewish Committee, Heschel put the AJC and its Vatican II project under extreme pressure. "Cooperative ties between Jews and Catholics, so cautiously cultivated for years, were severely menaced," writes Kaplan.

Cardinal Cicognani, the all-powerful Secretary of State, called in Cardinal Bea, Heschel's old friend, and read him the riot act. Bitterly reproaching him for an hour and a half over the Heschel interview, and for maintaining contacts with the AJC, he even accused Bea of being "behind the article." The arch-Modernist Bea told the AJC's European director, Zachariah Schuster, who had been present at Heschel's secret (disastrous) meeting with the Pope, that the article was "the direct cause of the most distressing time" he had ever endured "in the Eternal City" and perhaps signalled "the ultimate catastrophe for many of my dearest plans." Drawing on Schuster's report, Kaplan writes:

Bea relayed Cicognani's eyewitness account of the pope's reaction. "The Pope was angered and chagrined by the presumption of the tone used in the article; by the distortion of actual historical facts as he, the Pope, knows them; the implied insults to Christianity; ... 'Who can now say that the Jewish document is not the direct result of Jewish pressures?' the Pope asked. [Schuster's emphasis].

Schuster lamented that Heschel had indeed given "unqualified support to the major charge of the Arabs that the Jewish document is a direct product of Jewish pressure on the Holy Father and on the Vatican." He was also "mortified by Heschel's apparent tolerance of the Israeli journalist's 'violent, blasphemous attacks on Christianity and on Christ himself'."

Bea told Schuster that the Vatican identified Heschel "totally" with the AJC: so they promptly threw him under a bus. In cutting their ties, they assured Cardinal Bea in a grovelling apology that Heschel had been "misrepresented" by Cohen and that "these hostile expressions are contrary to the well-known positions towards the Church and Christianity" which he had regularly expressed. On the contrary, it simply revealed the age-old duplicity, mendacity and hatred behind the rabbinical flattery, smiles and bonhomie. Happy to damn with faint praise when it suited him, Heschel wrote that "Jews ... ought to acknowledge the eminent role and part of Christianity in God's design for the redemption of all man" ["No Religion is an Island," 1965]. When pressed, however, the veil fell and the age-old enmity — anti-Catholic Semitism — quickly reappeared: Christianity, "correctly understood," became Nazism.

Part III - Revolution & Judaisation

While the Jewish lobbies engaged in post-Heschel damage limitation, the indefatigable Poncins was busy demolishing the idea that the Jews are "the people of the Old Testament." Crucially, he showed that they want, not a Messiah, but "a terrestrial reign in which they will control the social, economic and political life of the nations. … Judaism seeks to impose itself as the sole standard and to reduce the world to Jewish values." This was a major breakthrough. And since the attempt to co-opt Vatican II for Jewish ends can be properly understood only within this totalising worldview, a brief look at the how, whys and wherefores of 20th century Judaisation is essential.

According to George Batault, the Jews "are instinctively sympathetic to everything which tends to disintegrate and dissolve traditional societies, nations and countries":

...The Jews have a feeling and love for Humanity, taken as an aggregate of individuals as abstract and similar to each other as possible, released from "the routine" of tradition and liberated from the "chains" of the past, to be handed over, naked and uprooted, as human material for the undertakings of the great architect of the Future, who will at last construct on principles of Reason and Justice the messianic City over which Israel will reign. [JRS, pp. 928-29]

As the early Jewish historian Flavius Josephus confirmed, this utopian revolutionary spirit has been synonymous with Judaism from the very beginning: in the suicidal messianic revolt of 66 AD, as also the reception of Simon bar-Kokhba as Messiah when he led the ill-fated revolt of 131 AD. John Henry Newman, too, in his history of the Arians, explicitly notes that in the popular risings which took place in Antioch and Alexandria in favour of Arianism, the Jews side with the heretical party, evincing thereby, not indeed any definite interest in the subject of dispute, but a sort of spontaneous feeling, that the side of heresy was their natural position; and further, that its spirit, and the character which it created, were congenial to their own.

The comprehensive findings of respected Jewish historians such as Israel Yuval (Two Nations in the Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages) and Elliott Horowitz (Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence) support this assessment. Later examples of revolutionary activity in alliance with heresy are also cited in Rabbi Israel Newman’s Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements. More general information is contained in Regina Sharif's Non-Jewish Zionism.

In 1965, therefore, Poncins also reminded the Council Fathers of the central role of the Jews in post-World War revolutionary upheavals. Producing the French literature on the subject, he cited Jewish writer Bernard Lazare, who praised Karl Marx's "clear Talmudic mind which does not falter at the petty difficulties of fact." Lazare claimed that Marx was "inspired by that ancient Hebraic materialism which.... never ceased to dream of Paradise realised on earth.... With Marx, socialism became a secular version of Jewish messiansim. The idea was born in Palestine and has now taken root in Moscow and Peking."

"During the 1920s," writes Jones, "Jews and Catholics knew Bolshevism was a Jewish phenomenon. The Catholics deplored the fact; the Jews applauded it, but no one disputed it." The late Rabbi Dresner himself lamented the manner in which Jews from the very outset became "disciples of the new politics of communism. Some 30 per cent of the early leaders of the revolution were estimated to have been Jewish," he said. "Emancipated from their ancient faith by the onslaught of modern thought, which the antiquated Judaism of the time was ill-prepared to refute, they transferred their unexpended messianic fervour into the new religion of Marx."

Nihilistic Talmud

How could they resist? The essence of that "modern thought" was nihilism — the belief that nothing in life has any importance or value and that political and religious organizations should be destroyed; a worldview they had imbibed through the Talmud.

"The supreme authority in religion... for the majority of [Jews]," according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, the Talmud was proscribed and condemned by popes of yore. Gregory IX said it was "so unspeakable that it arouses shame in those who mention it and horror in those who hear it." While in 1887, Leo XIII maintained the teachings of his predecessors in the index Expurgatorius, stating:

Our Holy Lord Pope Clement VIII in his Constitution against impious writings and Jewish books, published in Rome in the year of Our Lord 1592... proscribed and condemned them: it was not his intention thereby to permit or tolerate them... for he expressly and specially stated and willed, that Talmudic, Cabalistic and other nefarious books of the Jews be entirely condemned and that they must remain always condemned and prohibited, and that this Constitution about these books must be perpetually and inviolably observed.

As Robert Sungenis commented: "If John Paul II had accepted Leo XIII's index he would have never appeared on the cover of the American Jewish Journal in 1991 accepting a copy of the Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud from Jewish rabbis" [The Remnant 28/2/11]. Indeed. And when they are not openly undermining Tradition in this way, our post-conciliar pontiffs and prelates do so in silence: avoiding all mention of the Talmud and its abhorrent contents for fear of exposing their ecumenical fantasy.

We hear much about the perverse and violent passages in the Koran, which John Paul infamously kissed, but rarely about the Talmudic passages that surely influenced Mohammed's eclectic compilation. Sanhedrin 54b, for instance, which teaches that a man who sodomises a child under the age of nine is exempt from liability. Also: … intercourse with a boy under nine years old is not considered a significant sexual act … [Ketubot 11b]. In recent years, publicity finally given to the long-suppressed scandal of routine child sexual abuse by New York rabbis has shown that, unlike abuse by Catholic clergy, the rabbinical abuse is prescribed by the Talmud, and that informing ("mosering") non-Judaic authorities about criminal activity by Jews is strictly forbidden.

The truth our hierarchy will not face is that the JINOs, as opposed to the small number of Jews who actually observe the untainted law of Moses, are quintessential products of the rabbinical/Pharisaical quagmire that constitutes the Talmud. Its teachings, therefore, largely explain the kind of deceitful, ruthless, violent

Jewish thinking and behaviour displayed by the Jewish elite at Vatican II; a mindset ever present behind the smiles of their hail-fellow-well-met partners in "dialogue," as Pope Paul discovered to his horror.

The bishops and their global army of ecumenical bureaucrats simply do not want to know any of this. They represent the antithesis of the Catholic faith embodied by the hundreds of pre-Vatican II pontiffs, who, together with the Gospel Evangelists, the Church Fathers, doctors, saints and ecumenical councils of the Church, loved the Jews precisely by confronting reality; frankly addressing both natural and supernatural truths which alone inform true charity and compassion for the enemies of Christ.

In 1917, for example, Maximilian Kolbe founded the Militia of the Immaculata. His fight was not turned toward killing the enemies of the Church, of course, but aimed to convert them so they could achieve eternal salvation. It is in this spirit that he addressed his foes. In an article titled “The Poor Ones” he describes the hatred expressed for Christ and His Church in the Talmud:

Man was redeemed, and Christ founded His Church upon a rock. Some of the Hebrew people recognized Him as the Messiah, but others – among them principally the Pharisees – did not want to recognize Him. Instead, they persecuted His followers and issued numerous laws obliging the Jews to persecute the Christians. These laws, together with stories and appendixes, became their sacred book called The Talmud around the year 500.

In this book Christians are called idolaters, worse than Turks, murderers, impure libertines; they are manure, animals in human form, worse than animals, children of the Devil, etc. Catholic priests are called fortune-tellers and bald-headed dunces … the Church is called a house of stupidity and filth; sacred statues, medals and rosaries are called idols. In The Talmud Sundays and holy days of obligation are considered days of perdition.

This book teaches, among other things, that a Hebrew can deceive a Christian and steal from him since all the properties of a Christian are – from the text itself – "like the desert, the first to take them becomes the owner."

This book, written in 12 volumes and breathing hatred against Christ, is considered by these Pharisees a sacred book, more important than Sacred Scriptures.

It is, above all, the means by which the rabbis maintain control of their people by shackling them with dark lies and bitter hatred, keeping them far from the liberating Light of Christ. And since there is only Christ or Chaos, it invites revolution and anarchy. Consequently, hapless students of the nihilistic Talmud and those raised in its shadow in the small Jewish towns and villages (shtetls) — which made up Russia's predominantly Jewish border with the West during the 19th and 20th centuries — were easy targets for fomenters of violence who lured disproportionately large numbers of them into the sort of revolutionary upheavals that Poncins drew to the attention of the somnolent Council Fathers.

Political Revolution

Treating this issue in the May 2011 Culture Wars, Michael Jones quotes the author of an epic treatment of Jews and revolution in 19th century Russia, Erich Haberer, as stating that "Nihilism was the most spontaneous and radical expression of the Russian renascence of the 1860s. Essentially, it was a 'cultural revolution' of the young generation against the existing order." Thus, Jewish nihilism became a cultural movement that spawned revolutionary violence. "Spearheading this crusade," writes Haberer, "were Jewish gymnasium students and rabbinical seminarians. In places like Vilna, Mogilev, Zhitomir, and Kiev, they formed 'circles of self-education' which, in turn, proliferated by attracting talmudists, pupils of Jewish crown schools, and privately educated children of wealthy Jewish merchants."

Proceeding further to "the ontological connection between nihilism and violence" — which renders political categories like right and left redundant — Jones confirms the seminal role of the Talmud:

Jews were more attracted to violence because they came from a more nihilistic background. The Talmud had trained them to treat both the moral order and the goyim [a derogatory word for Christians used by Jews] with contempt, and this dehumanization made it easier to kill people for a sacred cause. As Salo Baron has pointed out, Russians who ended up being interrogated by the Cheka, the Soviet secret police, after the revolution were more likely to be tortured by Jews because Jews did not view the goyim as fellow citizens. The Jews who had been taught as children to hold the goyim and their moral law in contempt were going to be less inhibited in engaging violence and mayhem than their Christian counterparts. If the entire Jewish people could be sacrificed to the abstractions of the Talmud, it was only a short step to claim that goyim should be sacrificed to the revolutionary cause.

If we combine both internal and external reasons, "it is easy to see why the revolutionary movement in Russia would become both more Jewish and more violent as the 19th century progressed."

Indeed, "the statistical findings of Kappeler (as they relate to Jews)" reveal that the virus of terror spread first in the south because "Jews were a major and very active component in virtually all radical circles which in the south of Russia acted as catalysts of political terrorism." It is hardly surprising, therefore, that "all of the conspirators in the Nikolaev plot to assassinate the Czar but one were Jewish."

Haberer duly notes that "Scholars have justly cautioned against perceiving Judaism as a motivating force of Jewish radicalisation. But to ignore or deny the workings of this religious dimension in the psychology of revolutionary Jews," he adds, "would be shortsighted. It prevents us from comprehending the mental processes which drove alienated men and existentially troubled individuals.... to sanctify socialism and commit themselves to terrorism." It was Jews like Shternberg arguing in 1884 for "systematic terrorism" involving the "systematic killing of the tsar and the most important, the most outspoken enemies of the people and the intelligentsia," which caused splits with the Gentiles (the despised goyim). Haberer concludes that, all anti-Semitism notwithstanding, there was a "factual basis underlying the phobia in official and reactionary circles that the Jew was poised to destroy Holy Tsarist Russia."

In JRS, Jones details the recurring cycle of this restless, rootless, destructive Jewish inclination throughout the past two-thousand years: that spirit "instinctively sympathetic to everything which tends to disintegrate and dissolve traditional societies, nations and countries," as Batault put it.

In his incisive series "Facets of Four World Wars" [CO, June/July-Oct 2010], Dr Robert Hickson also explained how this policy of destabilisation and fragmentation (as opposed to the traditional emphasis on balance and stability) is presently at work in America: through the unjust wars instigated and directed by the infamous JINO neoconservatives, masters of messianic politics, and their hapless "Christian Zionist" supporters within the Washington Neocon-Israeli Likud apparatus. Michael Ledeen, a leading neocon respected by Dr Hickson for his commendable frankness, said it himself in the ominously titled "Creative Destruction," an essay written just after the 9/11 attack:

Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically .... It is time once again to export the democratic revolution.

Cultural Revolution

That would be the same de-racinated — i.e. de-Christianised — "democracy" that emerged from the 1960s counter-culture that the Jewish elite also led from the front, not least through the hugely influential Frankfurt School of atheistic Jewish intellectuals who equated Christian beliefs, values and traditions with fascism. Clearly, the cultural revolution was and remains a magnet for JINOs, since they, like their forebears, ardently embrace every movement opposed to the Church that will injure the Catholic doctrinal, moral and social teachings which inspired, built and support the Christian civilization they detest. As Frankfurt Schooler Herbert Marcuse, the intellectual guru of the counter-culture and coiner of the insidious phrase "make love not war," put it himself:

One can speak rightly of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society....

Having relocated from Germany to Columbia University during the 1930s, the Frankfurt School JINOs set about injecting their nihilistic ideas into the Western bloodstream, slowly breaking down its Christian immune system through a mixture of Freudian psychobabble, pseudo-scientific cultural analysis and historical revisionism. Ultimately, they and their fellow-travellers orchestrated the 1960s anti-Christian takeover of academia, media and politics, imposing their virulent atheism on every aspect of Western life and culture: implementing that "long march through the institutions" advocated by the neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci:

In the most practical terms, he [Gramsci] needed to get individuals and groups in every class and station of life to think about life's problems without reference to the Christian transcendent, without reference to God and the laws of God. He needed to get them to react with antipathy and positive opposition to any introduction of Christian ideals or the Christian transcendent into the treatment and solutions of the problems of modern life. [Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood]

Untold numbers of books and articles, not a few by righteous Jews like movie critic Michael Medved, continue to document how this godless Gramscian objective was achieved. The pivotal, disproportionate Jewish influence is frequently omitted, however, to avoid the gratuitous and gutless "anti-Semitic" slur reflexively trotted out by the JINOs to shut down discussion and preserve their power base. Railing against anyone who states this bald fact of modern life, they even dismiss honest Jewish critics who refuse to toe their Zionist party line as "Self-hating Jews." This would doubtless include Ben Shapiro, author of the recently released exposé Primetime Propaganda, who writes:

I spoke personally with scores of major Hollywood names who admitted to me on tape that discrimination [against conservative Christians] takes place in Hollywood, that they use their programming to manipulate Americans politically, that they scorn everyday conservatives, and that they twist the television market to achieve their own political goals. ... They granted me interviews because they are proud of their propagandizing efforts.... [they] probably assumed that because of my Jewish last name and my Harvard Law baseball cap, I was a liberal. ... Now, we’ve got the goods. The biggest names in television over the past few decades – the people who made your favorite shows – told me that they propagandize, they do it purposefully but subtly, and they do it because they feel a moral need to do it.

Shapiro urges everyone to read his book to "Find out what you’re watching – from the inside – and find out and why it’s so insidious. The number one tool in the left’s arsenal is the television industry. Let’s take that weapon out of their hands."

Easier said than done when the dominant JINO network at the heart of that "liberal" influence on both sides of the Atlantic is studiously avoided or understated, and those pointing out the blatant Jewish connection are decried as "anti-Semtic." Only very occasionally is it alluded to, as in the Evening Standard of 21 January 1992, when a Jewish reporter joined the local dots. "David was at school with Michael who plays snooker with Charles who knows Alan who is a friend of Michael. Together these five men form a powerful group who have a massive influence on what you will be watching on television today." The five referred to are the JINOs David Elstein, Michael Grade, Charles Saatchi, Alan Yentob and Michael Green.

The fact that such Jewish media cabals are largely comprised of agnostics and atheists misses the point. According to the Jewish Chronicle of 3 January 1997, David Elstein has a "vast executive and programme-making background with most of Britain's major networks." Discussing the kind of programmes which the newly established Channel 5 would carry, Elstein told the Chronicle: "There are a lot of very vocal Jewish thinkers and writers around, not necessarily representing Jewish religious belief. You don't expect an awful lot of Yom Kippur services to turn up in the work of people like Howard Jacobson and Harold Pinter. But you are aware that they are coming from a background which is influenced by Jewish life."

"Jewish life" is formed by the nihilistic Talmud, and nihilism, as we have seen, fuels violence. Ergo, since there is nothing more morally violent and spiritually destructive than pornography, Channel 5 duly went on to add ever more explicit porn to the usual diet of less blatant pornographic fare. At the same time and in the same vein, under the direction of Elstein's old schoolmate Michael Grade, Channel 4 became "Channel Porn" and the Daily Mail christened Grade "pornographer-in-chief."

Sadly, conservative Jewish commentators in the UK who courageously battle the moral dissolution fostered by such influential Jewish liberals, the admirable Melanie Phillips for one, refuse to finger the Talmudic JINO elephant in the room. Unafraid of the WASP establishment, they are careful not to offend their Jewish brethren and Zionist overlords (whose politics they largely share). They would have noted with trepidation the "rage verging on hysteria" that greeted fellow British journalist William Cash's article on Jewish control of Hollywood in the October 1994 American Spectator. For merely stating pedestrian facts on the public record (e.g. "Of 85 names engaged in production, 53 are Jews") he was buried under an avalanche of "anti-Semitic" slurs involving Pythonesque hypocrisy and self-contradiction. As Michael Jones recounts in JRS:

In the Los Angeles Times, Neal Gabler, author of An Empire of their Own: How Jews Created Hollywood, attacked Cash's article as "an anti-Semite bleat from a reactionary crackpot" that could be dismissed "if it didn't have a respectable platform in the Spectator and didn't play to a pre-existing prejudice that Jews control the U.S. media." Gabler attacked Cash for saying what Gabler had said in his own book! [JRS, p.1034]

But not all Jews think a new Holocaust or Spanish Inquisition beckons every time someone states the obvious. Take Joel Stein's refreshingly candid and cheeky celebration of Jewish influence in the same arch-liberal LA Times of 19 December 2008:

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

[..] The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between "The 700 Club" and "Davey and Goliath" on TV all day.

On the contrary, without the decades of JINO control we'd have less Talmudic blasphemy and sexual, moral and ethical deviancy! Or as Jewish neocon Midge Decter admitted, "American society, and particularly American culture" would be far less "vulnerable to pernicious influences." But Joel continues jauntily:

So I've taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that's what we do best. I'm weighing several slogans, including: "Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!"; "Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible"; and "Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all."

Abe Foxman: JINO or Self-hating CINO?

However badly misled by his Jewish upbringing, the honest and open Joel is a breath of fresh air. His admirable objectivity, however, is a threat to the Jewish leadership whose entire raison d'être is the fostering of isolation and fear: a Jewish siege mentality centred on perpetual victimhood and a sense of entitlement. For them, even great news is not so good. So when Joel contacted Anti-Defamation League boss Abraham Foxman to discuss this formidable Jewish control of the entertainment media, he found him less than impressed, despite the lack of Jewish "stereotyping" indicated by his own figures!

The doyen of anti-Catholic Semites despite having been saved by his Polish Catholic nanny during the war, Abe-the-ingrate is also JINO whinger-in-chief. He is never satisfied. Ever. Not even by the impressively wicked fact that his ADL smear machine has helped coerce 80% of the American public into a patently false, politically correct view of American media at complete odds with Joel Stein's frank admission and the candid confessions made to Ben Shapiro by the Hollywood and television elite themselves. "He dismissed my whole proposition," wrote Joel, "saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high"!

Foxman's response epitomises the JINO strategy of brazen denial/suppression of reality — i.e. the anti-Christian agenda freely and earnestly admitted in Shapiro's Primetime Propaganda — and the substitution of their own manufactured anti-Semitic "reality" in its place, legally enforced by the "hate crime" legislation they pioneered. The irreverent Joel recounted the whitewash:

The ADL poll, [Foxman] pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs "do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans," and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to "weaken the influence of religious values in this country."

That's a sinister canard, Foxman said. "It means they think Jews meet at Canter's Deli on Friday mornings to decide what's best for the Jews." Foxman's argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter's more often.

"That's a very dangerous phrase, 'Jews control Hollywood.' What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood," he said. Instead of "control," Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry "happen to be Jewish," as in "all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish."

As Joel Stein and Ben Shapiro would agree, if you believe that Chutzpah on Stilts, you'll believe anything! Alas, thanks to thuggish propagandists like the ADL and the "Israeli-occupied" U.S. Congress (decried by Pat Buchanan), the majority of Americans have accepted Foxman's outrageous deception: the total disconnection between atheistic JINOs "influenced by Jewish life," as David Elstein put it, and the alien "religious and moral values" they perceive in "Hollywood execs" and their "organised campaign" to undermine "religious values."

It may well be true, as one commentator noted, that "Jews in Hollywood, like most Jews in the media, academia and pornography, tend to be radical and alienated Jews, rooted neither in Judaism nor in the majority Christian culture. They tend to be rootless and politically left of center, seeking to create a rootless cosmopolitan society to reflect their own non-Judaic traditionless values," But as William Cash made clear and as Jones remarks, these JINOs "don't cease being Jews, however, nor do they cease to act like Jews." Hence the relentless acting out of Talmudic blasphemies on prime time TV by JINO "comedians": like Larry David, who urinated on a picture of Jesus during his quintessentially Jewish sitcom [CO, Jan 2010, p.3], to recall just one egregious example.

Foxman told Stein that he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews, stating: "I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They're disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well." But again he is careful to reinforce the Big Disconnect between this "disproportionate representation" and the ugly Talmudic pattern that often emerges. "He argues," says Stein, "that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery." Never-ending Nazi-themed movies and the insidious JINO nihilism projected by virtually every film produced today gives obvious lie to the first denial. While no less a prominent Jewish surgeon than the late Dr Bernard Nathanson contradicted the second. "For some reason," he opined, "Jewish doctors seem to be attracted to abortion work."

An ex-JINO abortionist and Catholic convert who helped orchestrate abortion-on-demand in America through wholesale deception and lies, Nathanson stated categorically that abortion was "the spawn of a cadre of wild-eyed Jewish radicals in New York City" — a group he himself led! Rabbi Dresner, too, demolished Foxman's deceitful denial of Talmudic cause-and-effect, lamenting the fact that "Many liberal rabbis are in the forefront of the pro-abortion movement," further citing a Jewish poll which indicated that 91 per cent of Jewish women agree that every woman who wants an abortion should be able to have one.

Like most JINO lobbies, the ADL itself, of course, champions abortion-on-demand. Typically, in 1996, it publicly protested a Telecommunications Bill that "could prohibit the dissemination of information about abortion on the Internet." In an ADL press release, Foxman said that "the amendment ... poses a significant threat to the continued flow of information about abortion on the electronic superhighway, and could seriously interfere with a woman's right to receive abortion material on-line." Supporting a legal challenge by pro-aborts he concluded: "It is inconceivable to us that any court would uphold such a blatant restriction on the freedom of speech."

Yet "free speech" is anathema to the censorious Foxman! He rushes hither and thither shutting down discussion by traducing all objectors to his party line: that Jews "just happen" to be disproportionately into all these bad things. Leading Jewish necons know better. Irving Kristol, for one, who lauds the "messianic passions" that drive American Jews "under the sacred halo of socialism" to be "so vigilant about removing all the signs and symbols of traditional religions from 'the public square' ..... The spread of secular humanism throughout American life has been 'good for Jews,' no doubt about it," he writes. "So the more, the better."

In other words, "the more" Talmudic JINOs apply traditional Jewish prejudice against majority culture with none of the restraint imposed by the Torah's moral norms, "the better." Hence, writes Jones, "Hollywood promulgated moral subversion during the cultural revolution of the '60s. Anyone who objected was demonized as an anti-Semite." A vicious ruse Abe champions to this day.

One can respect Joel Stein's candour and his refusal to stay "on message" and wallow in contrived self-pity, even if the nihilistic ramifications of his pride in otherwise impressive Jewish achievements escape him. "I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government," he concludes. "I just care that we get to keep running them." Fair enough, too. Any ruling party would say the same.

On the other hand, there is nothing to admire about Abe Foman; the maestro of anti-Catholic Semitism who attacks, smears and rationalises for a living. "Don’t always look for consistency when it comes to bigotry. Bigotry is irrational," he said in December 2010, lacking all shame and self-awareness. But it turns out that his epic hypocrisy is the least of it, since the Polish Catholic woman who raised Foxman during the war had him baptised! This "indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ" [CCC 1272] surely compounds the wickedness of his vendetta against his Catholic brethren. "If Abe Foxman is a Catholic, if, in fact, Polish Catholics risked their lives to save his, why does he hate Catholics so much?" queries Jones. "We've heard of self-hating Jews. Is Foxman a self-hating Catholic?"

Touché! Neither a true Jew nor a true Catholic, Abe personifies the demonic JINO-CINO nexus. Just as he embodies Gregory IX's rebuke: "Ungrateful for favours and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness."

Foxman's ludicrous denial of the Jewish entertainment-media hegemony is particularly disingenuous in view of his leading role in the attacks on Mel Gibson, who dared to bypass the Hollywood JINOs to produce and direct The Passion of the Christ. Torah Jews like the admirable Rabbi Daniel Lapin and numerous other leading Jewish commentators such as Michael Medved and Matt Drudge lauded the movie. "Speaking as a Jew, I thought it was a magical film," enthused Drudge, deriding claims that it was "anti-Semitic." While Medved wrote:

The plea that Gibson's movie should place exclusive blame for the Crucifixion on Roman authorities contradicts not only mainstream Christian teaching, but also elements of Jewish tradition. In a courageous piece in the national Jewish weekly The Forward, Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer points to Jewish sources more than 1,000 years old that "teach that Jesus died at least partly thanks to decisions taken by His fellow Jews."

The New Sanhedrin, on the other hand, fearing the Old Time Religion that undid their patriarch Caiphas, issued garment-renting rants and threats against Catholic-outsider Gibson. In so doing they confirmed everything we ever knew about their jealously guarded control of the film industry and their anti-Christian agenda, now spelt out in Primetime Propaganda.

It goes without saying that the ADL's condemnation of a film depicting Christ's Passion while simultaneously defending the slaughter of unborn American babies, was conspicuously missing from hysterical media reaction to Gibson. For Foxman and the ADL it is moral for a mother to kill her unborn child, but it is not moral to film and distribute an accurate depiction of Our Lord's Passion. According to the ADL, it is "freedom of speech" for the abortion industry to disseminate information on how a mother can hire a doctor to butcher her unborn baby, yet there is no "freedom of speech" to bring to film the infallible, historically accurate words of the contemporaries of Our Lord recorded in Matthew's Gospel: "His blood be upon us and our children" [Matt: 27, 29]; there is no "freedom of speech" to depict on screen Our Lord's words to the Jews in Saint John's Gospel: "If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" [John 8:24].

Despite the abuse and crushing pressure brought to bear by the ADL-media alliance, Gibson faced them down and his movie broke box office records worldwide. This took great courage as he knew that their thirst for revenge when crossed (in keeping with Rabbi Heschel's unrelenting "war" on Catholicism) is never slaked.

Speaking to a church gathering in Orlando, Florida, on 30 April 2011, Jim Caviezel said he had been "rejected by my own industry" since playing Christ in the 2004 movie. Admitting that he decided to take the role in The Passion despite warnings from Gibson, who told him: "You’ll never work in this town again," Caviezel said movie offers "dried up" and he is shunned by many within the industry. The movie ruined what had been a very promising acting career. Before The Passion he had appeared in nearly 20 films and was considered a rising star. Since then he has appeared in just a handful of movies.

A faithful Catholic, Caviezel is admirably resigned, stating: "We all have to embrace our crosses. Jesus is as controversial now as he has ever been. Not much has changed in 2,000 years." Certainly not the Caiphas-like obsession with power and control.

Woody Allen: JINO Poster Boy

As Jones reiterates in JRS, it all boils down to is this:

Just as the Jews were the vanguard of revolutionary activity in Russia, so they were in the vanguard of sexual revolution in the United States. The concept of the chosen people transformed itself into the concept of the revolutionary vanguard as the Talmud dissolved the core of Jewish identity. Messianic politics replaced waiting for the Messiah. ... When the attraction of communism waned they dedicated themselves as fervently to sexual liberation.

Even leading neo-conservatives who predictably rationalise Jewish secularisation as motivated by "an atavistic fear of Christian authority" admit their concerns. "I believe that the religion-free public condition to which they [Jewish liberals] have made such a vital contribution," opines veteran Jewish neo-con Midge Decter, "had left American society, and particularly American culture, vulnerable to pernicious influences."

Like blasphemy and pornography, for instance. Jewish commentator Michael Medved has affirmed the centrality of the former in Jewish life. As Michael Jones recounted elsewhere:

In a symposium which appeared in the September 2009 issue of the American Jewish Committee’s publication, Commentary, on Norman Podhoretz’s latest book, [Medved] wrote that "For most American Jews, the core of their Jewish identity isn’t solidarity with Israel; it’s rejection of Christianity."

Michael Medved has articulated the fundamental Jewish idea. As Richard Weaver told us “Ideas have consequences,” and one of the consequences of the fundamental Jewish idea is blasphemy. Over 40 years of dialogue led America’s Catholic bishops into a denial of the Gospel, but it didn’t put a stop to Jewish blasphemy. At the same time that the American bishops were trying to placate Abe Foxman, Larry David was busy urinating on a picture of Jesus Christ during a segment of the HBO sitcom "Curb Your Enthusiasm." When David’s Catholic secretary uses the bathroom after him, she mistakes David’s urine for Jesus’s tears and claims that the picture is weeping. The latest instance of Jewish blasphemy brought forth fundraising letters from fire-breathing defenders of the faith, who demanded that Catholics "take action" and send in a contribution, but they couldn’t quite bring themselves to say that Larry David was a Jew, and that the Jewish penchant for blasphemy goes back to the central Jewish document, the Talmud, and that all of this behaviour has to do with, as Michael Medved put it, the "rejection of Christianity," which lies at the core of Jewish identity.

As for porn, when a Jewish authority on the subject looked into the connection between Jews and pornography, the usual suspects ranted on cue that he portrayed Jews "as dirty, parasitic merchants of smut, disease, and moral pollution — by emphasising the high number of Jewish porn publishers throughout history" [JRS, p. 1033]. Never mind that the man who wrote the book on sexual revolution was one Wilhelm Reich, a Jew whose works married Freud with Marx. His Sexual Revolution is "a book many Jewish porn stars read." Nina Hartley, for one, describes herself as "the blonde Jew" porn star from "a long line of radical Jews," who "want everyone to have a piece — a piece of sex, a piece of the means of production, a piece of a warm communist community" and "a piece of the promised Messianic Age — now." Opines Jones: "The link between the Talmud and pornography, between Torah and its antithesis, for Jews of Hartley's generation, was Bolshevism with a big assist from Wilhelm Reich."

Rabbi Dresner also adverted to "significant elements of America's cultural elite" that "by its example, desensitizes this nation morally." In particular, he complained that if American Jews become "advocates of Woody Allen" (actual name Allan Konigsberg), that would be "not only a betrayal of Jewish values but a betrayal of the Jewish people, for no one more than Allen has enabled so many to view the Jew, especially the religious Jew, in so corrupt a manner." Allen, he sighs, is "the classic example of how America has become more Jewish while 'American Jews are becoming less Jewish'."

But if Woody embodied the latter (Talmudic JINOs), his "partner" Mia Farrow personified the former (poorly instructed CINOs "set adrift from their Catholic moorings by the Jewish transformation of culture"). Their fraught relationship described in Farrow's memoir is typified by the fact that she while she loved children (she adopted 14), Christmas and Mother Teresa, Allan hated children (except as sex objects), detested Christmas and was a devotee of Sigmund Freud. Jones truly observes that "If she had stuck with the sexual morality which the Catholic Church taught her as a child, Farrow would not have been harmed by Allen's sexual aggression." Similarly, reflecting on the dissolute state of American Jewry represented by Allen, Dresner considers that Judaism is about nothing "if not the centrality of virtue" and wonders: "How can a Jew maintain any other position? Nevertheless," he sighs, "some do."

The same, of course, can be said of despicable "liberal Catholics" (condemned more than forty times by Pius IX alone). But unlike influential CINOs, the disproportionate role Jews play in publishing and media has given JINOs the privileged platform to establish "sexual degeneracy as the American cultural norm," dragging down with them "the overwhelming majority of American Jews [who] have defined themselves as sexual revolutionaries," argues Jones. In a brilliant clarifying passage responding to the disillusioned Dresner's query: "How could so many American Jewish leaders be taken in by Woody Allen?" he explains:

Dresner has the cart before the horse here because those Jewish leaders have used Allen to redefine America and the American Jew in their image. They have used Allen to define the Jew as a sexually deviant cultural bolshevist. So anyone who objects to sexual deviance or Hollywood's promotion of it is an anti-Semite. The equation is simple. Since Hollywood is run by Jews, being anti-Hollywood means being anti-Semitic. Dresner cites Richard Goldstein. According to Goldstein, "the Republican attack on Hollywood and the 'media elite'," is a code for anti-Semitism, because "these are words that since the '50s connote Jewishness to people. The Republicans can't attack Jews directly, so they use codes. The notion of Woody as a kind of Jewish icon lends itself to the ideas of Jews subverting the Christian family, an idea which is very old and very dark."

Dresner is again brought up short when he confronts his own ethnic group's legacy. Unable to define Jews theologically as rejectors of Christ and, therefore, revolutionaries, Dresner portrays American Jews as the people of the Old Testament. But he is brought up short because the overwhelming majority of American Jews do not accept the Torah on sexuality and have chosen instead Woody Allen or Wilhelm Reich or Alex Portnoy as the Messiah. If the Jews accepted the Torah, there would have been no culture wars in the 1960s. The devastating effect of the culture wars on America and American Jews forces Rabbi Dresner to spin one unconvincing explanation after another despite the undeniable facts that Jews played a major role in that cultural subversion of sexual morals. Since Woody Allen is a cultural icon for most Jews, most Jews have defined themselves as sexual degenerates. Dresner quotes a columnist in the Village Voice:

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think Woody Allen is the genius spokesman of our collective angst and those who think he's a filthy Jewish liberal ... elitist Communist madman. Another name for those two groups are Democrats and Republicans.

Dresner is appalled at this sort of thinking, but in the end can't explain why Jews would want to define themselves as sexual revolutionaries and deviants primarily because he has been blinded by his own reading of the Torah and can't see that Jews are in rebellion against the Torah precisely because it is the word of God. American Jews declared war on the Logos at right around the time that Woody Allen won the Academy Award for Annie Hall.

The extent of this nihilistic rebellion in the synagogues leading to Woody-style "Judaism" — akin to CINOs adopting Madonna, Blair or Kennedy-style "Catholicism" — cannot be overstated. It was typically confirmed by the experience of a Jew who phoned Jones to congratulate him on the truth and coherence he found in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. "I've never met a Jew who believes in God," he opined. "My rabbi does not believe in God. None of the Jews in my congregation believes in God. I have yet to find a Jew who believes in a divine God."

Vatican II: A Jewish Revolutionary Moment

Only the robust Catholicism that constructed the Christian civilization the JINOs and their atheistic fellow-travellers sought to deconstruct (á la Gramsci) could possibly save the West from this revolutionary onslaught and wholesale Judaisation. But the devil is not stupid. Rather than all-hands-to-the-pump traditional resistance we got "diabolic disorientation." Instead of the vigorous defense, promotion and implementation of Catholic morality, doctrine and social teachings, including Ratisbonne-like dedication to the conversion of nihilistic Jewish protagonists, the hierarchy began working hand in glove with the enemy: the AJC, B'nai B'rith, the ADL's unspeakable Foxman, et. al.. Worst of all, Our Lady of Fatima had forewarned Rome of this coming storm but the Conciliar pontiffs chose to ignore Her.

On 17 May 1955, while the Frankfurt School ideologues were sowing their poisonous seeds of deconstruction on their march through the Christian institutions, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, was interrogating Sister Lucy at the Carmel of

St. Teresa in Coimbra. "The [Fatima] message was not to be opened before 1960," he recalled in 1967. "I asked Lucy, 'Why this date?' She answered, 'because then it will seem clearer'."

By then, of course, the humanistic tendrils of Satan's "smoke" had well and truly arrived. Wafting around the Vatican in embryonic Social Gospel form, they were set to rush through the Church windows soon to be opened up by John XXIII's "aggiornamento"; emphatically so in respect of interreligious "dialogue." What was made clearer, in other words, was the need for the reigning pontiff to admit and pass on Heaven's message that the Catholic Church was looking down the barrel at an unprecedented crisis: a "great apostasy," according to papal theologian Cardinal Ciappi, who read the secret, that "will begin at the top."

Yet the top man would neither release nor be deterred by a message that would scupper the recklessly optimistic Conciliar plans he had just announced. And so Pope John folded it up and went his own way. "The message is not for our time," he declared.

As a result, arriving just in time for the ghastly flowering of the JINO-inspired cultural revolution — the crowning jewel of the godless "Jewish Age," as Yuri Slezkine labelled the 20th century — Vatican II was viewed as a revolutionary Jewish moment par excellence; a Church vehicle they could instrumentalise to achieve "the de-Christianisation of the Christian world." So said Joshua Jehouda, who proudly supported all revolutionary movements since the Reformation and regarded traditional Catholicism as "the decrepit fortress of Christian obscurantism." Is it any wonder that an expert like Leon de Poncins was desperate to awaken the Council Fathers to the grand and fatal deception at play:

Poncins concluded the Jewish schema was a covert attack on the Church "under the banner of ecumenism." By allowing Jews unprecedented access in the formulation of the schema, the Church had allowed them to carry their revolutionary "war ... into the very interior of the Church itself."

In their attack, the Jews used the carrot and the stick. To induce concessions, the Jews promised financial support. In Le Monde in November 1963, Label Katz, President of the International council of the B’nai B’rith, was quoted as saying "if this declaration is accepted by the Council, Jewish communities will explore ways and means of cooperating with the authorities of the (Catholic) Church to ensure the realization of its purpose and projects." But the Jews also slipped into martial imagery. One Jewish writer referred to Jules Isaac’s Jesus et Israel as "the most specific weapon of war against a particularly harmful Christian doctrine." [JRS, p.930]

The statements by Isaac, Yehouda, Memmi, Metzger and Heschel cited herein are more than enough to demonstrate the hellish nature of this unrelenting "war" — Heschel's "attack" on Catholic "souls" — and the eternal enmity harboured against the Bride of Christ by the "Synagogue of Satan" (Rev 2:9; 3:9).

And so, in the end, all the thinly-masked deception, arrogance and hatred backfired, as Jewish behaviour so often does, leaving the JINOs, in the same time-honoured fashion, to point the finger at everyone else for their own misfortune:

By the end of the council, the feeling of good will toward the Jews that marked Pope John XXIII's meeting with Jules Isaac had evaporated, replaced by a feeling of resentment. The bishops "felt Jewish pressure in Rome and resented it." It wasn't the first time in history that the Jews had overplayed their hand. In fact, pressing an issue beyond what prudence dictates had come to be known as the Jewish virtue of chutzpah. At the council's beginning, anyone who asserted Cardinal Bea "wants to turn the Church over to the Jews" would have been dismissed as a crank. By its end, that charge was taken seriously, even in the philo-Semitic account of the Council which appeared in Look.

Despite its silence on the perennial teaching of Sicut Iudeis Non, the final text of Nostra Aetate held the orthodox Catholic line. Yet by removing reference to conversion of the Jews (and by referring to conversion pejoratively as "proselytism") Cardinal Bea set the corrosive pattern and tone of future CINO-JINO "dialogue" that ended in 2002 with Cardinal Keeler, on behalf of the US episcopate, denying the Gospel in "Covenant and Mission." The repudiation of tradition and the anti-evangelical approach stubbornly persists. In commenting on Nostra Aetate, respected scholar Father Brian Harrison observed that by removing the reference to conversion, Cardinal Bea

'elevate[d]' the future conversion of the Jews to the ethereal status of a "mystery," thereby insinuating that it will somehow 'just happen' spontaneously one day without the necessity of any human missionary activity on the part of Catholics. Bea himself, of course, was at that time the Church’s main representative in relations with Judaism. And it seems more than likely, even though he didn’t say so on the Council floor, that in proposing this amendment he had "sought to satisfy" his Jewish dialogue-partners as well as those "very many" (but unnamed) Catholic bishops who, he said, had requested the amendment. [Letter to Culture Wars]

Fantasy and Reality

Fr Harrison's critique captures the attitude and motivations of the present Holy Father as presented in Jesus of Nazareth. And insofar as that airy-fairy "spirit of Vatican" maintains its papal traction 45 years on, it can be said that the rabbis have partially succeeded. Yet it remains a transient victory. Tradition will inevitably reassert itself. And no matter how hard the JINOs try to muddy the waters, their constant and indiscriminate use of the term "anti-Semitism" can never succeeded in blurring the distinction between that clearly sinful attitude and the necessarily anti-Jewish nature of Catholicism. As Gustav Niehbuhr wrote in the New York Times of 29 March 1998, on the release of "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah," a Church document overseen by Cardinal Ratzinger:

"We Remember" bluntly condemns the Nazi genocide and calls the church to repentance on behalf of Catholics who did nothing to stop it. But it also carefully distinguishes between centuries of "anti-Judaism" as a religious teaching and the Nazis' murderous anti-Semitism which, the document says, had its "roots outside Christianity."

That's the good news. But as Michael Jones has recalled, the germ of Benedict's setting up straw men to justify his flawed personal view of Catholic-Jewish relations can also be glimpsed in a point he made when publishing "We Remember":

"Already as a child," he tells us, "I could not understand how some people wanted to derive a condemnation of Jews from the death of Jesus because the following thought had penetrated my soul as something profoundly consoling: Jesus’s blood raises no calls for retaliation but calls all to reconciliation."

Before this false dichotomy, tailored to JINO-led "dialogue," Jones responds on behalf of indignant Catholics:

What Church document calls for retaliation? Sicut Iudeis non..., the official Church teaching on the Jews for the millennium between the time when Pope St. Gregory the Great first formulated it until Nostra Aetate, stated specifically, repeatedly and unequivocally, that no one had the right to harm the Jew. Nostra Aetate did not repudiate Sicut Iudeis non...; it simply ignored it and proposed in its stead a number of statements which got turned into an experiment, which was not part of the original text. Ratzinger articulates the aspiration behind that experiment, which could also be seen as a "hope" or a fantasy, when he writes:

Jews and Christians should accept each other in profound inner reconciliation, neither in disregard of their faith nor in its denial, but out of the depth of faith itself. In their mutual reconciliation they should become a force for peace in and for the world. Through their witness to the one God, who cannot be adored apart from the unity of love of God and neighbor, they should open the door into the world for this God so that his will be done and so that it become on earth “as it is in heaven,” “so that his kingdom come.”

Who can disagree with a statement like this? It is indisputably true to say that Jews "should become a force for peace in and for the world," and they probably would do so, if it were not for their tragic rejection of Logos, a rejection which made them "enemies of the whole human race." "Should" is the key word here. Ratzinger can only promote his vision, the experiment of Vatican II, by ignoring the clear testimony of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul, the Church Fathers, and the teaching of the medieval Church based upon Sicut Iudeis non ... about what kind of people the Jews became when they rejected Christ, the Logos, and how Christians were supposed to deal with them.

In the final analysis, Cardinal Ratzinger is giving expression to a personal vision, which no matter how laudable (or naïve) is not a theological reality. Vatican II was a valid council which gave birth to a hope which became a shared fantasy as time went on. Vatican II gave birth to an experiment based on the premise that the Church had nothing to fear from the modern world. That experiment involved accepting certain terms as the world defined them, and one of those terms was "Jew," and another was "anti-Semitism." In the aftermath of Vatican II, the Church appeared to accept the Enlightenment’s definition of the Jew, as proposed by thinkers like Lessing in Nathan der Weise. There was no theological reality at the foundation of this experiment, and so it was doomed to failure, a failure we are now witnessing as it unfolds in front of us.

The theological reality of the situation can be found in Scripture, which ultimately defines the Jew for us as the rejecter of Christ and Logos and, therefore, a follower of Satan, as described in John 8. Or as "enemies of the whole human race," as Paul puts it, or as "the synagogue of Satan." "The Jews," according to St. Paul, are "the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race, because they are hindering us from preaching to the pagans and trying to save them. They never stop trying to finish off the sins they have begun, but retribution is overtaking them at last." The note from the New American Bible informs us:

Paul is speaking of historical opposition on the part of Palestinian Jews in particular and does so only some 20 years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Even so, he quickly proceeds to depict the persecutors typologically, in apocalyptic terms. His remarks give no grounds for anti-Semitism to those willing to understand him, especially in view of St. Paul’s pride in his own ethnic and religious background.

We concur. The conclusion derived from St. Paul’s epistle to the Thessalonians is inescapable. A Christian cannot be anti-Semitic, but a Christian must be anti-Jewish. Christians who attempt to minimalize the anti-Jewish nature of the Catholic faith invariably end up denying both the Gospel and Tradition. The most basic fact of Jewish-Christian dialogue has to be a candid admission that the Catholic faith is, as Mischa Brumlich put it in 1989, judenfeindlich. If the Jews want to talk to us after we admit that fact, then maybe Jewish-Catholic dialogue will have some purpose after all, but sooner or later the Church is going to have to accept this fact because it is part of the DNA of Christianity and not even a mind as great as that of Pope Benedict XVI can finesse this fundamental conflict.

The "most basic fact of Jewish-Christian dialogue" that must be admitted a priori, and which explains the essential "anti-Jewish" nature of Catholicism, is that we do not share the same God. This is the elementary truth and unspoken reality that grabs the Temple veil of the post-conciliar fantasy promoted by John Paul II — his spurious "Old Testament was never revoked"/"We believe in the same God" mantras, which ended in the "Covenant and Mission" apostasy —and tears it from top to bottom. Indeed, Romano Amerio, one of the greatest Catholic intellectuals of the 20th century, was convinced, as his disciple Enrico Radaelli recently affirmed, that one of at least three clear cases where there has been "an abysmal rupture of continuity" between Vatican II and the previous magisterium is where the Council asserts that "Christians worship the same God worshipped by the Jews and Muslims."

Like Robert Sungenis and Michael Jones, Amerio was an obedient son of the Church who was not ashamed of the Gospels! He would not join the post-conciliar delirium: the mad rush to kneel before the Lords of the World, Jewish or otherwise, and beg forgiveness for the glorious history and counter-cultural dogmas of the one true Faith. The author of Iota Unum, a peerless critique of Vatican II and the roots of the Catholic crisis, he has been "rehabilitated" in recent years and his uncompromising thoughts and masterful works restored to their rightful place in mainstream Roman discourse, as the Barque of Peter slowly corrects its wayward course and regains its traditional bearings. This bodes ill for the Judaisers and their end run around Holy Scripture as understood and ever taught by the Catholic Magisterium; teaching untainted by fantastical Modernist aspirations or the scheming of duplicitous rabbis and Jewish lobbies.

IV: Onkel Georg & Sicut Iudeis Non

The revisiting of Jewish misconduct is also an essential part of this Catholic rectification, since it exposes the perennial Jewish defamation of Holy Mother Church for the massive rationalisation and blame-shifting exercise that it is: one long refusal to accept responsibility for their own sins. It enables us to clear away that oppressive smog of political correctness so boastfully orchestrated by Abe Foxman and the ADL to obstruct our plain historical sight and stifle free and honest discussion. It also underlines the danger, not least to Jews themselves, of abandoning Catholic tradition. In this regard, Michael Jones revealed a fascinating witness and counterpoint in his May 2011 Culture Wars article.

It is a sad yet providential irony that one of Pope Benedict's esteemed relatives, Georg Ratzinger, taught, explained, applied and unapologetically defended the traditional Catholic history and teaching apropos the Jews that he himself now ignores or undermines. Yet in an interview with Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict speaks of him with great admiration and affection:

He was my great uncle, my father's uncle. He was a clergyman who had a doctorate in theology. In his capacity as a representative in the Bavarian state legislature and in the Reichstag, he was an early advocate for the rights of farmers and of the average man in general. I read the passages in the congressional record in which he attacked child labor, something which was unheard of at the time and considered by many an affront. He was obviously a tough guy, and because of his achievements and his political stature we were all proud of him.

Like his great nephew, of course, Georg abhorred anti-Semitism. In 1892, soon after the release of Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum on the condition of the working classes, his book was published and serialised in Civilta Cattolica, the influential Jesuit magazine vetted by the Vatican and viewed as its unofficial mouthpiece. Therein, Ratzinger strongly denounced anti-Semitism as an un-Christian ideology:

We totally reject the anti-Semitism that is now being proposed... in Austria and by a number of the exalted German nationalists. Anti-Semitism understood as a matter of race stands in total contradiction to the Commandments and love of neighbor, without regard to race or national origin.

However, unlike Benedict, so it seems, he well understood and explained that the rising anti-Semitism of his day was largely to do with personal conduct rather than race, nationality or religion:

On the other hand, it is the duty of every true Christian and patriot to take a stand against the dangerous errors of numerous Jews in the business world and to warn their fellow Christians about the dangerous illusions of the philosemites who predominate among the ruling elites.

Jones notes that Jews from Heinrich Graetz to Samuel Roth have said far worse things than Ratzinger about the Jewish business ethics which the Ashkenazis have learned from the Talmud. According to Roth, the Jews are taught that they are "the salt of the earth":

... Each of them, when he grows up, becomes an agency of cunning to defeat the civil law .... [utilising] the whole bag of commercial tricks and statutory manoeuvres with which he poisons the arteries of the civilized world.

To discredit and explain away such blunt Jewish admissions that expose their mendacious historical narrative, the JINOs resort to the Self-hating Jew smear. But Georg Ratzinger's expert testimony confirms the truth of such honest self-assessments, while describing the predictably negative reaction sparked by Jewish conduct at complete odds with Christian mores. As summarised by Jones:

The anti-Semites of Ratzinger's day were capitalising on the hatred which Jewish business practices had created in the working classes. The source of that hatred is Jewish behaviour, not Jewish DNA. And Jewish behavior has gotten out of control because the Christian majority was no longer willing to enforce the laws which had been enacted to defend the Christian social order. And the Christians lack the will to enforce the laws which protect the social order because they have become, by and large, Jews. Christian idealism has been disappearing all the while being replaced by the Jewish Weltanschaung [worldview] in Christian circles. In the circles which feel and think like Christians, however, the revulsion at Jewish dealings and those of the baptised conversos [baptised Jews suspected of secret adherence to Judaism] is becoming more and more apparent. The reason that Christians now look on Jews with intense anger in their eyes is not to be found in race, and not in national origin, and not in anti-Semitism. The real path of resistance lies not in anti-Semitism and its excesses. The real basis of the contemporary Jewish question lies in the moral inferiority of the Jewish view of commerce in comparison with the demands of Christianity.

"The solution to the Jewish question" lies in the application of the traditional Catholic teachings like Sicut Iudeis non.That means "not in allowing Christians in general to sink to the level of the lucrative occupations, but rather in raising the Jews to a higher sense of productive work, in higher numbers than is the present case, to the level of Christian mores as propounded by Christian teaching on commerce and property." And that means rejecting anti-Semitism.

Contrary to the current pope, therefore, Georg Ratzinger, not only held to the traditional papal teaching, known as Sicut Iudeis non, he embraced the wisdom of the popes who taught and enforced it and understood the need to reapply its principles to the economic crisis gripping Europe at that time. As he explained:

The great medieval popes Innocent III and Gregory IX as well as the ecclesial synods and councils felt themselves called to take legal measures against the excesses of the Jews. They protected the life and existence of the Jews, but only under certain specific conditions. The Jews had to recognise the Christian social order and had to submit themselves to it.

He then described what this involved (bullet points mine):
• Whatever they had appropriated through usury and exploitation, they had to pay back to their victims.
• They were not allowed to occupy the choke points in the culture; they were not allowed to employ Christian servants in their houses, and when it came to their clothing they had to wear the so-called Jew hat in order to be immediately recognizable as Jews.
Jews were in no way allowed to undermine the Christian social order:
• Jews who defamed Christ or Christians were punished.
• They were not allowed to do business on Christian holidays ... and were not allowed to make usurious loans.
• During Holy Week they had to remain in their homes.
• Jews couldn't live wherever they pleased, but were confined to specific districts.
• It was also forbidden to sell houses or real estate to Jews, or to rent to them, as was living under the same roof with Jews.
• Similarly, Jews were forbidden to hire Christian nursemaids, servants, or day laborers.

However peculiar or harsh these measures appear to irreligious moderns, viewed in their historical context there is no more need to apologise for them than there is to beat our breasts about the Crusades or the Inquisition. Moreover, the Social Kingship of Christ advocated by His Holy Church demands adherence to the same underlying principles, applied in the context of every age, with a view to the same objective: defence of the Christian social order which alone provides the godly framework for civil peace and concord — as the miraculous establishment of the Swiss confederation strikingly testifies [see "A Patron Saint for Eurosceptics," CO, Oct.1999].

The coherent explanation of traditional Catholicism, says Jones, lies in the simple fact that after Napoleon emancipated the Jews, "they took over the economies of one nation after another in Europe because of their sharp business practices. What Ratzinger calls 'Juedisches Erwerbsleben' [Jewish business practice] allowed them to cheat the Christian natives, who had been taught to work hard, be trusting, and love their neighbour. Jewish immorality, in other words, gave the Jews an unfair economic advantage in Catholic countries." Ratzinger wrote:

The emancipation of the Jews, whose views and concepts contradicted the laws and customs of the Christian nation, could not help but have a destructive and corrupting effect on the entire Christian society... This fact alone explains why Jews are able to accumulate riches so quickly.... The example of moral corruption has a contagious effect, and that explains the corrupting effect of Jewish influence on commerce.

It was an act of supreme foolishness when in the years following 1789 the necessary protections for the social order were lifted immediately and universally. Once this happened it was only a matter of time before the Jews with their attitude toward business and commerce would gain the upper hand. This was particularly the case among the benevolent peoples who made up the population of Catholic nations, .... Others fell into the hands of the usurers and in spite of their frugality could not extricate themselves from its tentacles. Just about everyone was impoverished; and only the Jews got rich.

Talmudic Corruption

Ratzinger warned that the anger at Jewish business had reached boiling point:

The situation of the lucrative professions is totally different. In a few years, riches are amassed but at the cost of others. This form of profit is obscene, and the hatred and revulsion which the working classes feel toward these practices is fully justified. Envy isn't the cause of this hatred, but rather indignation at the unjust appropriation of value, that and the perception that this unjust appropriation constitutes an assault on the foundations of social life, evokes in the breast of the honest working man, bitter feelings. When the industrious and skilled worker, the honest civil servant, and the circumspect merchant in spite of all out exertion can't earn a living, when on the other hand this or that speculator, without any effort, can earn thousands or hundreds of thousands through IPOs or the issuing of T-bills, then this is a sign that the economic organism is so diseased that society is in urgent need of medicine and reform.

The quintessence of the so-called "Jewish question," says Ratzinger, is "the moral inferiority of the Jewish worldview in relation to the limitation of competition. To be precise, the overwhelming majority of Jews have no sense whatsoever of the role which morality plays in economic life. The only form of limitation which they recognise in business is the penal statute. If an opportunity to make money appears whose profit seems greater than the penalty imposed by the law, the Jew doesn't hesitate to treat the law with contempt."

All of this exploitation of the work of others without any productivity of its own, and gambling and speculation on the differentials in exchange as a way to achieve riches, represents the antithesis of the Christian view. "Christianity ensures decency in commerce by promoting honest toil or by promoting honest inheritance," Jones explains. "Christianity forbids the exploitation of his neighbor through excessive economic power, and insists on the subordination of the good of the individual to the common good, as well as concern for the economically vulnerable." Consequently, as a result of succumbing to Jewish influence, says Ratzinger:

The banks in Austria have become dens of usury and casinos, and the businessman in the Austrian sense of the word is nothing more than a stock market speculator or a small time chiseler. the Austrian press is nothing more than an extortion racket. Political life is calculated according to financial profit. In short, commercial life in Austria is permeated not by a Christian spirit but by a Jewish one. Economic life is dominated not by the Christian dedication of the individual to the common good, but is dominated instead by Jewish Egotism. The state has become nothing more than an agent of the powerful, oblivious to the fact that the Christian ideal demands the dedication of the individual to the common good and especially the protection of the weak.

The "unbelievable ruthlessness" of the Jews in "their tireless pursuit of almost imperceptible profits" is not only "the secret of Jewish success," Ratzinger writes, but "it is also therein where the danger to which the Christian population is exposed when they sink to the same level. As soon as the Polish Jew gets his foot in the door, wages are driven down and working hours are extended. Once this happens the Christian masses find themselves as if by a force of nature driven from a state of modest prosperity into the deepest misery." Once again, the Jewish revolutionary spirit at work against the Church is to the fore:

The Polish Jew is so deeply enmired in the teaching of the Talmud that any notion of a Christian society or a state based on the common good becomes impossible once the Jew gains the upper hand. The Polish Jew, precisely because of the influence of the Talmud, is universally a force for corruption and destruction. Wherever one finds elements of dissatisfaction which threaten to overturn the Christian social order, Jews jump to the forefront of the movement and adopt the role of agitator. Jewish agitators can be found in leadership roles throughout the socialist movement. In Vienna and Pest, the leadership of the socialist movement is entirely in Jewish hands.

In addition, describing Jewish seduction and crime as "realities of social life in Paris, Vienna, and Pest," he states that "Every aspect of trafficking in young females is firmly in Jewish hands and organized on an international basis. It's only a short step from this immoral trafficking to criminal activity. When it comes to embezzlement, misappropriation, fraud, usury, blackmail, etc., the Jew is involved to a much greater percentage than the Christian."

Christian Antidote

As recounted in A Nineteenth Century Miracle: The Brothers Ratisbonne and the Congregation of Notre Dame de Sion, [Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1922], this moral degeneracy described by Ratzinger was a sad fact of 19th century life. The Jews had begun to mix equally with the rest of society and "the contrast between them was now becoming deplorably apparent in the eyes of the cultivated and scholarly section of the Jews." As part of that Jewish elite in the first half of the century, Alphonse and Theodore Ratisbonne worked for what was known as "the regeneration of the Jews." Their father, Auguste, asked Theodore to undertake the supervision of schools opened in Strasbourg for that purpose. "It was a hard trial to my newborn faith as well as to the remains of my former intellectual pride," Father Theodore recalled, "to accept a mission which would bring me into contact with such a repulsive population."

As he moved closer to Catholicism, Theodore realised that the Jewish authorities overseeing the work were clueless. At a special meeting of the Elders, where he bravely avowed his Catholic beliefs: "I tried to make these poor Jews understand that their regeneration and progress was a question of something deeper than mere superficial culture and knowledge."

Following their respective conversions, the Ratisbonne brothers famously laboured for the Jews with even greater fervour, having discovered the only means of genuine "regeneration": conversion to the one true Church whose sacramental mediation of divine grace restores and maintains the supernatural life of souls. Similarly, Georg Ratzinger emphasised that the only answer to the economic crisis caused by Jewish business practice rooted in Talmudic teaching was the re-application of traditional Catholic teaching: "The Jews must once again learn to subordinate themselves to Christian social reform and to conform their business practices to Christian norms":

In the instruction manuals from the Middle Ages, the people were taught that "Man is born to work, as the bird is created to fly." The Catholic Church raised the nations under her care to be workers and made earning by work the foundation of our civilization. There is only one way of earning a living which is worthy of respect and esteem, and that is earning a living by toil, whether that entails labor of a physical or an intellectual sort. ...

In doing this the Church erected civilization upon an entirely new foundation. The pagan world proposed a life lived at the expense of others (slavery): Judaism preached preferential treatment for its own people, but permitted the exploitation and practicing usury on alien nations. And until this day Jewish business practices exhibit this dual nature. On the one hand, we see concern for the family and his fellow Jew, but on the other a totally heartless exploitation via usury of the goyim, which becomes the source of the wealth accumulated by Jewish billionaires....

The ancient principle of the Catholic Church, which only honors commerce when it is based on honest work, is drowned out by the Jewish screeching which encourages speculation and gambling on the stock market.

[...] ... The disease of our culture consists in the cancerous spread of the Jewish-heathen worldview over the moral norms of Christendom. The inferiority of the Jewish-heathen worldview to Christianity must be made apparent, by the actions of the Christian state.

Today, drunk on the heady brew of "change," clerics have sacrificed the faith and principles of Sicut Iudeis non on the altar of politically and ecclesiastically correct "dialogue," framed and led by their enemies. Similarly, in Ratzinger's time:

Intoxicated by revolution, Christian nations have pawned their most precious jewel — the teaching and the grace of their savior — and have rejected their most precious asset, their character as redeemed children of the Lord by abandoning the Christian basis of their culture. The Lord as a result has let the Christian nations go their own way, which has led to the debt bondage which flows from the obdurate hegemony of capital, which will end up concentrated in the hands of a small minority of Jews and their lackeys.

In stating that the traditional Christian reform required to correct this situation would also benefit the Jews and save them from a dreadful fate, Onkel Georg displays an understanding of anti-Semitism that seems to escape his great nephew:

Clear limits on Judaism is not only necessary for the interests of the Christian nations; it is also in the interest of Jews themselves. Only when the sane principles of Christian reform have been put in place, can we hope to disarm the specter of anti-Semitic racial hatred. It is only then that we can hope to avoid the path of the violent taking the law into their own hands. Those who think that a small minority of Jews with the help of the power of the state can solve this problem, are deceiving themselves.

In other words, contrary to the received history dictated to the world by self-serving Talmudic rabbis, of perpetually unprovoked Jewish harassment by the followers of Jesus Christ, true protection of the social order, and thus of Jews themselves, is only possible in the Catholic confessional state that inculcates His sublime teachings! Anything else is a remorseless round of exploitation, resentment and violent reaction.

By the 1890s that cycle was still forty years from its denouement. But Georg Ratzinger was convinced that unprecedented tragedy lay in wait if this Christian reform was not forthcoming because the Jews, "skilled in the deceptions of economic warfare" and lacking all moral restraint under the regime of free competition, were exploiting the Christian good will of the goyim and bulldozing their way to dominance, assisted by a lethargic Catholic populace:

The life of nations is like the life of individuals. He who fails to engage in battle daily to secure his position in society will soon disappear. The Catholics in Austro-Hungary have failed to engage in the daily battle for their possessions, and as a result they lose year after year one institution after another. They have been dispossessed from top to bottom, from their universities as well as their kindergartens. The Jews, who make up less than 10 per cent of the population, have as a result of their energetic and unified and self-confident activity won a victory over the 90 per cent of the population which is Catholic and have everywhere occupied the positions which the Catholics have abandoned.

Unlike the JINOs who forever duck and dive and shift the blame, smearing Jewish critics to avoid all responsibility for self-inflicted wounds, a truthful son of Holy Mother Church like Ratzinger could see the corruption in his own house and readily apportioned blame to this sinful brethren: wretched lukewarm Catholics who were contributing mightily to their own demise (as ever!). At the same time, he clearly saw and understood that frustration and ill-will was rapidly mounting in response to Talmudic-inspired deception and arrogance: a veritable tinderbox waiting to be lit by wicked men.

This wholesale Judaisation of erstwhile Christian culture that Ratzinger witnessed taking shape before his eyes in late 19th century Europe, is now celebrated as a proud fact of modern life by writers like Yuri Slezkine (The Jewish Century, 2004). Jones summarises the economic capitulation:

The short hand term for "Jewish business practices" is capitalism. Given the pernicious effects which capitalism has on every traditional culture, especially traditional Catholic cultures, the nations of Europe at the end of the 19th century were faced with a choice: either enforce the laws (e.g. the prohibition against usury, child labor, etc.) which were erected by the state to protect the Christian culture against the Jews who were the cutting edge of capitalist subversion, or become Jews.

By now, it should be obvious which course Europe and America chose. It comes out in [the movie] The Believer when Danny, the Jewish Nazi, attempts to solicit $5,000 contribution from a wealthy Wall Street banker. The banker tells Danny, "Forget the Jewish stuff; it doesn't play anymore. There's only the market now and it doesn't care who you are."

Danny: "You're a Jew. You may not realise it but you are."

Banker: "Maybe I am. Maybe we're all Jews now. What's the difference."

This shoulder-shrugging capitulation now holds universal sway, as reflected in the one-way ecumenical traffic that ended in the "Covenant and Mission" car crash. The multiple knock-on effects of that Judaising apostasy included the "Old Covenant is not revoked" statement being entered in the 2006 Vatican-approved United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. Like the "Covenant and Mission" statement itself, this theological error was admitted and corrected several years later, but only after it was explained to the Vatican and the Bishops' conference — by Robert Sungenis, no less! — precisely why it contradicted traditional teaching.

Instead of taking stock, reflecting on the (Modernist/Masonic) roots of such Judaic-led debacles and determining to avoid a repetition at all costs by returning to Tradition, Pope Benedict has continued down the compromising path of his predecessor.

Unlike the first pope who entreated the Jews at Pentecost to "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins ... Save yourselves from this perverse generation" [Acts 2:38, 40], his 264th successor, like the 263rd, persists in self-defeating "dialogue" with two-faced creatures of the Heschel /Isaac/Foxman variety: men who rail against the Church for levelling "false charges" against the Jewish people, while slandering faithful Catholics and pursuing their 50-year defamation of Pius XII! Spurious theological speculations and gratuitous breast-beating in 'private' outpourings like Jesus of Nazareth add to the corrosive mix.

Played out in public to the dismay of the faithful, it is all so pusillanimous and utterly self-defeating. As Jones notes, the big news surrounding the release of the book at the end of February was all to do with the Jews. "Pope exonerates Jews for Jesus' death in new book," ran the Associated Press headline, the report going on to state: "Benedict concludes, it was the 'Temple aristocracy' and a few supporters of the figure of Barabbas who were responsible." Such views, however, are irreconcilable with those set out in Civilta Cattolica by Georg Ratzinger. The Pope is rightly proud of his great uncle, but "the real issue," says Jones, "is whether the feeling would be reciprocal":

Would a man who wrote that "There is nothing more repugnant than having to listen to educated Christians slandering their own people while at the same time glorifying the Jews" be proud of a great nephew who exonerated the Jews' of responsibility for Christ's death? Or a Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith who presided over the publication of an apology to the Jews issued by his predecessor? Probably not, because Onkel Georg had written even more pointedly:

There would be no Jewish Question if the educated elites among the Christian peoples hadn't betrayed their own principles. At a time when Jews stand by even their own criminal element, we see Christian politicians and legislators betraying their own Christian faith on a daily basis and vying with each other to see who has the privilege of harnessing himself to the triumphal car of the Jews. In Parliament no Jew need defend another Jew, when their Christian lackeys do that for them.

There could not be a more accurate description of our contemporary self-abasement! A truly pathetic condition stemming from the same "fear of the Jews" that suffused Our Lord's day, it is aided and abetted, as in every epoch, by craven Philosemites and Judaisers. In Parts II and III, we consider these factors and the flames of resentment (not least among righteous Torah Jews) being fanned by the fascistic JINO leadership; an escalating discontent mirrored in Georg Ratzinger's testimony. As we shall recount, the alarm he sounded with astonishing prescience is a chilling echo of our own increasingly fraught "Jewish Age."



(1) "The Beatification of John Paul II," Christopher Ferrara, The Remnant, 9 May 2011.

(2) Expiation claims Christ absorbed our sin and guilt and was thus duly punished for them, whereas propitiation says Christ absorbed no sin or guilt precisely so that he could serve as an acceptable sinless sacrifice to appease the wrath of God. The Catholic Encyclopaedia states that the concept of "vicarious atonement" is "at best a distorted view








Back to Top | Editorials 2011