& Roman
Christian Order
Read Christian Order
Main Page

November 2011

Benedict and the Jews
- Part III -


I. Absorbing the Jews

Although a far more ancient phenomenon, Judaising is mainly viewed as a post-Reformation tendency. Fuelled by the regression to Judaic interpretations of the Old Testament, it also reflects the anti-Catholic affinity between Jews and Protestants. "Jews side with the heretical party," observed Blessed Newman, since heresy is "their natural disposition" and its "spirit" and "character" is "congenial to their own." This cuts both ways.

The Puritans
In The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Michael Jones explains that Protestants like Cromwell "could justify their criminal behaviour only by cloaking it in the imagery of the Old Testament. Regicide was the most heinous of crimes and viewed with revulsion by all of Christian Europe, and yet Cromwell justified his role in the murder of Charles I by appealing to the story of Phineas [the biblical figure who thrust a javelin through a sinfully copulating couple, thus saving the people of Israel from the wrath of God]. … Secularization in the 17th Century was synonymous with Judaizing. It meant effectively substituting the Old Testament for the New":

Judaizing, as Bernard of Clairvaux said, was a reversion by Christians grown weary of the freedom of the gospels and longing for the bondage of the law, not unlike the Israelites when they longed for the fleshpots of Egypt after Moses led them from bondage. Messianic politics was one more way to return to, what was starkly called, the vomit of Judaism. Revolution as practiced by the Puritan Judaizers was a reversion to a more primitive, pre-Christian political model. There was no separation of the two swords of pope and emperor here — or, to use the terms of a later more secular era, no separation of Church and State. Instead, pope and emperor were fused into one charismatic revenant of King David. Israel had become ethnic again, except now the "real Jews" were Englishmen, the visible elect on earth, and England (or New England) was the New Jerusalem.

The Puritans wanted to become Jews for the same reason they wanted their visible elect on earth to replace the state Church, which they viewed as the Catholic Church with the king as pope. If they could absorb the Jews by converting them to their form of Judaizing Christianity, they would be Jews themselves, the new chosen people, and England would be the New Jerusalem. "A desire was excited in the hearts of the Puritans to see this living wonder, the Jewish people, with their own eyes, to bring Jews to England, and, by making them part of the theocratic community about to be established, stamp it with the seal of completion." This was less a desire for conversion than an attempt at ethnic and spiritual cannibalism. "If we absorb the Jews," this reasoning went, "we will become Jews."

If proof were needed of the maxim that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce, it could be taken from English history of the Puritan era. The tragedy of the regicide was followed by the farcical behavior of Judaizing sects like the Ranters and the Diggers. Following the regicide, everything and anything seemed possible, as long as it was connected with the Jews. Parliament began a debate which sputtered along over the next few years on the topic of whether the Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday, whether Parliament should adopt Hebrew as its official language, and whether the Torah should be the official law of the land. [JRS, 437-438]

The Christian Zionists
The historical repetition continues apace with Protestant-led Judaising once more fomenting farce and tragedy in equal measure. Notably and notoriously, Christian Zionists (personified by George W. Bush who suddenly converted to evangelical Christianity in mid-life) connived with the renowned Jewish Neocons (in cahoots with AIPAC, the ADL and the other 50 leading American Jewish organisations that initiate and secure US endorsement of Israeli policies) to send a US army "halfway around the world to invade and occupy a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us, and did not want war with us — to strip it of weapons that it did not have," as Pat Buchanan, a senior adviser to three presidents, lamented on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 [Newsmax, Sept. 2011].

In the view of many, the "ultimate unnecessary war" — and "the worst strategic disaster in U.S. history" according to General William Odom — the $1 trillion Iraqi price tag has bought America 6,000 dead and 40,000 wounded soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, half a million widows and orphans, four million uprooted Iraqis, and much more besides. In mid-August 2011, after widespread attacks killed a further 65 Iraqis, and with the ancient and once thriving (800,000 strong) Christian community reduced to perhaps as few as 150,000 in eight years, the Auxiliary Chaldean Bishop of Baghdad protested to Aid to the Church in Need: "Why did they come? To do what? They came to give us freedom. The freedom to kill one another."

Was all that death and destruction really to placate ideological, pre-emptive warmongers conducting U.S. foreign policy on behalf of a Jewish state viewed by influential Protestants in messianic terms? Robert Hickson, a highly informed military expert and former Lieutenant-Colonel in the US Army (Special Operations), has put it this way: "Would there have been a larger and more politically effective Anti-War Movement after 11 September 2001, and especially before (and after) March 2003 and the invasion of Iraq, IF those Wars were NOT seen to have been especially helpful to Israel and strongly supported by Israel itself, and hence more favored by the main channels of the public print and electronic media?"

(Note: Unlike the Jewish elite, the likes of Buchanan, Hickson, General Odom and the Chaldean bishop would not destroy the reputations and lives of readers who beg to differ with them! But they might direct apologists for the Iraq war to the remarkable two-volume set — neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq, and neo-Conned Again! Hypocrisy, Lawlessness and the Rape of Iraq [2005, IHS Press]. Consisting of essays penned by commentators representing the entire socio-political and religious spectrum, and vindicating John Paul II's opposition to the war, they are essential reading to fully comprehend the colossal scale of the mendacity and self-serving behind the Iraqi invasion, and the criminal greed and exploitation which followed — all largely, and conveniently, ignored by the Jewish-controlled media.)

Catholic Judaisers
If Iraq represents secular tragedy, Judaisation within the Church is often masked by high farce. The parish "Seder Supper" fad of recent times exemplifies the process. Usually overseen by poorly instructed Jewish converts, victims of the vacuous RCIA programme, it is supposed to put parishioners in touch with their Semitic roots by acting out Jewish liturgical traditions to enhance Catholic understanding of the Mass. Typically, a report in Northampton's diocesan paper The Vine [June 2011] described the annual "Passover Supper for Christians" which was held "shortly before Easter." The resident Jewish convert set about "explaining many of the Jewish Passover rites and linking them with our Eucharistic celebration." Photos of a (chalice-equivalent) "Elijah Cup" with Hebraic inscription, and parishioners seated at the supper table, replete with Jewish menorah, book-ended the report.

Innocent enough in itself, the tendency is problematic and the theatrics unnecessary. Far better to organise a group under the direction of an orthodox priest to study a book like How Christ Said the First Mass by Fr. James L. Meagher, which would yield all the benefits — explaining how the traditional Mass sums up the entire Old Testament worship from the time of Adam to the time of Christ, and how Our Lord blended and wove every aspect of Hebrew worship into the Mass — without the underlying dangers. As theologian and canon lawyer Raymond Kevane stated in his February 2006 Open Letter to the Association of Hebrew Catholics (reprinted in our February 2007 number):

In almost every century there has been an effort to bring the rites of the Jewish religion into the Catholic Church. Every time it has arisen it has caused great harm to the Catholic Church before finally being discredited.

… To reinstate, in the Catholic Church, any of the Judaic rituals of the old Testament would be to suggest that the Sacrifice by Christ is not perfect. Can it be that the suggestion to reinstate Jewish rites of any kind is rooted in a less than strong belief that Christ is present in his body and blood, soul and divinity in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and that His sacrifice is divinely, eternally and infinitely perfect? Judas turned against Christ because he could not accept this teaching.

… I have been warned that in arguing against intermingling Jewish rites with Catholic liturgies (I believe some call it ‘judaizing’), I will be accused of being anti-Semitic and racist. This seems to be the modern tool to end all argumentation. But surely I and others like me have the right to defend our religion against heresy. Surely all Jews realize that, if they decide to convert devoutly and humbly into the Catholic religion, accepting her founding by Christ Himself and accepting His complete deposit of Faith, acknowledging Christ as the Messiah, recognizing the Pope as the successor of Peter, the first pope, they will be received with more than wide open arms.

In using the Open Letter to submit his resignation as a consultant to the Association of Hebrew Catholics, Kevane stated that his aim was "to distance myself and my brother [the late Msgr. Eugene Kevane, one of the Association's founders] from the errors I perceive being promulgated by (some of) the Jewish Catholic leadership; to identify and denounce those errors, and to help ensure that those excellent Catholic Jewish converts are not led astray by their leadership … because I am convinced that the organization and its president [David Moss] have entered into a path which will lead them into heresy." Typical of this path is their putting a Jewish rather than Catholic interpretation on statements of Our Lord, such as "Salvation is from the Jews". He notes that "Their problem, however is not new, their Catholicism is unfortunately based on an emotional attachment to Judaism." On the contrary, they should be "applying Catholic theology in order to reach an acceptable Catholic conclusion."

Kevane says that it is futile to claim, as David Moss does (and as Jewish converts hosting Seder Suppers doubtless presume), that "a Jew who has become Catholic is the best person to explore the true meaning of Judaism. What reason is there for a Catholic to explore the true meaning of Judaism? It would be far more productive to explore the true meaning of Catholicism and devise an effective way of helping the Jews to accept it. From these considerations, it would appear that none (or very few) of the converted Catholic Hebrews have undertaken an exhaustive study of Catholic Theology. There are too many superficialities and misstatements in their writings."

His comprehensive debunking of these errors in the February 2007 Christian Order should be required reading for all Jewish converts of goodwill — i.e., those prepared to acknowledge their deficient formation. This will help them to differentiate between Catholic truth and the seemingly authoritative positions of leading Jewish converts. "To his credit," Kevane notes, "David Moss is quoted on the back of [convert Roy] Schoeman’s book as follows: 'Schoeman weaves together fascinating speculations on the ongoing role of the Jews in the light of the Holocaust, the State of Israel, Islam, and the Second Coming'. ‘Speculations,’ of course, is the correct word, because many of his statements are not grounded in Scripture (except a 'twisted' interpretation of it), and they ignore or falsify the doctrines of the Catholic Church as presented by the Popes and Ecumenical Councils. And it contradicts the messages left with us by Sts. Peter and Paul, both of whom had been stalwart Jews." He underlines that

It is most important for any convert to Catholicism from any other religion, to cast aside the human, cultural and intellectual pride which can lead them astray; otherwise they cannot maintain a pure unadulterated relationship to their new religion. The Jews may need to work harder than others to avoid the problem of intellectual pride — throughout the Old Testament, as you know, the Jews are described as a stiff-necked people.

In our initial conversation, Dave Moss insisted on the need to maintain the identity of the Jewish religion within the Catholic Church. Not just the Jewish people, but the Jewish religion, with some kind of retention of Jewish rites within the Catholic religion, somehow intermingled, as I understood it, with the Catholic liturgy. He didn’t say this outright, but his meaning was clear. Out of deference to his relationship with my brother, I didn’t ask him, "Why should this be important to you, in the light of eternity?" Christ Himself said that there shall be neither Jew nor Greek… etc. All of us have the imperative need to save our eternal souls and Christ Himself showed all of us the way to do that.

Confirming the Sungenis critique of Benedict XVI's similar wrong-turn, he adds:

David Moss told me (and I believe I have read it elsewhere in the AHC materials) that he doesn’t believe that the Association should be involved in ‘targeting’ other Jews, but rather to simply ‘converse’ (is that the proper word?) or ‘dialogue’ with them. But if that’s true, then the converted Jew is not obeying the command of Christ: "Go forth and preach the gospel to all nations, baptizing them…. " To be saved, the Jews, like everyone else, need to be baptized. How can any converted Jew, in trying to be a loyal member of the Jewish community, not want fellow Jews to be saved?

He states that Msgr Eugene Kevane would be against all these "ideas which fly in the face of Scripture and which are at variance with Papal decrees, Ecumenical Councils and the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years [since they] could make converted Hebrew Catholics unwitting allies of the Heresy of Modernism." His brother's answer, he says, can be found in a careful study of his final two books: Jesus the Divine Teacher: What the Prophets Really Foretold, and The Deposit of Faith: What the Catholic Church Really Believes. "Actually, for those of you who are trying to formulate the relationship which converted Jews should have with the Catholic Church, I’d suggest it would be well, perhaps imperative, to spend the time and money on high quality courses in Catholic Theology and Canon Law — if you have not already done so." And he adds a timely warning:

It is not enough to rely on Catholic priests — whether they are converted Jews or not — because priests — and bishops — who are infected with the heresy of Modernism (there are many of them) would be drawn to and tend to sympathize with what you appear to be trying to do, because it sounds so "modern" and so "ecumenical."

II. Philosemite as Subversive: The PEEP Pulverisation

While Judaisation begets Philosemitism and vice versa, one can assist the former without embracing the latter. Those who support Israel politically, for instance, such as the 1,000 "friends" being sought to actively promote Israeli interests in Europe, need not be philosemites per se. During its PR drive early this year, the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated its intention to recruit "Christian activists, academics, journalists and students" to be "briefed regularly by Israeli officials and encouraged to speak up for Israel" [Alive, March 2011]. Since Israel is still not supported by large numbers of Jews and does not define Jewish identity, the political affiliation of gentile "friends" of Israel does not necessarily reflect an unhealthy fixation with Judaism, any more than support of the Palestinian cause makes one an Islamist.

Philosemitism is altogether different. As Israeli Prime Minister “Bibi” Netanyahu himself has reflected, philosemitism fans the flames of anti-semitism. Counterproductive for Jews, it is also unhealthy for Catholics because philosemites are capable of the worst self-abasement or treachery in order to ingratiate and identify with the Jews. Last month we noted that this disorder contributed to William Buckley's betrayal of his friend, fellow Catholic and leading writer at National Review, Joe Sobran.

Buckley's philosemitism was a combustible mixture of egotistical self-interest ("how ardently Bill seemed to covet the approval and company of people he professed to oppose, from the Ivy League to the The New York Times," Sobran recalled) and overcompensation for his own father's anti-Semitism ("the subject haunted him to an extraordinary degree"). Having forewarned/threatened Sobran that "my career would suffer if I kept criticizing Israel," Buckley had already taken "gleeful" pleasure in the earlier smearing of Israeli critic Pat Buchanan, when, in late 1991, during Buchanan's first run for the presidency, he penned an essay titled "In Search of Anti-Semitism." "He thought enraging Pat's admirer's was fun," said Sobran. But this egoistic amusement was not without its philosemitic reward: for traducing yet another conservative ally, he earned the plaudits of the arch-Zionist New York Times.

Once, over dinner at a function, Buckley had asked Sobran whether what he'd written about him was "fair." Joe quietly replied: "It isn't something I'd do to a friend" (but thought to himself, "it wasn't something I'd do to an enemy"). Yet whereas Buckley then "looked down at his plate and said nothing," perhaps reflecting for a moment on his disloyalty and treachery, schoolteacher Robert Williams, the ultra-philosemite who single-handedly brought down the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice [PEEP] conference in London last June, had no qualms about traducing his erstwhile friends.

Toxic trait
This fractional difference in emotional response owes much to the fact that Buckley was a cradle-Catholic while Williams is a convert afflicted by "residual Protestantism," as the late Kay McDonald, a PEEP committee member and founder of Parents' Concern, who knew him well, memorably described his condition. And whereas Catholics have to work at it, Protestants, as we have seen, are instinctive philosemites and Judaisers. Once consumed by the temptation, they are implacable in acting out the treacherous role to tragic conclusions.

Always injurious to the salvific mission of the Church since Her inception, it was this toxic trait, together with the more contemporary "anti-Semitic" canard it reflexively regurgitates, that primarily fuelled the PEEP onslaught; an obsessive campaign that the perpetrator continues to wage, several months after he engineered the ruination of the conference. But it was all turbo-charged, so to speak, by his faults and failings. Of course we all have our besetting sins which we struggle to overcome by the grace of God, through prayer and the sacraments. We must bear with one another’s faults. Yet forgiving our brethren as Christ forgives us does not mean blithely avoiding rebuke and correction where necessary. False charity has no place within a Christian community. So while we sincerely pray that Mr Williams will recognise and repent of the damage done to individuals and the local Church, we must also consider the disturbing characteristics which gave rise to it.

These are so pronounced that an American Catholic writer, on being apprised of the mayhem and having once met Williams on a trip to England, immediately fingered him as the culprit without needing to be told! A simple deduction, she said: "He is so rash and self-righteous." Much more could be added besides. But that neat assessment suffices to explain why a simple, firmly stated protest, adequate for most people, was never going to be enough for Mr Williams; why he created a firestorm out of absolutely nothing, sucking in friends and acquaintances alike — all to the gratifying sound of Jewish applause.

Incestuous cycle of smear
If it was unsurprising, to those who know him best it also seemed inevitable. Pat McKeever, the editor of Catholic Truth, reported that Williams once freely confessed to her that "he likes being a news-breaker, and if there isn’t any news to break he makes it up." Predictably, the “Catholic” press is always happy to oblige him. In this case he was given free rein in their papers and blogs to traduce not only a priest of Jesus Christ, Fr Paul Kramer (despite his having called for canonical sanctions against Williams), but also his supposed friends Daphne McLeod and Robert Sungenis. This email from Mr Sungenis to Mr Williams during neatly summarises the course of events:

I have heard some rather disturbing news about you and I am writing to find out if it is true. It is reported to me that you took it upon yourself to conclude that the Pro Ecclesia conference in London that Fr. Kramer and I were scheduled to speak at this Saturday was a conference "against the Jews" and one that would "deny the holocaust." If so, this is absolutely untrue. Fr. Kramer was going to speak on Fatima and I was going to speak on Scripture, which notes were being taken from my article in Christian Order of 2006 against the English bishops' views on scripture — a work that you, ironically, highly praised at that time and wrote to me about it. There was nothing that was going to be said about the Jews, much less anything about "denying the holocaust." The only possible exception to this is that we had tossed up the idea of speaking about the pope's new book, but we decided against it in light of Cardinal Burke's incident with the conference [the Cardinal belatedly withdrew from the conference, on the "collegial" pretext of fleeting criticism of the English hierarchy on the advertising flyer - Ed.]. Nevertheless, without knowing what were the topics of the conference, it is reported that you contacted The Jewish Chronicle, who then contacted the (Chief Executive) of Westminster Hall who canceled the conference, at great expense to Daphne McLeod and all those who organized the conference, not to mention the people who had already paid for plane fare, hotels, rental cars and such who cannot get their money back. This is an absolute outrage and whoever did it is in deep, deep sin and should make reparations to all those who were hurt in anyway from this devious and malicious act. Are you responsible for this heinous act, Robert Williams?

True to form, Williams evaded responsibility for the cancellation. But it quickly and inevitably emerged that he had crawled on his treacherous belly to the Jewish Chronicle to lick their boots, flaunt his philosemitic credentials, and effectively invite the ADL's London Bovver Boys to mug Mrs McLeod and brass knuckle the Westminster Hall authorities into cancelling an innocuous Catholic conference. One report and one phone call from the B'nai B'rith mob was all it took.

The tenor of what was said can be gauged from the Chronicle's hyperventilating report of 16 June:

Mr Sungenis has been described by a US hate-monitor as "one of the most rabid and open antisemites in the entire radical traditionalist movement". The Southern Poverty Law Centre included him in its "Dirty Dozen" list after he published an article which repeated "a series of ancient antisemitic canards" on the subject of Catholic conversion of Jews. They also noted a piece in which he discussed a Zionist Satanic conspiracy.

Since Holy Scripture plainly records that the "synagogue of Satan" has conspired against the Church since Christ (Rev 2:9; 3:9), and seeing as history is one long conspiratorial war against the Church by an alliance of "Heretics, Jews and Heathens [who] have made a unity against Unity," as St. Augustine stated — it would be far more surprising if there were not a Satanic Zionist conspiracy of one sort or another! It is precisely such dutiful restating of supernatural truths in Catholic language, not Mr Sungenis per se, that gives Jews and JINOs palpitations. In March 2004, for example, another JINO outfit, Searchlight, conjured menace out of a routine Catholic expression on the CO website. Using a typical Jewish tirade against Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ as a pretext to rage against "the radical Traditionalist Catholic movement that formed Gibson's reactionary beliefs," it put the world on red alert, warning that

Extremists [John] Vennari, [Chris] Ferrara, [Marian] Horvat, the race-baiting E. Michael Jones and antisemitic conspiracist Robert Sungenis are also frequent contributors to the London Traditionalist Catholic monthly Christian Order that describes itself as "a militant antidote to the secular ‘live and let live’ attitude which has brought the Church low."

Thus, outstanding and highly respected Catholic writers and scholars are decried as "racist" and "extremist," while "hateful" shadows are perceived in CO's innocuous spiritual allusion to the Church Militant! Outrageous, unhinged and malicious don't begin to describe such defamation. Yet the Searchlight storm-troopers are often quoted in the mainstream press as a reliable source and authority on fascist threats to the West! How perverse. But it does underline the need always to bear in mind the spurious standards — Deborah Lipstadt's farcical, all-inclusive definitions of "hate," "conspiracy," "anti-Semitism," etc. — being utilised and constantly reinforced by the JINO lobbies to manipulate the masses. In the incestuous process, they cite their own discredited and disreputable sister organisations to maintain the lies and the rage.

In this case, in order to perpetuate the self-fulfilling cycle of smear, the Chronicle relied on one of the most vicious of all ADL instruments, the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC]. This group also denounces faithful Catholics and family publications like The Remnant as "hate groups." The SPLC is so out of control that Americans for Legal Immigration [ALI], among countless other concerned organisations, believe it "has now become a threat to the freedoms and security of American citizens due to their repeated attacks on all First Amendment rights and their utter debasement of the political process." Yet this is the Chronicle's source for its attack on Robert Sungenis! On 6 August 2011, the ALI called for the eradication of the SPLC:

Due to the severity of the consequences of the SPLC’s actions on our nation, their well funded and organized repeated attacks on American freedoms of speech, the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances, let us as Americans of every race and creed unify in our calls for the dissolution and complete political destruction of the Southern Poverty Law Center…

While in the past the SPLC has targeted “hate groups” or groups deemed racist and potentially violent, such as the KKK and Neo Nazi groups, the SPLC has recently used their reputation for righting these groups to go after moderate and mainstream Americans, journalists, and show hosts and anchors in an attempt to suppress free speech.

[…] the SPLC and its sister organization the Anti Defamation League (ADL) have both been involved with documents sent out by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the DHS Fusion Center in Missouri that warn police to distrust American citizens based on their political beliefs, favorite books and movies, Presidential candidate choice, or bumper stickers.

The SPLC and ADL attempts to politicize American police in a way not seen in history since the reign of Stalin or Hitler are threats to our Republic, our nation, and the freedoms and security of all American citizens. That is why ALIPAC sent out a national advisory warning Americans about these groups earlier this year!

All that said, and the self-serving Jewish forces at work duly explained, let us be clear: unlike Mr Williams and the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Sungenis has never conveyed the air of infallibility. Like the rest of us mere mortals, he has humbly admitted to making occasional errors; offering some erroneous opinions on the basis of questionable sources that he had not fully researched. Unlike his critics, however, he has apologised on those rare occasions and continued to speak the truth despite the hate campaign against him. His important theological/biblical writings and critiques are generally excellent and much needed. And it is because of this uncompromising Catholic orthodoxy that the JINOs pursue him, looking for anything that he has written anywhere to try and discredit him.

Amoral & wanton
Along with equally spurious and exaggerated claims about Fr Kramer, as passed on by Williams, the Chronicle proceeded to scare the daylights out of the Methodist authorities at Westminster Hall, who sprinted to the loo, pausing to cancel the conference on the way but not bothering to consult Daphne McLeod. As usual, once the "anti-Semitic" cry had gone up, free speech was trampled in the rush to change soiled trousers. The "Catholic" press and many bloggers, as ignorant of the traditional teaching on the Jews as they were about precisely who was leading them by the nose, also became a quivering mess overnight — as we'll see.

Meanwhile, his conscience mugged by his rampant ego, Williams did not baulk at violating the most basic moral and ethical tenets to keep his smear-snowball rolling and growing. Within a short time he had posted on the Herald blog private emails between the present writer and Mrs McLeod, who, in all good faith, had forwarded some of them on to Williams in response to his wild accusations that Sungenis was a rabid "anti-Semite" and "Holocaust denier." As the hysterical hole he dug for himself became ever deeper, he rushed to post them online without permission; attempting to vindicate false statements he had made on the basis of false conclusions drawn from rapid-fire private exchanges. Yet even this wanton disregard for privacy did not sate his appetite for ends-justifies-the-means scheming. Deceitfully, he doctored them first to suit his agenda.

For the record, this involved excising my pointed assessment of himself, both as a person and in comparison to Mr Sungenis, as follows: "It’s well known that Robert smears people. A very sad individual in my view. Sungenis is not a Holocaust denier. But unlike Williams, Sungenis is not a puppet who just goes with the flow. He is not scared to express his own views and be denounced by the powers for stepping out of politically correct line. Thank God for that!" He also removed other passages presenting Sungenis and his conference intentions in a positive light (as also Fr Kramer, who I noted, whatever his views, had just returned from speaking at a Vatican conference attended by a dozen prelates!). This cutting-and-pasting kept his own notoriety from hapless bloggers, while shoring up the mendacious assault against his helpless targets.

At the same time, Williams made sure to include this comment from my email to Daphne: "if he [Sungenis] is 'anti-Jewish' it is only in the perfectly Catholic sense that St. John, St. Paul and you and me and every Catholic should be anti-Jewish (as opposed to anti-Semitic): i.e. insofar as the Jews deny Christ and hate His Church, with all the devastating implications for souls and the world that come with that, given their disproportionately wicked influence on the materialistic West." Having posted that snippet, he signed off with a typically smug: "Enough said."

Anyone who has experienced such misrepresentation will understand how chilling and distressing it is, in equal measure. Having private correspondence splashed across cyberspace, no matter how righteous the contents, is a deeply disturbing experience. When it is deliberately tailored to convey a sinister intention or motive, it is even more sickening.

In this case, the racist insinuation was clear. The "anti-Jewish" phrase and my reference to a "disproportionately wicked" Jewish influence indicated an "anti-Semitic" mindset wholly in keeping with the selection of the "anti-Semitic" speaker chosen by the complicit, and therefore also "anti-Semitic" PEEP.

And yet it was an unremarkable comment. The Jews themselves (quite understandably from a Jewish perspective) celebrate their "disproportionate influence in finance and the media," as The Jerusalem Post expressly stated on 11 October 2007. It was lauding the fact that Jews comprised more than half of those named on a Vanity Fair list of 100 of "the world's most powerful people … the bankers and media moguls, publishers and image makers who shape the lives of billions…. an exclusive, insular club, one whose influence stretches around the globe but is concentrated strategically in the highest corridors of power."

Only the most abject ignoramuses or frantic philosemites keen to ingratiate themselves with the winning side could possibly contest such a patent fact of modern life. For the rest of us, it is only a question of interpretation: such as whether the ramifications of this self-professed "disproportionate influence" are good or bad. And in that regard, not only Catholics but also many Jews deplore the anti-Catholic animus of the ADL/SPLC network and their heinous stamping on the freedom to expose and discuss it.

Without such clarification (censored by the Herald) and within the finger-pointing hot-house Williams had created, however, my perfectly true, reasonable and Catholic comments appeared to confirm his absurd cry that 'racism is at work in this conference!' It all played to the ignorance and fears of neo-conservative bloggers. Long abandoned by ecumenically-obsessed shepherds and more conditioned by politically correct canons than they care to admit, they could not be expected to make rational distinctions: to understand, for example, the fundamental difference between hateful anti-Semitism and the anti-Jewishness inherent in the Gospels.

This blurring of lines of demarcation suits the Foxman/JINO agenda. After all, at the outset of their attack on the Oberammergau Passion Play they equated Catholic Tradition itself with "anti-Semitism" and announced their intention to destroy the former in order to eradicate the latter. And yet, down the centuries, it is clearly enunciated by Our Lord, the Evangelists, St Paul and all the popes, Fathers, councils, doctors and saints that Tradition is in fact "anti-Jewish" or, if you like, "anti-Judaic." While manifested directly, specifically and repeatedly in the Gospels, it is also true in the same broader religious sense that our Tradition is anti-Hindu, anti-Islam, anti-Buddhist and against all false religions that reject Christ and lead souls away from the one true Church He founded for our salvation. The "anti" intended here is a quintessential Christian paradox: a positive framed as a negative.

As we have already noted, Pope Benedict himself has underlined this distinction. In his 1998 document on the Holocaust written as Cardinal Ratzinger, he distinguished between a sinfully racial anti-Semitism and a religiously dutiful anti-Jewishness. Even the New York Times understood and readily accepted the difference.

As a teacher and student of history, Robert Williams should easily grasp that elementary distinction. But although significant, the intellectual deficit is only one explanatory factor in accounting for his stubborn resistance to Catholic faith and understanding.

Heretical obsession
According to Mrs McLeod, Mr Williams claims that his aunt married a Jew. Perhaps that familial link explains why he purchased a yarmulke when he visited Israel? In any event, she recalled that on his return he continued to wear it. On 17 June 2011, at the outset of his frenzied “campaign,” this harmless (if idiotic and disrespectful) stunt suddenly assumed new speculative dimensions: appearing to signal the outer sign of Jewish yearnings fed by heretical notions.

In a telling email exchange, mustering all his dilettantish arrogance and sounding like a 17th century Puritan, he deigned to lecture scripture scholar Robert Sungenis about the "correct way" to view Judaism:

The way you are looking at Judaism is a bit like how the fundamentalists view Catholicism. The real Jewish people are the salt of the earth and I am doubly blessed to have family members who are of that household of Faith. Anyone who raises a hand against them whether they be Egyptian potentate, Tsar or Dictator will always lose, because they are the handiwork of God. Our Lord bears the mark of his circumcision along with his crucified marks for all eternity. Our Blessed Mother is also a Jewess forever, and one day all Israel will be saved.

Verily, the spirit of Cromwell lives!

In response to this tragi-comic obsession, fuelled by the kind of "non-Catholic thinking" within the Church lamented by Paul VI, Sungenis wrote:

I'm sorry, Robert, but this is spiritual racism. God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:9-10). I can see now where all the problems are coming from. You believe the Jews are better than other people and have more favor from God, just as in the Old Testament. That concept is wrong, dead wrong, and I will fight it to my dying day. It is precisely for your kind of wrong teaching about the Jews that I am on this campaign to set it right. Blessed Mother does not promote the fact that she is Jewish, and neither does Jesus. In God's eyes there is no longer Jew or Greek, but only those who are in Christ Jesus, and unfortunately, most Jews refuse to be in Christ Jesus.

During the same exchange and in the same heretical Protestant vein, Williams claims that "We should love the Jewish people as we have been grafted into their inheritance." "No," the Catholic Sungenis counters and corrects, "we have been grafted into Christ, not the Jews. The Jews need to be grafted into Christ." Williams persists: "We have to become a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles." With estimable charity and patience, Sungenis again clarifies: "Dialogue is fine, but not a watering down of Catholic doctrine nor the conclusion that the Jews don't need to hear the Gospel."

Reproduced with the permission of Mr Sungenis, no blogger or patron of the "Catholic" press, had they read this exchange, would have doubted who was on the side of the angels in the raging PEEP controversy. Faced with an ultra-philosemite spouting heretical views, and the clear, concise orthodoxy of Sungenis, only the Judaised and stiff-necked would have doubted Pro Ecclesia's excellent choice of speaker for the conference. Readers, however, were summarily denied a fair and balanced presentation of the controversy. All attempts by Mr Sungenis and Fr Kramer to put their respective cases, to correct lies, exaggerations and faulty theology, were rebuffed. The "Catholic" Times was a principal offender. While printing every spurious word against the pair, they trashed Catholic morality and ethics by maintaining an obdurate refusal to afford them a right of reply. (Click here to read the excellent Sungenis defense they would not print.)

Defamatory duo
Williams was joined in this unholy enterprise by fellow panic merchant Ruth Rees. Although a long-time supporter of CO and the present writer, Miss Rees, a Jewish convert, rented her garments, stubbornly adhering to the victimhood and ADL party line she supposedly transcended and left behind at her baptism, when she became a true Jew [Rom. 9:5-8; 2:28-29]. Caterwauling about the "malicious anti-Semitic" Sungenis in the "Catholic" Times, she insisted that his choice as "a guest speaker was so damaging to the reputation of the Catholic Church in Britain." Meanwhile, revelling in the attention, Williams pontificated in the same pages. This double act — aka the Rees-Williams Tag Team [R-WTT] — was a familiar ruse. They have form.

In November 1996, they jointly reacted to an allegedly "anti-Semitic" Pro Fide Forum meeting Williams had just attended. Given the reading-room atmosphere and subdued tone and content of Pro Fide lectures, this was about as plausible as phoning MI5 after a kindergarten party to report racist banter and offensive balloons! It is even more preposterous given the alleged offender, the late David Foster, a decidedly uncontroversial and impeccably polite English gent. On the 21st of November, as part of a talk he gave on conspiracy literature, David had included the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on a booklist of recommended background reading distributed to attendees, since it is clearly impossible to cover that particular subject without referencing this document. He did not once mention the Protocols in his talk. But the mere listing of the book on a sheet of paper sent the R-WTT into overdrive. Like gossipy girls they turned this non-event into a major drama (even the Jewish Board of Deputies got involved!). Being such a mild-mannered person, this outrageous overreaction caused David enormous distress. Concerned that his highly successful annual Summer School (aimed at re-educating young Catholics in the Faith) might be adversely affected, he resigned from chairing Pro Fide meetings shortly after.

Anti-Semite Hunters don't do apologies, of course. With them it's all hit-and-run. So David had to live with the smear and injustice. But Miss Rees was not finished with PEEP. Fifteen years later, back in harness with her philosemitic “teammate”, she was savaging the head of Pro Ecclesia, Daphne McLeod.

For securing Robert Sungenis as a speaker, thereby daring to make her own decisions and judgements about his person, views and public respectability independent of criteria laid down by Deborah Lipstadt and Abe Foxman, Daphne incurred the fury of a woman scorned. Her refusal to toe the ADL line — to be dutifully cowed by malicious diatribes and sucked in to defamatory whirlpools — infuriated Rees, for whom traducing and isolating the despicable Sungenis was the only means of preserving the reputation of the Church, public peace, and Jewish safety. It was, in other words, nothing less than a necessity. Yet as Pitt the Younger warned long before Orwell, it is precisely such bulging-eyed urgency that endangers the kind of independent thought and action displayed by Daphne. "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom," he warned. "It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Indeed. And there was only one enslaved woman in this stand-off.

Truly, is there a metaphor sufficiently biting to do justice to these attacks on the PEEP Chairman? Two converts rebuking one of the most experienced and knowledgeable catechists in the land about engaging a brilliant scripture scholar to enlighten the English flock. Not about Judaism, Israel or the Holocaust. Not even about Pope Benedict's controversial departure from traditional teaching on the Jews. But simply to reaffirm and explain Catholic biblical teaching; so desperately needed in the wake of global derision heaped upon the local Church after the English hierarchy officially departed from scriptural orthodoxy [see "Is the Bible True or Not? A Response to the Bishops of the United Kingdom," Robert Sungenis, CO, Jan. 2006].

Christ Himself severely condemned their pride and hypocrisy. "Can a blind person guide a blind person?" Our Lord was asking Team Rees-Williams in vain, as they strolled in tandem to the far-edge of slanderous hyperbole. "Will not both fall into a pit? Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? … You hypocrite!" [Lk 6:39-42].

And how tediously predictable that the hapless Miss Rees would not only appeal to the Catholic Judaisers criticised by their own consultant, Raymond Kevane, for their heterodox and heretical views, but in the process also extol the one person even more shameful than the R-WTT itself: the prelate whose indefensible last minute withdrawal from the June conference left Pro Ecclesia in the lurch and triggered the entire controversy. "Cardinal Raymond Burke," she cooed, "is a greatly respected prelate and strong supporter and friend of The Association of Hebrew Catholics in the USA whose members are Catholic converts from Judaism, the very people grossly insulted in the writings of Sungenis."

Suffice to say that it is hardly surprising that His Eminence keeps company with the dubious AHC in America when he cannot distinguish between orthodox friends and neo-Modernist enemies in England. As for strong objective criticism of the AHC being hyper-inflated by Rees to "grossly insulting": since Kevane concurs with Sungenis, does that make him a "Self-hating AHC Consultant"? Or just another "grossly insulting anti-Semite"? We think her Times readership should be told. Just as they should be apprised of whether she unequivocally affirms Catholic teaching on the Holy Family over and above ancient Jewish tradition, and if she will be amending future editions of her book accordingly?

Like the JINO and CINO establishments they effectively serve, however, the R-WTT ducks such scrutiny. Having flung the mud, Miss Rees high-fived her teammate, and scarpered. "I am off to pray the Five Sorrowful Mysteries of the Holy Rosary asking for the conversion of anti-Semites masquerading as Catholics," she sniped in a parting shot.

Better, perhaps, to pray to Pius XII, patron of those falsely accused of anti-Semitism, for the enlightenment of Jewish converts who do Mr Foxman's work for him.

Judaic epiphany
Despite the unlimited column space allotted to the Tag Team and the extreme censorship exercised in its favour, it is noteworthy that Williams retained a risible dissatisfaction that mirrored the implacable Jewish response during the Oberammergau evisceration. He insisted, for example, that Pat McKeever give him the right to reply to her August-September Catholic Truth critique of his wickedness. When he was duly ignored, he squealed like Abe Foxman at a Mel Gibson movie: "We shall be informing press complaints of your double standards"! Never mind the ignorant appeal to the irrelevant Press Complaints Commission (which does not monitor the Catholic press), what about "The sheer nerve!" exclaimed McKeever. "The rest of us submit letters [to the CINO press] in the hope/off-chance that they’ll get published, but he won’t spare or waste the time writing a letter without guarantee of publication."

This behaviour is indicative of the way in which philosemites assume a Jewish identity. Which is to say that throughout his “campaign” Williams had effortlessly adopted a Jewish modus vivendi and modus operandi, most notably in his deployment of two renowned and complementary Jewish traits and acts. Firstly, chutzpah; exemplified by the Jewish joke about the man found guilty of murdering his parents asking for leniency because he's an orphan. Secondly, bokhim ve-yorim ("crying and shooting"); where a brutal attack "is accompanied by the shrill rhetoric of victimhood and a farrago of self-pity overlaid with self-righteousness," as ex-Israeli soldier Avi Shlaim described Israel's response to its "insane offensive against Gaza" in 2008.

The tearful JINO cry of "anti-Semite" taken up by the R-WTT to shoot down rational criticism, avoid scrutiny and silence opponents epitomises this strategy. Accordingly, even while hurling defamatory grenades and inciting the mob, behind the scenes Williams was firing off bokhim ve-yorim emails.

"Daphne I am only trying to help you," he simpered like a wounded puppy as he wrecked her expensive conference, smeared PEEP, damaged her reputation and abandoned her to bloodthirsty bloggers.

"Please don't break off with me… I have not been rude about you… let's jaw not war," he pleaded with Sungenis as he kneed him in the groin and bore false witness against him, telling one and all that "Robert Sungenis is a Holocaust denier."

The scripture scholar replied: "I do not deny the Holocaust. You need to stop saying that. Rather, I question whether there were 6 million Jews murdered by gas, and I also stress that there were many other people who died as a result of German aggression, not just Jews." Having earlier corrected Williams theologically and now factually, Sungenis then nailed the moral disorder that triggered and sustained the entire blitzkrieg: "You lied about me," he sighed. Others queued up to lay the same charge.

In the end, all the tilting at racist windmills recalled the puritanical Protestants of the sixteenth century, who, as we noted at the outset, sought to "absorb the Jews" in order to "become Jews." For throughout his scorched-earth quest to vanquish anti-semitic phantoms, it seemed as if the yarmulke-sporting Protestant convert was in search of a similar Judaic epiphany. If not to “become” a Jew at least to “approximate” one; to forge, more or less consciously, as his cringing exchange with Mr Sungenis so strongly alluded, a quasi-spiritual bond with his exalted "family members who are of that household … the salt of the earth … the handiwork of God." The Puritans themselves could not have flagged their Judaised spirit more passionately.

III. "Fear of the JINOs"

From the Catholic viewpoint, the contemporary rise of philosemitism embodied by Mr Williams is even more portentous than it was in the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Back then, as Mr Netanyahu has pointed out, it did the Jewish people no favours. And yet while remaining counter-productive, today, with “Bibi” and his Zionist brethren self-professedly at the peak of their global powers, the ramifications redound far more ominously upon ourselves.

According to various Church Fathers, in the End Times "Christians will resemble Jews 'because of our sins, in fact they will be worse.' Origen supports the contention of Yuri Slezkine that modernity is Jewish. St. John Chrysostom claims 'God will recall the Jews a second time,' when Christians have abandoned the faith. Jews will become Christians when Christians have become Jews" [JRS, 1074]. Therefore, that so many are now making common cause with the "synagogue of Satan" (the biblical antithesis of the Church, embodied today in the JINO oligarchy) could be telling. In any event, as both an internal and external indicator of this sign of the times, the PEEP affair was a providential, if very belated wake-up call.

Stampeding the herd
It was valuable insofar as it brought the long-arm of the JINOs close to home. The devastation wrought by the Christian Zionist-Jewish Neocon alliance is so overwhelming (and so long in the planning) that the reality and dreadful fruits of this collaboration, in Iraq as elsewhere, can all seem rather tenuous and distant. Likewise the "shaking down" of entire nations by inflating claims for Holocaust reparations to extract staggering amounts from national treasuries (all the while, notes their fierce critic Norman Finkelstein, making slurs against those countries "remarkably like the slurs cast against Jews by Anti-Semites"). However, that same raw power has now been exercised on our doorstep in the most harmless of workaday settings, dispelling all ignorance and apathy. It certainly underscored the sea-change in the meaning of anti-Semitism itself. Jones explains:

Anti-Semitism is a relatively recent word. It was popularized in 1870 by a German by the name of Wilhelm Marr. It refers to race, and claims that Jews are hateful because of certain ineradicable biological characteristics. That idea led to Hitler, but the defeat of Hitler led to a re-definition of the word. Anti-Semitism now has an entirely different meaning. An anti-Semite used to be someone who didn’t like Jews. Now it is usually someone whom Jews don’t like.

Since they don't like Robert Sungenis and his defense and promotion of Catholic Tradition apropos conversion of the Jews, they would not let him address local Catholics. Full stop. With breathtaking arrogance, they intervened in a pious and educational undertaking that had nothing whatsoever to do with them, lobbing the "anti-Semitic" canard-grenade into Westminster Hall to blow Catholic free speech to smithereens. While personal deceit was Rabbi Heschel's weapon of choice in his rabbinical "war" against Catholic "souls," the Jewish Chronicle attacked them with the institutionalised deceit of political correctness which their Frankfurt School and ADL brethren so artfully constructed. Bloodless instruments for bloodless operations. Yet to those directly and indirectly damaged in the course of the PEEP shutdown, as well as those who looked on in helpless horror as events unfolded, the metaphorically jack-booted Chronicle JINOs were as noisy and ruthless as any totalitarian commissar exercising the same power and control.

And for the cowardly and complicit, just as intimidating.

At Westminster Central Hall a single JINO phone call was enough for the Methodist authorities to turn tail. As a measure of their panic and the potential court case they were willing to suffer rather than face Jewish wrath and social isolation, this was on 14 June, several weeks after the final contract had been signed by both parties and just four days before the conference. "The first I knew was when I had a phone call from our Events Officer saying it was cancelled," recounted Daphne McLeod. "Central Hall did not call me to discuss Robert Sungenis, though they should have. If they had I could have shown them the two talks [on Scripture and Fatima] which would/should have reassured them."

In fact, as already noted, no reassurance was possible once the racist slur was hurled. As soon as the Jews got involved, Catholics joined the Central Hall Protestants in the stampede to worship at the politically correct altar of Anti-anti-semitism. In the process, William Oddie's "Catholic" Herald blog had a nervous breakdown. Until then largely supportive of Daphne and critical of Cardinal Burke for his withdrawal from the conference, the stench of fear suddenly pervaded bloggerland. Unnerved and keen to avoid the slightest taint of guilt by association with PEEP or the despicable Sungenis and Kramer, Oddie and his pliant audience nodded furiously in sage agreement with Robert Williams (who by then had also scared off the second scheduled conference speaker, Bishop Mustaerts of Holland).

Alerted by a CO reader to these goings on and Williams' posting of my private emails to Mrs McLeod, I suggested that the reader at least post a link to my June/July 2010 editorial ("On Jews and JINOs") to put the selective comments presented to bloggers by Williams in proper Catholic context. No sooner had he done so, however, than the Herald removed the reader's explanation and all other links and references to CO. Too busy to research the matter himself, Oddie was feeding off juicy Sungenis and Kramer extracts tossed to him by Williams, who had for all intents and purposes commandeered the blog. Soon tut-tutting at a furious rate and suggesting that PEEP had run its race, Oddie, an Anglican convert who found his home away from home at the neo-Modernist Herald, ruminated darkly about "anti-Semitic" forces at work, blind to the real "dark force" manipulating himself and his readers.

Such was the fearful atmosphere that within a short time the Latin Mass Society would not take a CO advert for its magazine, despite having invited us to submit one only a week before. In addition, they removed links to PEEP and CO from their website! "I don't know much about Kramer and Sugenis," blogged LMS Chairman Joe Shaw as he sprinted to the ADL safe-house. "But I know they are widely regarded as dangerous lunatics."

Really? By whom? Dispassionate repositories of truth like Abe Foxman and the SPLC?!

Or by Robert Williams: a self-described "news-breaker" who admits to making news up if there's none to break; whose relentless hounding seriously aggravated the ill-health of a sickly priest; whose online harassment of Pat McKeever saw her threaten police action; who subsequently tried to sabotage yet another harmless conference in Ireland?

All that and so much more was unknown to Joe, who could not be bothered distinguishing actual “dangerous lunatics” from bogus ones. Old allies could’ve enlightened him. Instead, they were sold out; summarily hung out to dry.

It was dispiriting. Yet also indicative of the universal scattering of Christ’s flock: which signally fails to appreciate that if we do not hang together in these wicked times, we will surely hang separately. Sheep without shepherds, we need look no further than the leadership vacuum to comprehend why self-preservation so readily trumped truth, justice, charity and orthodox solidarity in the rush to demonstrate PC credentials; by adherence, however unwitting, to ADL orthodoxy.

The new terror
Plus ça change… The reign of terror overseen by Caiphas & Co. is repeatedly conveyed in New Testament accounts where tension and anxiety are palpable. Joseph of Arimathea acted "secretly for fear of the Jews" [Jn 19:38]; after the Resurrection "the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews" [Jn 20:19]; no man spoke openly of Christ "for fear of the Jews" [Jn 7:13]; the tribune who held St Paul in custody "feared lest perhaps the Jews might take him away by force and kill him, and he should afterwards be slandered" [Acts 23:25]. It was all perfectly understandable: having killed God they were capable of anything.

Today, "fear of the Jews" has morphed into "fear of the JINOs." The New Sanhedrin has created its own brand of terror. Yet while its modern socio-political and legal weapons are more sophisticated than the methods employed by its biblical counterpart, we should not assume that physical intimidation and/or punishment, as meted out to the apostles and disciples, has been removed from the Jewish arsenal.

While most who refuse to toe the JINO line suffer ruined reputations and livelihoods at the hands of professional smear machines like the ADL and the SPLC, meetings not to their taste are also physically disrupted by their agents. Typically, in 2009, they sent along a troublemaker to wreck talks given in London by Michael Jones and Israel Shamir. As Jones recalled and the present writer witnessed: "A crazy Russian Jew who calls himself a performance artist showed up with his black leather-clad Austrian girlfriend and, after shouting a few comments, stood up and turned the lights out in the room. When the lights came back on, he stood up on a chair and encouraged everyone to take their clothes off and engage in an orgy, at which point he was ejected from the room."

Although disconcerting, this attempt to disrupt a peaceful gathering on Catholic premises was mild compared to the brutal treatment meted out to those who challenge "Holocaustianity." Revisionist Michael Hoffman writes:

I was fired from my job as a reporter in New York for producing a documentary on Zionism. My wife was chased down a street by a Zionist mob after my "World War II Revisionists" television series was broadcast. In 1984 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the one-time leading publisher of revisionist books, was torched by arsonists and its half-million dollar book-inventory destroyed.

In 1995 the home of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel was burned to the ground by arsonists. Zundel was put on trial in Canada twice for his publishing activities. This writer's account of Zundel's legal ordeal, "The Great Holocaust Trial" was regularly seized and burned by Canadian Customs. Zionist terror groups have attacked IHR staff members, threatened the life of Dr. Arthur Butz at Northwestern University. They have severely beaten Dr. Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyon, and car-bombed revisionist Francois Duprat. Advertisements for revisionist speeches and books are routinely obstructed and suppressed and lectures by revisionists at hotels are terminated by the political and economic intervention of powerful elites.

Whatever we make of them, it is not Holocaust revisionists but, rather, the perpetrators of this sickening criminal behaviour who should be in the dock. What is more repulsive: questioning of historical facts, however offensive or absurd it may appear, or burning, bombing and jailing those who do? The 71-year-old Ernst Zundel was finally released from Mannheim prison in Germany in March 2010, having served seven years, some of it in solitary confinement in jails and prisons in the U.S., Canada and Germany — all because he doubts the received history about the homicidal gas chambers of World War II Germany.

Yet we do not hear about these brutal Jewish attacks and people rotting in jails for holding views unacceptable to Abe Foxman and his cronies. Jewish media control ensures that we are preoccupied instead with the Islamic threat and attacks against Christianity and Christians by the homosexual collective and their army of Cherie Blair clones — lawyers with their snouts in the lucrative human rights' trough. Thus, distracted, we overlook the fact that the JINOs wrote the PC textbook that enables them to conduct their witch-hunts. They boast of having been "a pioneer in advocating for [American] hate crime legislation" for nearly 30 years, and having led the push for the most totalitarian U.S. hate crime legislation to date (H.R. 1913) "for more than ten years." They are also the architects of hate laws worldwide; as with the aggressive Italian "anti-Semitic" legislation they have championed which targets Catholic doctrine and is waiting to be implemented at a politically opportune moment.

As ever, at the forefront of shaping and wielding this pivotal weapon of the New Terror is Foxman's iniquitous ADL branch of B’nai B’rith, the Jewish Masonic Lodge that calls itself the "body and soul of the Jewish world" and "a synonym for organized Jewry." Thus, all morally and religiously perverse lobbies at war with the Church are merely riding the wave of terroristic ("anti-Semitic"/"Holocaust denial") legislation created by B'nai B'rith:

Effectively an arm of Mossad, the Israeli secret service, the ADL is described by Jewish journalist Robert I. Friedman as "the largest private spy agency in America… working behind the scenes to stifle intellectual freedom." Libertarian Noam Chomsky calls it "…one of the ugliest, most powerful pressure groups in the U.S… [committed to using] any technique, however dishonest and disgraceful, in order to defame and silence and destroy anybody who dares to criticize the Holy State (‘Israel’)." Possessing untold numbers of secret files on Israeli critics, it claims the right to "investigate" and "probe into their private lives." Yet despite its subversive activities, which include smearing and blackmailing opponents and illegally obtaining government and police records and handing them over to the Israeli government, the ADL has escaped criminal prosecution. Clearly, it acts with the consent of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials. [CO, Aug-Sept 2009]

This mirrors the way Mossad itself roams the world assassinating and sabotaging with impunity. Consider their recent string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and engineers; typically self-defeating Jewish atrocities that only increase Iran’s determination to reach its nuclear goal. The assassins work in tandem with tens of thousands of worldwide sayanim ("helpers") recruited from the Jewish diaspora. Now increasingly used in Arab countries, they provide every conceivable practical help and specialist advice for ‘hits’ on a no-questions-asked basis (not least apropos suitable poisons), as well as the spreading of disinformation in the world press in the aftermath of a murder [see “Mossad’s License To Kill” by Gordon Thomas, The Daily Telegraph, 17/2/10; and his Gideon’s Spies (1999; Rev. 2009), the only book approved by Mossad].

Together with the B'nai B'rith disinformation industry, the Mossad whip up animosity against those rare countries who guard their sovereignty and will not be pushed around by the Zionists. (For supporting the right of Palestinians to seek UN recognition of an independent Palestinian state, for instance, attack dog Joe Klein denounced Norway on Neocon website as "effectively under the occupation of anti-Semitic leftists and radical Muslims" — unleashing his rant just two days before the pro-Zionist, anti-Muslim Anders Breivik went on his murderous rampage in Oslo. Hmmm…). It also recalls the Wikileak documents pertaining to Israeli Organised Crime (IOC). Very briefly, it turns out that IOC syndicates, in cahoots with members of the Israeli military, have got into the national “homeland security” business worldwide, especially surveillance (there's a surprise). India has been a particularly lucrative market in recent times, involving massive security deals. But these Jewish mafiosa are protected not only from the invasive scrutiny and suffocating restrictions the Neocon-inspired "war on terror" has inflicted on ordinary travellers, but also from normal criminal vetting. Wikileaks revealed correspondence from American embassy officials alarmed and bewildered by the fact that IOC figures travel in and out of America at will, immune from US visa checks that apply to organised crime figures from other countries.

Jewish dystopia
In that telling light, the furious pursuit and insane punishments meted out to Holocaust revisionists without so much as a media murmur is to be expected. It is all of a Jewish piece. And again, it is not about the validity or stupidity of views held and espoused by revisionists but their right to hold and state them within the limits of just and proportionate laws, framed and applied in a Christian spirit. But there is no justice before the New Sanhedrin. Only the most bitter and unyielding vengeance. If such flagrantly unjust and oppressive Jewish antics were perpetrated by Muslims, indeed by anyone other than the JINO elite acting through national governments they have in their pocket, it would be regular front page news. And rightly so because we know well, and the Jews better than most, that repression and terror that starts out picking on easy targets (like the most vulnerable, marginalised, individualistic or eccentric) ultimately threatens us all.

Alas, since the Jewish leadership is all calculation, mendacity and studied ignorance, never admitting culpability for its own contribution to Jewish suffering and refusing to learn the lessons of history, it has used its media muscle to take "hate" crimes into terrifying territory away from the spotlight.

Consider the scant coverage given to the epochal maltreatment of Australian revisionist Friedrich Toben. On a trip to Europe, he was taken off a plane at Heathrow in handcuffs, under an EU arrest warrant issued for him in Germany for the "crime" of posting revisionist views on the internet. Of course, this occurred in a European Union where every passing year increasing numbers of ordinary citizens face the nightmare of extradition (without appeal) for alleged holiday misdemeanors abroad, on the back of arrest warrants issued by member states (often the most corrupt) for non-payment of coffee bills, parking fines, etc.. In this context, the Toben outrage may now appear less sinister to docile Europeans than it would in a still-sovereign country like his own. Nonetheless, even by dictatorial EU standards, the German arrest on English soil of an Australian citizen in transit, for holding politically incorrect thoughts and daring to express them in cyberspace, should chill every right-thinking person to his very marrow, even and especially former victims of the Third Reich and Communist regimes.

By any reasonable reckoning, therefore, the Toben affair should have caused a righteous uproar. As should the fact that there are European revisionists now living as fugitives because their own countries wish to jail them. Yet barely a word is said or written, never mind an indignant one. It all speaks to the pervasive "fear of the Jews" and their own boast that "Big Media Is Jewish." They engineered this dystopian scenario just as surely as they sustain it with the same implacability and media support that marked their Oberammergau campaign (an assault led by the New York Times which attributed its success precisely to "the power of the Jews"). Leading revisionist Michael Hoffman (who, for the record, holds that "Adolf Hitler was a mass murderer, a dictator and one of history's prize fools") justifiably complains that "This controversy is something more than certain Judaics merely 'taking issue' with revisionists. They persuade governments in Europe and Canada to lock us up. They persuade the US government to deport revisionists to certain imprisonment. They are implicated in censorship, blacklisting, termination of employment and yes, physical attacks and terrorism against revisionists."

Even British journalist and author Melanie Phillips, a proud Jew and ardently pro-Israel, who considers Holocaust denial "a modern form of Jew hatred" (and who once supported the imprisonment of revisionist David Irving) is now adamant that criminalising revisionists and allowing the extradition of people from countries where it is not a criminal act to those where it is are both dangerous threats to our liberties which she cannot possibly support. In the meantime, however, even as Jewish journalists slowly awaken to the magnitude of this issue, Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X, for one, is under criminal investigation in three countries for revisionist speculation!

Benedict & Richard
In 2007, the hysterical outcry of the global JINO network against the Pope's lifting of the Society's episcopal excommunications was a spectacular example of Jews bludgeoning the Goyim (non-Jews)into line. Bishop Richard Williamson's controversial views on the Holocaust, aired on Swedish television, provided the pretext for the kind of media blitz that those responsible for the infinitely greater Toben scandal, and the wider totalitarian hunting down of revisionists, were conveniently spared.

Per usual, the ruse of "crying and shooting" kept the victims of Talmudic brutality off the front page while maintaining the perennial Jewish profile as the wounded party. But the immediate objective was to discredit the Society and damage its relations with the ecumenically-compromised Vatican, thereby undermining planned reconciliation talks in Rome. Despite the almighty hullabaloo they manufactured, the eccentric views of a lone prelate are of no consequence to the Jewish overlords. What fills them with dread is a Rome-SSPX reconciliation which they rightly perceive as a potential game-changer.

Regardless of its own internal faults, contradictions and conundrums (not least the elevation of Richardson by Archbishop Lefebvre, considered a bad error of judgement by many), it is the Society's championing of the Mass of the saints and martyrs (an impregnable fortress of despised Catholic dogma) and its stand against the ecumenical free-for-all and many other corrupting post-conciliar notions and practises that make it a real fly-in-the-ointment. The New Sanhedrin has prospered in a compromising Novus Ordo milieu that has thoroughly emasculated the Church and left them a free run in matters of State. Brought in from the cold by Rome, they know that the SSPX could become a major influence in the Conciliar re-assessment now in its embryonic stage; a deliberative process which could, under a future pontiff unhindered by personal neo-Modernist baggage and German guilt, set back and even overturn Jewish (B'nai B'rith) gains.

This is why, after being lured into incautiously airing his own views — for positing a number of Jewish deaths lower than the official JINO narrative — Bishop Williamson faces the wrath of several European courts. Yet it is even worse than a 1984 scenario because our German pope, whose undesired but unavoidable Hitler Youth flirtation hovers like a Sword of Damocles above him, capitulated to the Jewish exploitation: reading on cue from the enemy's script. Failing to correct the theological error voiced by his Light of the World interviewer Peter Seewald, who, in respect of the "Williamson Affair", stated that "Holocaust deniers have no place in the Catholic Church," Pope Benedict replied: "There were many people who immediately vouched for me and said that I would never introduce a Holocaust-denier into polite society."

Although not a traditionalist himself and for decades a prominent critic of the Society and its reluctance to reconcile with Rome, Michael Jones responded sharply to this astonishing papal acquiescence in Seewald's absurd suggestion, posing the apposite question: "Does anyone in his right mind feel that 'Church' and 'polite society' are synonyms?" He went on:

Just what are the pope and Seewald saying here? "Holocaust deniers have no place in the Catholic Church"? …. do sinners have a place in the Church? Are all holocaust deniers sinners? The answer to that question is, of course, yes, because every member of the Church is a sinner. So if sinners have a place in the Church, why don't holocaust deniers? Are Seewald/Ratzinger saying that "holocaust denial" is the unforgivable sin? Such a statement would be theologically indefensible…. Would [Benedict] say that tax-collectors and prostitutes are not welcome in the Church? Are "holocaust deniers" worse than the tax-collectors and prostitutes Jesus ate with? … Does that mean that anyone who says that less than 6,000,000 Jews died in Nazi concentration camps has committed the unforgivable sin and should therefore not be admitted to the Catholic Church?

B'nai B'rith were smirking their Masonic heads off, no doubt. One more papal humiliation to add to all the others they have inflicted since the Council. For as Jones points out,

If Ratzinger used the papal "we" to make such a statement, he would have called the whole office of the papacy into question. Why then does he feel that he can shoot his mouth off and make such irresponsible statements and think that no one will notice that he happens to be pope? If he weren't pope, Peter Seewald would not be interviewing him. … In the brave new world of celebrity popes, however, Ratzinger gets to have his cake and eat it too. He gets to engage in bad theology, bad scholarship — and character assassination, to boot — all because he is not using the papal "we"…. Beyond that, can Ratzinger give us the Latin translation of "holocaust denier"? Can he give us the citation from Denziger on "holocaust denier"? Can he tell us where it appears in the Scriptures? No, probably not, because the term was invented by a professor named Deborah Lipstadt roughly 20 years ago."

["Foot in Mouth Disease," Book Review of Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, A Conversation with Peter Seewald, in Culture Wars, Jan. 2011]

At the height of the Williamson controversy, the Holy Father stated that he had been insufficiently informed about the Bishop's views, implying that had he known them it would have adversely affected his decision to lift the excommunications, certainly in regard to Williamson. But as Jones intimates, he could and should have also admitted his ignorance of the "Holocaust denial" scam and the abuse of that term by the Jewish elite for their own controlling and rapacious ends, as explained last month.

Whatever one thinks of Bishop Williamson, Jones is right: who cares about "polite society"?! Again, as measured by whom? Self-serving anti-Catholic bigots? For a Pope to discard an indiscreet prelate merely to placate the "polite society" created by the New Sanhedrin signals far more than misplaced ecumenical concern. It also smacks of an underlying fear of reprisals. As we have surmised elsewhere: perhaps those ADL/Mossad files crammed with compromising details on Catholic churchmen high and low, which might accidentally find their way to the New York Times, are the key to the entire humiliating, debilitating, compromising charade known as "Jewish-Catholic relations"? Just a speculative thought (while we're still permitted to express them).

Orchestrating Big Brother
Whatever the case for clerics, and while revisionists were being singled out for heinous maltreatment, the U.S. State Department’s Office of Global Anti-Semitism was created in 2004 to monitor and intimidate the rest of us. Yet another construct and creature of ADL/B’nai B’rith, this department has deliberately not defined "anti-Semitism" so as to list what Jones calls "a dazzling array of beliefs or actions that count as Anti-Semitic. In many cases the belief referred to is merely one that certain Jewish organisations don't like." Effectively a heightened, legislated version of the jaw-dropping "Lipstadt Index", it is indeed a dictator's charter; comparable to any list of thought crimes proscribed by Sharia law or those produced in show-trials conducted by Fascist and Communist regimes. According to the Reverend Ted Pike, the State Department says, for instance, that it is anti-Semitic to:

  1. Allege "intentionally or unintentionally" that the state of Israel persecutes Palestinians.
  2. Criticize "intentionally or unintentionally" Zionism or Israel if such criticism leads to lowering of the public opinion of Jews or the government, military, or people of Israel (p. 33).
  3. Compare the behavior of Israel's leaders and military (in suppression of Palestinians) to Nazis (p. 22).
  4. Publish cartoons depicting the Israeli government and military as similar to Nazis.
  5. Diminish the 6-million figure of Holocaust dead in any amount.
  6. Question that gas chambers were the primary means of killing 6 million Jews (p.22).
  7. Allege that Jews exert undue influence in Congress and the White House.
  8. Allege that Jews exert undue influence in the media.
  9. Claim there exists a "Jewish conspiracy" to dominate society (p.19).
  10. Allege that American Jews are equally loyal to Israel (p.19).
  11. Deny the people of Israel their "right of self-determination." This means upholding Biblical law that the Jewish people cannot reoccupy Palestine in unrighteousness. This also means denying them occupation through illegal settlements of all the territory promised to Abraham.
  12. Reveal hostility [like Christ] toward Talmudic [pharisaic] Judaism.

The State Department warns against "unintentional" anti-Semitism (i.e. criticism of Israel, or making known unpleasant facts about Judaism). These acts might not be meant to stimulate anti-Semitism, but do. The moral? Be safe; don't criticize Israel or matters Jewish at all. Evil people might twist legitimate facts to hateful ends.

Not a single reader will escape the infinitely elastic grip of this totalitarian propaganda tool. And to make matters worse, Gregg Rickman, the JINO front man put in charge of this scam was at the centre of the $2 billion Swiss reparation shakedown during the late '90s. "That kind of doggedness will serve him well in his new capacity," noted one journalist. We can count on it!

Just consider how quickly Catholic faith and life is proscribed under Rickman's oversight. In its 2005 report to Congress, his Office of Global Anti-Semitism included as an "anti-Semitic incident" the case of a Polish priest who said Jews killed Christ. Three years later, in its 2008 report, it had upped the ante, issuing a policy statement that the scriptural record that the Jews had Christ crucified is "classical anti-Semitism" — a historic form of hate. So, dear reader, just in case you didn't know, it's now official — we're all guilty! At least, that is, according to the State Department Office created by Jewish Freemasons, at American taxpayer expense, as a vehicle for its anti-Christian hate crimes agenda. Confirming what we have documented throughout this essay, the Evangelical Rev. Pike comments:

The State Department's equation of Biblical Christianity with "hate" is an ominous indication. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith — architect of hate laws worldwide (and primary ideological and statistics-gathering force behind the Office of Global Anti-Semitism) — is moving rapidly to create bias against Christians as haters, particularly of Jews and homosexuals.

Despite passionate support of Israel by evangelicals, ADL claims Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic. ADL says the New Testament is the seedbed of suspicion and blame against Jews leading to the Holocaust of WW II. Televangelist John Hagee, recipient of numerous ADL/B'nai B'rith awards, upholds ADL propaganda. He preaches that Jews did not reject or kill Christ, do not have to accept Him, and that New Testament Christianity is a primary source of anti-Semitism throughout the ages. As Jewish-dominated media increasingly persuades the public and government to agree with this stereotype, it will become easier to pass Christian-restricting hate crimes laws. All who adhere to the Bible on homosexuality or Jewish complicity in Christ’s death could be subject to state-sponsored prosecution. In the many countries now ruled by hate laws, it is already a federal offense to repeat the claim of New Testament "hate literature" that the Jews had Christ crucified.

As referenced in our August-September 2009 edition, the extent of the "anti-Semitic" pretext used to further JINO-led "hate crime" attacks on Christians and their doctrine, morality and culture is laid out on the ADL website. A typical report featured the 2004 Roman conference on "Anti-Semitism - A Threat to Democracy." Reading like a Robespierre speech to his ironically named Committee of Public Safety during his Reign of Terror, one of the speakers, who went by the equally implausible title of European Commissioner for Freedom, Security and Justice, proclaimed that "Europe has the right, and perhaps the duty, to propose to members a common base … to strike at and punish racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism." The Robespierre sound-alike further warned that "Europe can, with unity, approve a common European rule which will … oblige all countries to adopt a law." The conference was also addressed by leading Italian politicians and judges as well as foreign ambassadors and dignitaries. Sessions included: "Monitoring Anti-Semitism" and "Government and International Responses to Anti-Semitism."

It all mirrors the Cold War "Reds under the bed" mentality which these same Western liberals (egged on by vast numbers of real Reds within their ranks) denounced as a hysterical witch hunt that threatened Western liberty. How typically self-serving and unprincipled that they now portray their foaming-mouthed pursuit and imprisonment of "anti-Semitic holocaust deniers" as a defence of democracy! Gravy-train functionaries one and all, they dance to the tune of any winning side. Fear of the JINOs and their "Amen Corner" in the US State Department has only magnified their self-righteous and well-rewarded cooperation with evil. Hence the politically correct zeal with which they monitor and intimidate the innocent, and even hunt down and imprison those publicly at odds with Secular Jewish ideology.

And so ubiquitous defenders of "human rights" did not dare to defend Holocaust sceptic Ernst Zundel's right to conscientious objection, or denounce his seven year incarceration on the absurd grounds that he constituted "a national security threat"! Nor did they speak up for Friederich Toben or Bishop Williamson. Like all the Catholic and Protestant jellybacks who fell into line the moment sycophantic Philosemite Robert Williams genuflected before his JINO masters and cried "anti-Semitism!", the self-professed champions of "human rights" were cowering before the New Sanhedrin: walking in ADL-approved lockstep.

The overriding concern here is not whether the views espoused by those under attack are ground-breaking or dangerously false. Rather, it is the fact that their Jewish antagonists have abandoned the civil refutation of controversial arguments, choosing instead to demonise or lock up their opponents in order to protect their fiefdom; their "Holocaust Industry," as Finkelstein calls it. Like the Nazis they feign to detest but increasingly mirror, they prefer censorship to persuasive counter-argument. In the West, verbal and/or physical attack is now the JINO-enforced norm.

IV. "Iron Fist": East and West

In the Middle East, meanwhile, the same ruthless approach was acted out on a grander scale during the 2008-09 Gaza bloodletting. According to figures provided by Israeli and Palestinian Human Rights groups, between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, 1,417 sitting-duck Palestinians were slaughtered (926 of whom were civilians, including 313 children and 116 women), and 5,303 injured (1,606 children and 828 women). In the bloody process, their villages and homes, schools and universities, hospitals and ambulances, mosques and refugee camps were destroyed by the Israelis, along with UN relief facilities, water and sewage systems, factories, agricultural land and anything else that would give the despised and unworthy victims succour. According to Amnesty International, many other crimes were committed during this indefensible Israeli response, such as the use of US-supplied weapons in "serious violations of international humanitarian law." This included the "clear and undeniable" shelling of white phosphorus into densely populated civilian areas — a substance which landing on skin can burn deep through muscle and continues burning into the bone unless deprived of oxygen.

Launched on the pretext of retaliation for "intolerable acts of terror" by Hamas, there were surely other pressing reasons. Firstly, as punishment for Gaza having democratically elected Hamas after the US State Department and Israel had failed miserably in their efforts to fix the 2006 election in favour of their own man Mahmoud Abbas. In a revised version of a revealing talk on the Gaza strike first delivered on 19 January 2009, Noam Chomsky states that this has been public knowledge at least since April 2008, when David Rose published a detailed and documented account of how George Bush, Condoleezaa Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams "backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever." The account was corroborated by Norman Olsen, who served for 26 years in the Foreign Service, including four years working in the Gaza Strip and four years at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, and then moved on to become associate coordinator for counterterrorism at the Department of State. Olson and his son detail the State Department shenanigans intended to ensure that their candidate, Abbas, would win in the January 2006 elections [Rose, Vanity Fair, April 2008; Olson, Christian Science Monitor 12 Jan. 2009]. In the second place, the scorched-earth Gaza attack was just as surely intended to send a fearful (but typically self-defeating) message of power and intent to everybody, not least Iran.

That said, Israeli critics like Chomsky argue persuasively that the real reason for the attack was self-evident: to avoid the political settlement (especially a two-state settlement, blocked by the US and Israel for over 30 years) that the Israelis have never wanted because they prefer permanent terrestrial expansion over security. This makes perfect sense. It simply maintains the Zionist strategy established at the outset by founding revolutionaries like David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Shamir, Menachem ("I fight; therefore I am") Begin. "We have the right to the whole of western Palestine," declared Ben-Gurion. "We want the Land of Israel in its entirety" [The Makings of Israeli Militarism, Uri Ben-Eliezer, 1998]. Early on, Moshe Dayan, who was in charge of the occupied territories, said the same thing more poetically: "The situation today resembles the complex relationship between a Bedouin man and the girl he kidnaps against his will… You Palestinians, as a nation, don't want us today, but we'll change your attitude by forcing our presence on you." You will "live like dogs, and whoever will leave, will leave," while we take what we want [Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire, 2006; Yossi Beilin, Mehiro shel Ihud, 1985, an important review of cabinet records under the Labor governments that held power until 1977]. In May 2006, in the same vein, Prime Minister Olmert informed a joint session of the US Congress to rousing applause: "I believed, and to this day still believe, in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land."

To minimise deviation from this party line, the Israeli's are well known to assassinate their own on a periodic basis to prevent an amicable resolution. Among numerous other examples, Chomsky cites the pre-state Haganah (Jewish military force) assassination of "religious Jewish poet Jacob de Haan in 1924, accused of conspiring for an accommodation between the traditional Jewish community (the Old Yishuv) and the Arab Higher Committee. He was accused of 'pathological' behavior for referring (correctly) to the opposition of native-born Jews to Zionism (and for homosexuality)" [Towards a New Cold War, 1982, citing Toldot Haganah, vol. 2, 251f].

Of course, brave and independent-minded Israelis have always dared to differ; like Avi Dichter, a former head of the intelligence agency Shin Bet and a Knesset opposition member. Last September he stated that "A Palestinian state is a national Israeli interest." But Dichter is no match for the Likud hard-men or the Zionist-controlled US Congress which has its own powerful means of dissuasion. It recently blocked nearly $200 million of aid to the Palestinians due to "Congressional anger at Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's … pursuit of of Fatah-Hamas reconciliation and statehood recognition at the UN." To underline their serious intent, there are "further Congressional leaders' threats of an even wider halt to funding in the coming year if Mr Abbas continues his actions at the UN" [The Independent, 1/10/11]. Even honorary Zionist Bill Clinton was appalled by this cruel response. While the chief spokesman for the Palestinian Authority could only proffer that "it is ironic to be punished for going to the United Nations." Ironic, perhaps, but historically consistent.

The terroristic spirit of Ben-Gurion and his Zionist brethren reflects the merciless "Iron Wall-and-Fist Tradition" of Menachem Begin and Ze’ev Jabotinsky. That self-destructive doctrine — denounced by the former chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, General Harkabi, in his 1988 book, Israel’s Fateful Hour [see "Facets of Four World Wars," June/July 2010] — explains not only Gaza but so much else about modern Israel and its "long history of provocations to deter the threat of diplomacy." According to Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, for example, at least 80% of the Israeli provocations before the 1967 war were designed to elicit a Syrian response that could be used as a pretext for violence and takeover of more land. Similarly, a 1971 peace treaty offered by Egypt "would have ended any significant security threat, but there was an unacceptable quid pro quo: Israel would have had to abandon its extensive settlement programs in the northeastern Sinai. Security was a lower priority than expansion."

The 1982 Lebanon war was another "dramatic example of the desperate fear of diplomacy," says Chomsky. "It was followed by Israeli support for Hamas so as to undermine the secular PLO and its irritating peace initiatives." [For a detailed critical analysis of Israel's strategy from the outset, revealing clearly the preference for expansion over security and diplomatic settlement, see Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land, 2006].

In keeping with this history, and despite other factors that undoubtedly affected its timing, the Gaza attack was triggered shortly before scheduled Hamas-Fatah reconciliation talks in Cairo which would have been a significant step towards advancing diplomatic efforts "and creating a single, unified government" [The Guardian, 5/11/08]. Furthermore, adds Chomsky, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir himself "stated that Israel went to war because there was 'a terrible danger… Not so much a military one as a political one,' prompting the fine Israeli satirist B. Michael to write that 'the lame excuse of a military danger or a danger to the Galilee is dead.' We 'have removed the political danger' by striking first, in time; now, 'Thank God, there is no one to talk to.' Historian Benny Morris … explained that 'the war's inevitability rested on the PLO as a political threat to Israel and to Israel's hold on the occupied territories.' Others have frankly acknowledged the unchallenged facts" [Pirates and Emperors Old and New, 2002].

Beyond chutzpah
None of this is to say that the Zionists do not desire peace. Obviously they do. But on nothing less than their own terms. In the West, "peace" required banishing Christ from the public square. "Secularisation of American life is good for Jews. So the more, the better," exulted JINO Irving Kristol. In the Middle East, it rests on destroying Palestine via annexation, "slowly building facts on the ground" with US backing. Israel's highest legal authorities have freely acknowledged that this civilian settlement tactic in the occupied territories is in clear contravention of "the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention," the foundation of international humanitarian law. The Israeli High Court itself accepted this judgement before dismissing it, in time-honoured fashion, as a mere technicality. In 2008, Norman Finkelstein carefully analysed the court decisions in a Postscript to Beyond Chutzpah — a title that perfectly describes the Israeli rationalisations for Gaza.

To ensure no misunderstandings cloud this intractable issue and some blue sky remains in place, let it be stated here that this magazine has spilt far more ink on critiques of Muslims and Islam (including a lengthy Jewish piece on "Palestinian Crimes against Christian Arabs," June/July 2010) than on Judaism and JINO Zionists. And whatever one may think of the origins and/or wisdom of the atheistic Zionist project (St. Pius X, along with most Jews, opposed it), obviously, like any state once constituted and recognised, Israel is entitled to peace and security and has the right to defend itself. Moreover, in criticising Israeli actions and attitudes, Palestinian crimes and propaganda are not thereby condoned. Indeed Wikileak documents reveal in humiliating, tragi-comic detail that it is not just their powerful neighbour but also the enemy within — a treacherous Palestinian leadership in sycophantic thrall to the supremely arrogant Israelis — that the Palestinian people should fear! And then, of course, there is the complicity of fellow Muslims, as noted by the editors of Lebanon's generally pro-Western Daily Star, who wrote:

Some 1.5 million people in Gaza are being subjected to the murderous ministrations of one of the world's most technologically advanced but morally regressive military machines. It is often suggested that the Palestinians have become to the Arab world what the Jews were to pre-World War II Europe, and there is some truth to this interpretation. How sickeningly appropriate, then, that just as Europeans and North Americans looked the other way when the Nazis were perpetrating the Holocaust, the Arabs are finding a way to do nothing as the Israelis slaughter Palestinian children. [14 January 2009]

In this regard, the brutal Egyptian dictatorship, the beneficiary of the most US military aid, apart from Israel, is "perhaps the most shameful of the Arab regimes," opines Chomsky.

Qualifiers and even-handedness do not appease advocates of Israel, however. Like the JINOs they unwittingly serve, they brook no dissent. Overlooking Israel's cast-iron protection by the greatest military power in history, they cite the "vulnerability" of an "oasis of democracy in the Middle East," as if this warrants a free pass to commit atrocities and generally behave like a jack-booted bully. Leaving aside the overblown assumption itself, this "vulnerability" is hardly flagged by Israel’s nuclear arsenal, or the fact that suicides, not killings, remain the greatest threat to its military! "43 soldiers committed suicide in 2003, a 30% increase. In comparison, 30 soldiers were killed during military operations [most of which involved "training practice exercises" and other non-combat activities]. … Criticism was heard within the Israeli Defence Forces… that the army 'not only has not been able to reduce the number of suicides over the years, but the phenomenon has actually increased'" [Maariv International, 15/7/04].

When these kinds of facts and the evidence of their own eyes leave critics and neutrals unconvinced by Israeli propaganda (most certainly if they watched the Gaza attack blow by blow on al-Jazeera TV!), the anti-Semitic card is promptly dealt. The messianic Christian Zionists are the worst of all. "Most certainly anti-Semitism is at play here," wailed one frantic blogger. "Critics of this statement will assert that criticism of Israel is legitimate and is not a manifestation of anti-Semitism. They are right! However, what else would lead western democracies to support a terror regime like Hamas? To put Hamas on an equal footing with Israel is downright outrageous. It is the same as placing Hitler and his Nazi regime on the same footing as the western democracies that confronted and defeated him some sixty years ago. This is madness… or … anti-Semitism!"

Enough already with the hysterics and red-herrings!It is hardly racist to demand that national self-defense be undertaken in a just and proportionate manner. The "intolerable acts of terror" on which Israel officially based its attack did not in any way, shape or form justify a military blitzkrieg and mass murder. Certainly, criminal Hamas rocket attacks had killed and injured Israelis and caused damage and "psychological trauma." Yet these rockets did not threaten the existence of Israel. Lamentably, they did endanger 250,000 Israelis living within rocket range. But they killed just two dozen people and injured only hundreds over an eight year period. Ignoring the hugely disproportionate numbers involved, New York Times columnist Stephen Erlanger dutifully quoted a senior Israeli intelligence officer who explained that "Hamas was all of a piece" with its "social" (i.e. civilian) wing "and in a war, its instruments of political and social control were as legitimate a target as its rocket caches" [17/1/09]. On the opening day of the Gaza bombardment alone, this breezy attitude saw the number of Palestinians killed outnumber Israelis killed by Palestinian rockets during the best part of a decade. Three weeks later the murderous disproportion had risen to around seventy times.

Thomas Friedman, another Times propagandist at odds with Catholic Just War tenets, helpfully explained that Israeli tactics were based on the sound principle of "trying to 'educate' Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population." That makes sense on pragmatic grounds, as it did in Lebanon, where "the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future" [14/1/09]. To which Chomsky responds: "And by similar logic, bin Laden's effort to 'educate' Americans on 9/11 was highly praiseworthy, as were the Nazi attacks on Lidice and Oradour, Putin's destruction of Grozny, and other notable educational exercises."

In sum, the Jewish "Iron Fist" displayed at Gaza during "Operation Cast Lead" plunged the Jewish "crying and shooting" game to new depths. Leading JINO apologists in the Times chanted their "Israel never targets civilians"/"Hamas rocketing is classic terrorism" mantras, pleading Israeli victimhood even as millions beyond the Western media firewall watched Israel's furious destruction of innocent human life on al-Jazeera — which Arabic station, said the Financial Times in a rare nod to Jewish media control, offered "a stark alternative to terrestrial channels."

Genocidal intent
Amid the geo-political chutzpah, the unbridgeable gap between Catholicism and present-day Judaism (JINOism), and hence the absurdity of "Jewish-Catholic dialogue," was again shown up by the key rabbinical tie-in. For the carnage witnessed by al-Jazeera viewers was fully supported by the same rabbis who humiliated Benedict XVI on his trip to the Holy Land (impertinently demanding that Jews baptised during the war and adopted to ensure their safety, be handed back!). Described as "the lords of the land" with an enormous impact on policy and hugely influential in the army and settlers movement [Lords of the Land, 2007], their outlook precisely reflects the messianic and racist dictates of the Talmud.

The revered rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook captured this mindset when he proclaimed that "we are in the middle of redemption," and the state is "entirely sacred and without blemish" extending over the entire Land of Israel [The Accidental Empire, 2006]. Similarly, the Jerusalem Post of 27 May 2008 reported on a letter sent to Prime Minister Olmert by the chief Sephardic rabbi, in which he ruled that there is "absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings." His son, chief rabbi of Safed, elaborated: "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand, and if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."

A guaranteed headline whenever Ahmadinejad fulminates in similar fashion, these routine Israeli proclamations of murderous intent go unreported in the West — just as the genocidal Talmudic injunctions which inspire them are bypassed in ecumenical dialogue (e.g. "The best of the gentiles should all be killed": Sopherim 15, rule 10). Yet they put the razing of Gaza in deranged "spiritual" context; a spirit inimical to Catholic faith and morals and neatly framed in captioned photographs showing three orthodox Jews in traditional black garb on the hills near Gaza watching "their forces pound the Palestinian enclave." The story described how Israelis, orthodox and secular, went to the hilltops that have "become the war's peanut gallery,… some with lunches and portable radios tuned to the latest reports of the battle raging in front of them, [some] to egg on friends and family members in the fight, [some] shouting 'Bravo, Bravo!'," as they watched the exploding bombs hardly able to contain their glee, some with their binoculars and lawn chairs, criticizing the Israeli attackers for hitting the wrong targets, much like fans at sporting events who criticize the coach [Wall Street Journal, 8/1/09]. Other photos show orthodox Jews dancing on a hilltop, with the caption: "From a hill just outside the Gaza Strip, Israelis watch the air assaults on Gaza and dance in celebration of the attacks" [Newscom, 8/1/09].

For ex-Israeli soldier Avi Shlaim, it all signals that the Jewish "eye for an eye," as practised by the Jewish Sanhedrin of Our Lord's day, has been inflated to an infinitely worse "eye for an eyelash" under its modern JINO equivalent. A wicked transition but not such a quantum leap when Talmudic rulings describe non-Jews as a sub-human species to be squashed. Even babies are cited as legitimate targets in one religious Zionist publication funded by the Israeli government. "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us," writes Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, the Dean of a West Bank yeshiva, in his 2009 guide on Jewish laws relating to the killing of non-Jews. "And in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

Against all this Talmudic hatred and vengeance, it seems that the only leap involved in moving from the Old attitude to the New, is the convenient hurdling of their own tragic history; a past which thoroughly rebukes them. "Kristallnacht was not justified by Herschel Grynszpan's assassination of a German Embassy official in Paris," admonishes Chomsky. Tragically, there are no such lessons to be learnt because in the world of JINOism there is no forgiveness and repentance is never-ending. A pitiless worldview embodied by the religious and political Zionists of Israel, it is also drip-fed into the Western bloodstream through the "entertainment-media". Eli Roth, director of the highly successful ultra-violent torture-porn films Hostel and Cabin Fever, embodies the spirit and the process.

"No sorry: no forgiveness"
In a Jewish Journal profile of director Quentin Tarantino ["Revenge of the Jews, Tarantino Style," 18/8/09], Naomi Pfefferman writes:

… About two years ago, while writing Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino asked [his good friend] Roth whether Jews believe in the concept of absolution. "The idea of mercy or forgiveness, not in the religious sense, but in a human sense — that’s where my humanity tends to go," Tarantino said. "When whites held blacks in slavery, they both were in bondage, and both needed to be freed from the system, so that’s where I was coming from in a way." But, he said, Roth told him "Absolution is a Catholic concept. F*** that. There is no sorry, no forgiveness possible."

Roth once invited Tarantino to a Passover meal where he explained how Jews view their historical persecutors. In a separate piece on Roth, Pfefferman provides a glimpse of Roth's menacing spirit and the sort of dark musings Tarantino surely endured at the seder:

When Roth visited Germany to promote his 2005 hit, Hostel, journalists asked how he dared make such a sexually sadistic movie […] The filmmaker was used to criticism for his over-the-top depictions of impalings, decapitations and blow-torching, but Roth — who has numerous relatives who died in the Holocaust — became enraged when German journalists asked him to justify those grisly scenes. "I said, 'This movie is nothing but [cinematic] magic tricks, but your grandparents turned my ancestors into furniture. Into lamp shades.' I went on and on; I couldn’t stop myself. I couldn’t believe they took that kind of self-righteous position."

Roth’s same righteous fury appears in his portrayal of Sgt. Donny Donowitz, aka The Bear Jew, in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, in which he is perhaps the craziest basterd in a squad of vengeful American Jewish Nazi slayers.

"Donny is a Jewish guy from South Boston who is fighting on behalf of Jews who can’t," said Roth…. "He uses his baseball bat to pummel Nazis, so he can physically feel that sensation of cracking their skulls in.”

… for Roth, the movie proved more than his first major acting role: "It was like kosher porn," he said. "It was an orgasmic feeling to swing that bat."

Which is not to say that he didn’t take the role seriously. Because his mother’s family was all but wiped out in Nazi-occupied Austria, and his parents’ friends included survivors of Auschwitz and Dachau, Roth grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust. … at the age of 8 … the budding filmmaker had already read Eli Wiesel’s Night and knew all about Dr. Mengele’s medical experiments. "That’s why horror movies always seemed so tame to me," he said. "I thought it was absurd when people complained about movie violence, because the default in my brain was — what about the Holocaust?"

[…] In the end, making Inglourious Basterds proved healing for Roth. "When we filmed the scenes where I killed Nazis, the German cast and crew were as excited about it as the Jews were — it was like we were killing them together," Roth said. I remember [the actor who plays] Goebbels saying 'Yeah — we get to kill those m************ today.’ They were so happy. And they wanted the deaths to be as violent as possible, because they’re tortured by the Holocaust as much as we are."

Roth's hellish outlook is representative. Actor Harvey Keitel, who has an uncredited voice cameo in Tarantino's film, played Judas in the blasphemous film The Last Temptation of Christ, which features a fantasy sex scene between Christ and Mary Magdalene. He also appeared in The Bad Lieutenant, featuring the graphic rape of a nun on a church altar. On cue, Keitel rushed to seek approval from his JINO overlords for Inglourious Basterds and its bashing and graphic scalping of Nazis. "I called the head of the Anti-Defamation League and I called Elie Wiesel," he said, "and I showed them the script. Then I showed them the movie, and they said, 'We love it!'" The ADL's Abe Foxman declared: "Inglourious Basterds should be recognised with an Academy Award." Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, found the film "quite exciting … quite ingenious." The same people who decried Mel Gibson for depicting Our Lord's Passion now gloried in Tarantino's bloodfest. Rabbi Irwin Kula, President of The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, wrote:

Ahhh, to simply terrorize Nazis and after killing them, to scalp them! … if I'm really honest, this Jew felt twinges of excitement, thrills, chills he's never felt before seeing violence. … this [film] turned me on. I really enjoyed it!

Eli Roth personifies this warped Talmudic mindset East and West. While he fits the merciless mould of the nationalistic rabbis and dancing Jews celebrating the Gaza massacre, he is also a JINO archetype: a 'Woody Allen Jew,' who, like Woody himself, would keep a shrink in work for life! Yet in a Boston magazine article, Roth's father, a Freudian psychiatrist, saw no troubling symptoms. "In his everyday life, Eli is extremely well behaved," he said. "In his creative work, you see the other side of his imagination." A Catholic psychiatrist might suggest a deeper reading, even viewing this paternal response itself as worthy of analysis: since it implies complete separation of mind, body and soul, as if his son's depraved ideas are devoid of consequences.

In fact, Roth's unquenchable thirst for revenge not only has cultural consequences but a familiar pedigree. The seething hatred and violence of his "creative work" — producing sadistic pornography for mass consumption — is part of the anti-Christian, holocaust-fuelled psychosis bequeathed to Hollywood by the Frankfurt School and continually reinforced by the ADL. Although much further along the nihilistic "entertainment" spectrum than Jewish TV sitcoms like Friends and Seinfeld, his torture-porn movies are simply a particular contribution to the same revolutionary process: the dismantling of traditional cultures.

Having failed to teach his child that "Only Hitler Hates", the proud but purblind father now compounds his initial error by lauding a "well behaved" and gifted son whose depraved contribution to an increasingly violent, vengeful West is mistaken for "creativity." Yet if our Judaised society stripped of Christ is no longer "extremely well behaved" like Eli Roth in his "everyday life," but more and more like the "other side of his imagination," it is due in no small part to his sadistic filth being mirrored to a greater or lesser degree in all the other perverse and blasphemous cinematic offerings diffused worldwide 24/7: "Creative Destruction" par excellence.

Any group that threatens the Jewish hegemony overseeing this destructive process gets it in the neck. The Japanese company Sony, for example, put noses out of joint by buying a chunk of Hollywood, taking over Victor Kaufman's Columbia Pictures in 1989. As one commentator opined:

It is clear that the Japanese were only interested in the profits from successful movies and were quite happy to leave the everyday running to the "experts," but this did not stop a concerted media campaign against the perils of allowing the American entertainment industry to fall into the hands of outsiders! Headlines about "Pearl Harbor — the Sequel" were followed by the filming of Rising Sun, the thriller dealing with the relentless ambition of Japan and its threat to the US. Directed by Philip Kaufman — who managed to work into the script a scene of a Japanese playboy using a naked American girl as a dining table — this was the kind of crude incitement to racial hatred usually reserved for the wicked Germans.

On the one hand, Germans are Public Enemy #1, forever demonised as Roth-like vengeance is meted out on screen to long-vanquished Nazis. On the other, bloodthirsty Marxists and Communist gulags, like Cuba and Che Guevara, are repeatedly canonised in popular imagination by cinematic distortions of historical fact. Meanwhile, racist caricaturing of everyone else but the Chosen People is par for the course. Like every actor who valued his career, Marlon Brando quietly suffered this Talmudic racism for long decades until April 1996, when he hit the headlines after denouncing the JINO movie establishment for racial stereotyping. Clearly at the end of his tether, he told the Larry King Show:

We have seen the nigger, we have seen the greaseball, we have seen the chink, the slit-eyed dangerous Jap. … but we never saw the kike because they know perfectly well that's where you draw the wagons around… Hollywood is run by Jews, owned by Jews and they should have greater sensitivity.

Fearful ramifications
It will never happen. Since they are not Jews faithful to just and charitable precepts of the Torah but, rather, Jews In Name Only, callous self-interest trumps a "sensitive" respect for truth, justice and charity every time. And so the sobering lessons of Jewish history are ignored and the old fascist enemy sadly mimicked. The civilised debunking of Western opponents is ditched in preference for verbal and physical violence; international laws and the heavy burden of proof required before resorting to any kind of military force against Arab neighbours, let alone attacks aimed at total destruction, are waved away. It's one rule for the JINOs, another for everyone else.

Until Gaza, which even Israeli propaganda couldn't hide, the public did not realise the extent of this imbalance because Islamic crimes are magnified by the same media that repeatedly self-censors when it comes to Israeli crimes. In respect of the Middle East, this involves under-reporting, or ignoring altogether: Israeli kidnappings, settler pogroms, assassinations, land theft, repeated non-observance of cease-fires, etc., as well as major criminality, oppression and dysfunction within Israel itself. In the West it includes rank complicity in false and ruinous Jewish cries of "anti-Semitism" and "holocaust denial," and letting Mossad and Israeli Organised Crime get away with murder — not only in terms of the usual array of mafia-like criminality (drugs, prostitution, money-laundering, etc.) but often literally, and more and more openly, on the convenient pretext of waging a permanent "war on terror."

Indeed, the "seam" between "war and criminality" and, hence, between "criminality and terrorism," as retired U.S. Army Special Forces officer Robert Hickson expertly explained, is itself at least a form of political and psychological warfare. He pointed to influential Neocon Michael Ledeen's declaration that "a fight against the terror masters inevitably meant a fight against the enemies of Israel" [The War Against the Terror, Masters, 2002] — the implicit and automatic assumption being that America’s proxy troops and America’s other assets will fight this war. Moreover, noted Hickson, "To challenge this essentially unconditional and sustained support for Israel in her time of purported need would be impermissible." This assessment in his 2004 essay "On the Cultural and Religious Factors of Military Strategy, and of Grand Strategy," which considered the escalating "total war against Israel’s enemies," has been constantly reaffirmed. In the same exposition, Hickson also treated the severe ramifications of undermining reality through fear:

Fear fosters self-censorship. Self-censorship atrophies the higher intellectual faculties of man. Atrophying self-censorship thereby shrivels our own knowledge of reality, and impairs the communication of that reality (i.e., the truth) to others, as well. Like Sophistry, it hinders and corrupts both our access to reality and the communication of that reality to others. Atrophying self-censorship is, therefore, not only subversive, but intimately self-sabotaging.

An article some years ago — from the Charleston, South Carolina weekly Jewish Newspaper, as I recall — had a highly suggestive title: "The Holocaust: Sword and Shield." That is to say, "the Holocaust" may be used as an instrument of attack, and also to protect oneself from any searching criticism and maybe also from the light of truth. The asphyxiation of untruth is very subversive. And organized strategic subversion may also be protected subversion — very well protected, indeed, especially where the truth is taboo. Let us wake up. Let us not "strut to our confusion."

The Neo-Messianic Revolutionary Faith and its "Dialectic of Dissolution" — "Solve et coagula," atomize and collectivize, fragment and coagulate — must be resisted, as if it were not only a fever, but also a plague, lest there be more destruction strewn abroad, and more self-destruction and self-deception. "O! what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" — especially ourselves.

War by other means
This three-part series is our own small contribution to the untangling of that web of self-deception spun by fearful self-censorship. When a tightly controlled mainstream media and ecumenically compromised clerics and laity collude to distort or avoid reality, the least a Catholic periodical can do is state the obvious. To point out, for instance, that just as peaceful Islamic encroachments on Western life and freedom supplement the Koranic violence perpetrated by the terrorist minority, so the application and/or ripple-effect of the Talmudic "Iron Fist" in the Middle East is increasingly apparent in our own backyards. We might not be under military bombardment, but there is always war by other means. Dr Hickson further explained:

Carl von Clausewitz, among other keen and strategic minds, always emphasized that, before you engaged in a war, the most important thing to know is 'the kind of war you are in', Sometimes, however, one does not have the time for this deliberation. One may already be involved in war, without knowing it. If someone is at war with you, even if you don’t know it, you’re at war. Reality is that which doesn’t go away, even when you stop thinking about it.

As we saw in Part I, the reality that the Vatican Council Fathers did not wish to contemplate was expounded by American Jewish Committee representative Abraham Heschel. "Today, there is no longer any place for religious wars as such," the duplicitous Rabbi explained to terrorist Guela Coehn in his 1964 Ma'ariv interview. "Today there is occasion for conversation and discussion. There are those who would like to attack their bodies. I want to attack their souls."

This is "the kind of war we are in." One which has raged since the Council under the guise of ecumenical "conversation and discussion." Heschel was talking about religious war: against Christians in general and Catholics in particular. But the socio-political front is much broader. Whether Amazon's "cyberspace book burning," in the form of its historic and supine removal from its listings of Michael Hoffman's historical tome Judaism Discovered, or the absurdly fearful wiping of references to PEEP and/or CO from the LMS and Catholic Herald websites; whether shutting down the PEEP conference or shutting up Ernst Zundel (literally) — nobody is beyond the reach of the overbearing JINOs.

Certainly not Catholic and "conservative" individuals, institutions and journals. Complementing the big stick, the financial carrot is offered to these by way of bribes to bring them on board the Zionist juggernaut. Many have readily sold their souls for Jewish backing.

Buying influence
The late Tom Herron documented this Jewish coopting of US "right-wing" bodies and movements; information regularly published in Culture Wars along with his personal testimonies. In April 2005, for instance, he recounted the emblematic history of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute [ISI].

A New York Times front page story of 17 July 2004 explained that the ISI was intended "to counter the liberal dominance of the major universities and news organisations." Part of the greater Philadelphia scene for over 50 years, "It publishes journals and books, sponsors fellowships and administers a network of 80 conservative college newspapers." In other words, said Herron, "ISI is the minor league for the right-wing, moving young talent up to government and media prominence." In which case, he queried, "Why is it that openly gay Catholic, Andrew Sullivan, is accepted by the right-wing movement but faithful Catholics like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran are ostracized?"

The answer to such telling contradictions lies in the corrupting influence of Jewish money and former Marxist and irreligious Jews on official post-war American conservative philosophy. The ISI itself "was founded by a Jewish editor of The Freeman journal, Frank Chodorov, who for a large part of his life was a religious unbeliever." This is how a Catholic "conservative" like William Buckley, who served as the first president of the ISI for the first few years, came to betray his friend Joe Sobran to the Zionists. "It also explains," says Herron in his 2005 article, "why being conservative today means cheering on a president [Bush] who feels he has the right to preemptively attack any country in the world and run up budget deficits as if there were no tomorrow."

Without the self-serving pragmatism of the Jews and their lackeys things might have been very different:

Modern conservatism could have turned out much more in harmony with traditional Catholic doctrine than it has. In fact, one of the men who would found ISI was quite conversant with Catholic teachings, but he and many others who would be associated with the organization over the years and who could have given it a firm moral basis were pushed aside by the pragmatists who won all the battles in movement conservatism, which now gives us a 'conservative' president who loudly states in two consecutive debates with his Democratic challenger that he has "no litmus test" for appointing federal judges who would overturn legalized abortion.

The ISI exemplifies the subversive trend that decoupled movement conservatism from Christian morality. ISI president Bob O'Reilly "may have been the man most responsible in his brief tenure for turning the organization from a broad-church conservative debating society into another part of the neocon popular front." He brought on board Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary magazine, and his wife Midge Decter; leading Jewish Neocons who take no prisoners.

By way of example, in the late 1980s when the ISI board of directors refused to fund a Moscow teaching project involving Podhoretz and Decter and fired O'Reilly for organising it, Herron recounts: "Several of the board [who had supported the project] immediately resigned knowing that you don't mess with the Podhoretzes unless you want to be branded an anti-Semite and have your institution destroyed. […] And no, you won't find people like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran on the speaker's roster at ISI these days. These [ISI directors] are highly educated people; Norman and Midge only had to educate them once. Even [conservative icon] Russell Kirk at the time of his death was the subject of a Podhoretz search and destroy mission because he had the temerity to say, 'I would like to remind the neoconservatives that the capital of the United States is Washington, not Tel Aviv'."

While radical Muslims physically threaten the existence of Catholic and non-Catholic Christian communities around the world, in classic Jewish fashion the Neocons prefer to spread their sphere of influence. In the late 80s, as part of a conservative Catholic forum "operating on a parallel track to ISI," Herron observed this corrupting network himself. He recalled that Midge Decter was "heavily involved with Rev. Richard John Neuhaus's Institute for Religion and Public Life in New York. And the Rev. Neuhaus, then a Lutheran pastor and later a Catholic priest, was one of the speakers at our little forum in Philadelphia, where he screamed at us that the biggest obstacle to ecumenism these days 'were you right-wing Catholics who think that you have the one, true Church'. Small world isn't it."

Michael Jones confirms that it got even smaller after Neuhaus founded the Neocon organ First Things: "According to Decter, Neuhaus then approached her to become a 'fellow' at First Things, although 'neither he nor I had any firm idea of what I would be doing as a "fellow".' Neuhaus, however, knew what he had to do to gain neocon support" [JRS, 1029]. With Jewish backing, First Things became a Zionist instrument, supporting the Iraqi war among other projects.

But not everyone sells out for cash or buckles at the knees when a stated preference for independence and fidelity triggers the inevitable smear. As the Jews sought to bludgeon Catholic publications into toeing their line, our good friends at the New Oxford Review stood firm:

In December 2005, editor Dale Vree announced in the New Oxford Review that years before he had been approached by "a Jewish neocon with no interest in Christianity or Catholicism" who "was interested in getting us to promote Jewish neocon interests" in exchange for a significant amount of money "if we would support corporate capitalism and if we would support a militaristic US foreign policy." When Vree turned the Jewish neocon down, they funded Catholicism in Crisis and First Things. Bradley funded Catholicism in Crisis (later, at the Bradley Foundation’s insistence, reduced to Crisis), a neocon journal for Catholics, founded by Michael Novak and Ralph McInerny to counter the influence of the American bishops. When founded in 1982, the magazine’s purpose was to oppose the bishops’ pastoral letter on nuclear weapons. Thus "the neocons found a way to get Catholic and Christian magazines to front for their largely Jewish neocon interests." By 2003, that meant ignoring the Catholic Just War theory and supporting instead the neocon-inspired invasion of Iraq.

Because he identified the man who tried to subvert the New Oxford Review as a Jew, Vree was attacked as an anti-Semite. Vree rejected the charge as well as the charge that opposition to the war was tantamount to anti-Semitism, saying that by 2005 even the Jewish magazine The Forward said those who claimed that the invasion of Iraq was orchestrated by Jews working in Israel’s interests "can no longer be shushed or dismissed as bigots." [JRS, 1029]

"Legalistic persecution"
Tragically, it goes well beyond such direct Jewish intervention. The corrupting ripples of JINO influence-peddling and self-interest ever widen and broaden. As we have reiterated throughout, they touch each one of us most immediately through "hate" legislation. Championed worldwide by B'nai B'rith, the Holy Father (per Cardinal Canizares) considers this Masonic "persecuzione 'legalistica' del cattolicesimo" to be our greatest cultural threat. To do justice to this papal concern would require a whole other essay. It is hard to keep pace with destructive developments. Even as I write, Brighton parish priest Father Ray Blake has been accused of "inciting hatred" and threatened with action to close down his blog by a homosexual activist. This oxymoronic "gay Christian," from a nearby Protestant church, was angered by Fr Blake's firm but polite rebuke of a local MP, who had suggested that those who refuse to marry homosexuals should not be permitted to marry anyone, and for his priestly reminder that marriage is ordered towards the procreation and education of children.

That the accusation is itself an incitement to hatred of Catholicism and the priesthood of Jesus Christ did not bother the antagonist because Christians are fair game. This was heavily underlined within days by the "aggressive inquisition" of an Evangelical cafe owner by police. As reported in The Mail on Sunday [25/9/11], a lesbian complained of being "deeply offended" by a DVD of the New Testament that the Salt and Light cafe in Blackpool has been showing on a small TV on its back wall for years. The sound is turned down but the words flash on to the screen against simple images of candles burning or sheep grazing. The lesbian took exception to St. Paul's warning to the Romans about unnatural sex between women. The owner described the menacing police response:

I said, "Are you really telling me that I am facing arrest for playing the Bible?" and the WPC fixed me with a stare and said, "If you broadcast material that causes offence under the Public Order Act then we will have to take matters further. You cannot break the law." I was worried about being cuffed and led out of the shop in front of my customers. … They left the shop and told me they would continue to monitor if we were displaying inflammatory material. At no stage had they spoken to me like I was a law-abiding citizen trying to earn a living. I felt like a criminal.

A spokesman for the Christian Institute, which is preparing a complaint against the police, said: "Once they realised it was just the words of the Bible being shown on the screen they should have walked away. They simply told Mr Murray that he had to stop showing the Bible and warned him that they would continue to monitor what he was doing. This is intimidatory and completely unacceptable. It is a problem right across the country that the police are under huge political pressure to be seen to respond to anything homophobic."

"The interesting thing about this case," commented The Mail on Sunday, "is that it no longer seems absurd or shocking. And no wonder, given the large number of Christian victims of 'equality and diversity' now seeking redress from the European Court of Human Rights." And yet, despite the diabolic "gay charter" known as the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which place each and every one of us under criminal pressure to conform to homosexual dogma, and notwithstanding the obsessive efforts by the last Labour government to outlaw it and continued attempts by ignorant police bullies to suppress it, Christian free speech, and thus the Bible itself, is still protected by British law. But only thanks to the "Waddington amendment." To recap:

In July 2009, last minute Christian lobbying in the House of Lords saw this amendment retained in the Public Order Act 1986 to protect free speech, defeating in the process Labour's attempt to include "clause 61" in the Coroners and Justice Bill. This clause would have classed criticism of homosexual conduct (e.g. 1 Romans 26-28) as inciting "homophobic hatred," thereby removing all protection for those who express views on sexual ethics. Boundless opportunities would have opened up for police to investigate, interrogate, prosecute and imprison Christians simply for holding a viewpoint unacceptable to the State.

So let us not underestimate where the nationwide aggression towards Christians, as routinely displayed by our brainwashed constabulary, is heading. Free speech in Britain hangs by a very fine thread; one that both major political parties would like to sever. A re-elected Labour government would of course seek to reintroduce "clause 61" and remove the "Waddington amendment." But the present "conservative" government harbours both the same pro-"gay" sympathies and dictatorial mentality as the neo-Marxist ideologues they replaced. Last May, the Daily Mail's political sketch-writer Quentin Letts was alarmed to hear the multi-millionaire Minister for Equality, Lynne Featherstone, slip out her Orwellian plans during a response to a query in the Commons. Although "fashionably attired and less of a boot-faced menace than some of her Labour predecessors," wrote Letts:

On the "hate crimes" question she said that she envisaged the creation of "third-party reporting centres" to allow alleged victims of such crimes to alert the police to possible infractions of the law. We were not given details of these "third-party reporting centres" but they sound highly questionable being both a dilution of police stations and an extension of police-like powers. That problem was not aired. Labour just heard Ms Featherstone's answer and shut up, being sated. [DM, 6/5/11]

Rather than fleeting mention in a satirical sketch, this shocking development should have been headlines! Because anonymous "reporting centres" will turbo-charge a legal persecution already at full throttle. Commenting on the Blackpool case, The Mail on Sunday editorial fumed:

Radical Leftists and cultural revolutionaries have always loathed the influence of the Christian religion. In a sustained series of incidents and legal cases, many reported by The Mail on Sunday, the new authorities have shown themselves bitterly prejudiced against individual Christians, sometimes as preachers, sometimes as public employers, sometimes as owners of hotels or other businesses.

[…] This surreptitious revolution instinctively seeks to change our culture behind our backs. It softens us up for years before it shows its hand. How long will it be before the figures of Jesus and Moses, which now adorn the Law Courts in London to remind us of the origin of our civilisation, are removed because they are deemed 'offensive' — and it seems quite normal? The enemies of Christianity have worked in the dark for quite long enough. The time has come for our society to debate its Christian nature openly.

Also fiercely critical of the BBC's anti-Christian agenda, including its stealthy introduction of the terms CE ("Common Era") and BCE ("Before Common Era") to replace AD and BC, the urgent Mail editorial might have been penned for CO! Better still, and even more CO-like, was the lengthy article adjacent to it; a trenchant piece by James Delingpole which probed the deeper cause of the anti-Christian effect. Titled, "How the BBC fell for a Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within," it explained the revolutionary influence of one Herbert Marcuse:

He deliberately set out to dismantle every last pillar of society — tradition, hierarchy, order — and key to victory would be a Leftist takeover of the language including 'the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote … discrimination on the grounds of race and religion … his teachings formed the intellectual bedrock for every revolutionary group from the Black Panthers to the Baader-Meinhof gang. And also for that generation of long-haired students who now occupy senior positions in universities, in the judiciary, in government, in the civil service and, of course, at the BBC. […] Thanks to the sterling work done by his acolytes, Marcuse's most fervent desires — and Orwell's darkest predictions — are coming true.

It was a bracing dose of reality — as far as it went. Predictably and reflexively, the Mail self-censored for fear of the Jews and self-preservation (i.e. advertising revenue). For although Marcuse was identified with unusual candour and accuracy as "a Jewish academic," the Frankfurt School connection was duly omitted, leaving readers unaware of the neo-Marxist JINO cabal plotting "to destroy civilisation" alongside him!

This critical omission would have been akin to Delingpole blaming the myriad catastrophes associated with so-called "family planning" on the International Planned Parenthood Federation alone, without mentioning eugenics and the pioneering "family planners," like Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes, who set it all in train while crusading for selective destruction and breeding of human beings. Similarly, when it comes to the pivotal Jewish influence on a post-Christian culture that is suppressing religious freedom after the fashion of 20th Century totalitarian regimes, we need nothing less than full historical disclosure.

Yet the otherwise excellent Mail article offered no clear answers to the big questions, such as: Who and what motivated Marcuse to foment this "aggressive secularism" condemned by Pope Benedict for attempting to eliminate God? Who and what opened up the perverse denial and substitution of God's Law, leaving us prey to an ethical edifice governed by the anarchic god of Self or the totalising gods of Statism? Who and what left influential homosexuals like Sir Adrian Fulford, High Court Judge and judge on the UN International Criminal Court, free to claim that "Pink Law will not be an anomaly but rather the shape of things to come"? And if the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission proudly mimics Latin America dictators like Hugo Chavez by likening Christianity to an infection, all the while protecting and promoting sodomitical transmitters of actual deadly viruses, how did it come to this?

British Evangelical David Skinner, who is campaigning for repeal of the Sexual Orientation Regulations, is more candid than Delingpole:

The real enemies are not the homosexuals, who are both victims and sinners (like the rest of us) in need of salvation, not from a broken society but a broken world. It is their political masters who manipulate them in order to do their work of deconstructing society. This is a well-documented history which goes back further than 1997, even further than the 60s. Read up on the various streams that have converged to shape the face of the 21st century, such as the work of Alfred Kinsey, Hugh Heffner and his Playboy Magazine and the enormous influence that cultural Marxism, political correctness and the Frankfurt School, have had in destroying Biblical marriage and the family, the very bulwarks against barbarism and the sexual anarchy that brought previous civilisations crashing down.

This is much closer to the truth. But once again it avoids the J-word. Yet it was not Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists who oversaw the corruption of Western media, cinema, education, religion and politics. The Jewish Frankfurt School, sponsored by such institutions as CBS, Columbia University, the American Jewish Committee and B'nai B'rith, orchestrated all of that in the process of becoming the dominant force in sociological and communications theory. Its "Critical Theory," contrived by a Jewish membership according to a Jewish worldview, is not only the basis of today's "entertainment industry" (a phrase which the School coined), but also of the public opinion polls which have become the decisive factor in American politics. The politically correct persecution of Christians is also the direct result of their "Authoritarian Personality'' project; another pseudo-theory devised as a weapon to be used against Jewish enemies.

So, while Jews and homosexuals both find scriptural passages "hateful," it is the former who facilitated the laws that allow the latter to call the police on a whim, in order to intimidate, silence and prosecute Christians who quote divine injunctions that rebuke them. Even Rabbi Daniel Lappin, who would surely know, has warned U.S. Christians to open their eyes and realize that they "are under relentless attack" from "Secular Judaism" and the powerful Jewish Left: who promote homosexuality, same-sex marriage, pornography, abortion, media corruption of our morals, removal of public symbols of Christianity, as well as wars in the Mideast in defense of Israel — anything to weaken Christian America.

V. Blowback

We gain naught and risk all by covering over the Jewish roots of this anti-Christian epidemic out of fear — or on the misguided pretext that Koranic Islamists are more menacing and worthy of attention than Kabalistic JINOs. This is the line taken for granted and spun by the same blame-shifters who hold the Catholic Church responsible for every tragedy ever to befall the Jewish people. One Judaic blogger spouted the B'nai B'rith party line thus:

The Jews are NOT promoting brain-washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people. The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels. Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems. Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them.

Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

The last point might be considered petard-hoisting of Olympian calibre: given the Jewish-inspired legislation that allows Muslims to censor history in this regrettable way. Pots and kettles also spring to mind when Jews, who blame the Church for all their woes, start telling Muslims to stop "blaming Jews for all their problems"! In other words, despite some valid points of comparison, our examination of the corrosive Jewish modus vivendi and modus operandi reveals the other side of the coin: the hypocrisy, ignorance and blind-eye turning of the complainant. Not least apropos Marxist history and the violence famously and disproportionately perpetrated by Jewish revolutionaries. The fact that deceitful, incendiary, racist passages litter both the Koran and the Talmud also conveniently escapes him, not to say the murderous fulminations against non-Muslims and non-Jews they elicit from radical imams and rabbis alike.

As the principle targets and victims of both these diabolical worldviews — the meat in the sandwich, as it were — Catholics need to consider whether ferocious Imams and suicide bombers are any more threatening to Christian faith, life, culture and free speech than urbane, godless JINOs with an agenda? Are they worse, say, than Hollywood directors like Eli Roth, who corrupt minds and morals on a daily basis; or Zionist leaders like terrorist Menachem Begin, who dictate US foreign policy and foster unjust wars triggering mass death and destruction; or the ADL-controlled Office of Global Anti-Semitism, that oversees a Jewish thought-crime charter; or a worldwide JINO network able to dictate who is a fit and proper person to address the Catholic faithful or anyone else?

Beyond such queries and the similar traits and obvious differences between Judaism and Islam, it is, of course, the shared failure of Jews and Muslims to acknowledge the Divinity of Christ and His Church that poses the real threat to souls and mankind — and therefore to Christians, who bear the fallout from the lust for power and control of both sides.

On the demographically massive Islamic front, this is sought by the Muslim Brotherhood (further strengthened by the so-called Arab Spring) pulling socio-political levers with a view to a global caliphate under totalitarian Sharia law. Conversely, the Masonic heavyweights on the numerically tiny but financially, politically and culturally powerful Jewish side seek dominance by other means. As Ted Pike observes:

It is obvious that ADL/ B’nai B’rith, Israel, and international Zionism are demanding a place of freedom from constructive criticism. Americans do not give such to our government, politicians, or military. Yet the Jewish-dominated Department of Global Anti-Semitism expects us to give it to a foreign government, Israel. What does freedom from criticism for Jews and Israel really mean? It is not compassion, or compensation for centuries of Jewish suffering. It is not real security for Israel. Freedom from criticism is what the Neros, Napoleons, Hitlers and Stalins of history were similarly obsessed to obtain — at the price of others' freedom. It’s called dictatorship.

To escape the external Islamic threat we must first defeat this escalating secular aggression and repression within. In order to do that we must stop kidding ourselves and understand "the kind of war we are in"; one that involves fighting simultaneously on several fronts apart from Islam. This is not possible if we live in fear; if we are afraid to apportion blame justly and directly. As Robert Hickson says, "atrophying self-censorship shrivels our own knowledge of reality, and impairs the communication of that reality (i.e., the truth) to others." Ergo, since there is no life and freedom without the oxygen of truth, ignoring the "strategic subversion" of Jewish solve et coagula is "self-sabotaging." James Delingpole rightly warns that "complacency" before the entrenched neo-Marxist Marcusian elite he decried in his helpful Mail article is "fatal." But so is anything less than the full picture presented in this series. Let us frame it here in summary form.

Ignored at Vatican II but never repudiated despite furious lobbying and propagandising by the Jews and their global media, the teaching of Pope Gregory the Great decreed that Jews must be protected from harm but Catholics, in turn, must be protected from the spiritual and moral corruption of the Jews. Known as Sicut Iudeis non, aversion to this wise and balanced teaching, so carefully observed by all pre-conciliar pontiffs, allowed neo-Modernists to make common cause with "the enemies of whole human race" [1Thess. 2:15-16]; the successors of those who rejected Christ and persecuted His flock in St. Paul's day. Which is to say that Rome entered into "dialogue" with precisely the wrong people: a New Sanhedrin operating under the umbrella of B'nai B'rith, the Jewish Masonic Lodge dedicated to the destruction of the Catholic Church.

Abandonment of Sicut Iudeis non resulted in abject ignorance of the traditional teaching on the Jews at every level of the Church. This left Catholics high and low prey to instrumentalisation and politically correct subjugation by Jewish interests, as signalled by apologetic popes who even misrepresent Catholic tradition in a bid to stifle missionary zeal for the conversion of Jews. And so attempting to conduct Jewish-Catholic relations without the cautionary, guiding principle of Sicut Iudeis non produced debilitating compromise and even outright falsification of the Faith (Assisi, Oberammergau, Covenant and Mission, et. al.).

Concurrently, as all this played out in the ecumenical arena, a parallel agenda saw the West spiritually, morally, culturally and socially eviscerated: Christ, His Church and Catholic influence all but expunged from the public square. The Jewish elite admit to leading this purge, using "hate crimes" as a central plank; ostensibly to engineer a pristine secular environment free from all traditional Catholic beliefs, attitudes and values that the godless Frankfurt School JINOs regarded as fascist and were determined to eradicate.

"Ostensibly" is the key word here. In fact, it was all about creating, together with fellow travellers, our "modern" age; an incoherent and iniquitous (Christ-less) era that Jewish writers like Yuri Slezkinestrongly associate with Judaism. In his excellent book The Jewish Century, Slezkine even exclaims that we are all Jews now insofar as we are "modern" — which is to say thoroughly secularised, rootless and fragmented. Neocon Michael Ledeen proudly described this Talmudic modernisation as a process of "Creative Destruction." Destructive, that is, of Catholic civilisation and the Social Kingship of Christ, while creating from its ruins the Empire of Mammon.

Writing immediately after 9/11, Ledeen was pushing the "regime change" long planned by corporately-connected Zionist Neocons, both Jewish and Gentile, within the Bush administration. This involved the export of post-Christian Big Government-Big Corporation democracy — aka "crony capitalism" — to the Middle East, with a view to the 'destructive creation' of a post-Islamic, Israel-friendly, "modern" consumer market, regardless of the cost in blood, treasure and religion. Not only Western corporate profiteering in post-war Iraq speaks to this agenda [see neo-Conned and neo-Conned Again!, IHS, 2005], so does the blunt assessment of Bishop Al Jamil of the Patriarchate of Antioch of the Syrians in Lebanon. The Bishop decried a policy that seeks to make of the Middle East a simple ensemble "of religions of various sects and of other components forged by political designs, which have as the sole result the destruction of the true and beautiful Middle East, to create a monster that will always have need to recover and be cured in the hospital of international politics […] a policy that is without history, without tradition, without religious ethics, without a Redeemer, without God" [Inside the Vatican, Dec. 2010].

According to US State Department diktats, merely to allude to the possibility of a guiding Jewish interest in all of this is to exhibit "anti-Semitism." In truth, we have moved beyond even that extreme phase. For if, according to secular Jewish definition, to be "anti-modern" is to be "anti-Semitic," then Catholics don't need to open their mouths to be accused: we are all "anti-Semites" now! We cannot avoid the charge because the primacy we afford the spiritual is incompatible with Slezkine's materialistic "Jewish Age." As Cardinal Piacenza, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, recently insisted: "the tempests of the dominant culture" can blow as furiously as they like against the supernatural reality but "The true priority and the true modernity is holiness!"

Inevitably, therefore, the false modernity constructed by secular Jews and Judaised gentiles left the West "vulnerable to pernicious influences"; above all to powerful vested interests and their totalitarian statutes which seek to proscribe unflattering discussion of Jewish affairs. The JINOs, however, perceive only one "pernicious influence": Catholicism. They are acutely aware of the detrimental impact a return to uncompromising Catholic Tradition would have on their projects. Nothing else could logically explain their atheistic apoplexy over such matters as the lifting of the SSPX excommunications, evangelical outreach to Jews or reaffirmations that the New Testament supersedes the Old.

Rising tide
It does not take a combined degree in psychology and sociology to see that all we have considered is one long recipe for blowback: an almighty anti-Jewish backlash. Recently, the editor of an online magazine explained it simply enough in another context. After Al Gore compared climate change sceptics to racists and a New York Times columnist called them "vile," he opined: "I do try to keep an open mind on climate change, but when honest questions are regarded as depraved and obscene, I tend to favour the opposite side. Does anyone else feel the same way?"

Yes we do. Tired of seeing honest critics, the eccentric included, being labelled as "anti-Semitic" racists and a danger to the State for simply airing opinions critical of Judaism and the machinations of the Jewish interest groups — while Catholics are expected to take defamatory Jewish diatribes and mockery of the Church and Christ's Vicar on the chin — many within and without the Church are fed up with the inequity and injustice of it all.

Last month, the Catholic Civitas Institute in Paris organised a national protest against "Christianophobia," citing a raft of examples which highlight the "anti-Christian provocations" completely ignored by the same French media that emotes passionately over the most petty anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim offences. During Holy Week 2011, more than a dozen churches and chapels in France were vandalised or profaned without a word of protest from the media. And yet outrage and protests would have gripped the entire country had this involved synagogues or mosques. Similarly, when a Muslim or Jewish grave is profaned, journalists, moralists, philosophers and politicians line up to condemn the shocking act. "But not one word is said about the fact that more than 90% of the profanations of cemeteries committed in France concern Christian graves." Jewish and Muslim religious figures and symbols are also respected while Christ and all that is dear and sacred to Catholics are regularly subject to mockery and desecration in advertising, on TV and at tax-payer funded plays and art exhibitions. "Enough is enough!" exclaimed Alain Escada, Secretary General of Civitas, calling for a mass gathering on 29 October to voice Christian disgust and outrage.

It is all depressingly familiar. Locally, the BBC has finally damned itself for anti-Christian bias! A survey it carried out among viewers and staff concluded that: "In terms of religion, there were many [of the 4.500 surveyed] who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity." In fact they complained that minority religions were better represented and Christians were portrayed as "weak," "unsympathetic" or "bigoted" [Daily Mail, 1/6/11]. Christians in every country endure the same prejudice, with Catholics bearing the lion's share. Indeed if the Church followed the brutal JINO line, there would not be enough repressive legislation and jails in the world to respond to and contain the murderers, torturers, liars, defamers and blasphemers, East and West, who routinely attack its Divine Founder and His earthly Vicar and flock. If Catholic organisations espoused the vindictiveness of the Talmudic Jewish elite, B'nai B'rith and its network would have been outlawed long ago, and Abe Foxman and his Masonic brothers all imprisoned for perennial incitement of anti-Catholic hatred.

Yet all we hear is regular bleating and drum-beating from our persecutors — organs like the ADL-run office in the US State Department — about the alleged rise of anti-Semitism! By what benchmarks? The farcical standards of the fanatical Abe Foxman and Deborah Lipstadt? Tightly-controlled media reports that turn every solitary anti-Jewish incident (or non-incident) into another Kristallnacht? Even if their fears are true, it does not excuse the shocking and inflammatory disregard for the anti-Christian free-for-all typically described by Civitas. This chafing sore of injustice and the fact that the invariably bogus "anti-Semitic" charge continues to ruin careers and reputations and threaten free association and free speech, all reflects badly on blameless Jews through guilt by (JINO-ADL) association. It is building up a tidal wave of righteous resentment, awakening the soporific and testing the patience of the most tolerant commentators. Even complicit prelates have had enough. As Michael Jones noted:

Dialogue has weakened the resolve of Catholics, but all of this good will has led to no concessions on the part of the Jewish-controlled press. If anything, that press has become more virulently anti-Catholic in response to what they perceive as Catholic weakness. Even the bishops, the main apologists for the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish dialogue, have started to take notice. Archbishop Timothy Dolan tried to explain the Catholic/Jewish double-standard in an op-ed piece he sent to the New York Times, which the Times refused to publish. When it comes to sexual abuse, the Catholic Church is subjected to a "scurrilous … diatribe" by Maureen Dowd "that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish or African-American" faith,

But when the Times "exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuses in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish Community … 40 cases of such abuses in this tiny community last year alone," wrote the archbishop, the district attorney swept the scandal under the rug, and the Times held up the carpet.

Despite decades of covering over Judaic double-standards and aggression in this way, it cannot be sustained without serious reaction at some critical juncture. This could be much closer than we think. The following two comments posted beneath the Jewish Journal profile of bloodthirsty German-hating director Eli Roth typify the frustration being voiced with increasing frequency:

  • "Judaic bloodthirst is justified when it comes to Nazi atrocities, but Palestinian revenge is considered 'anti-semitic, hateful, extremist, terroristic' when they want to retaliate against Israeli oppression and torture."
  • "The Jewish community is very petulant and immature and violent. The minds of our children are being molded by the likes of Roth. The movie and TV industry is controlled by Jews. I, for one, do not like their preponderant influence on American culture through the three powerful venues of the banking establishment, the media, and the government. At some point one gets tired of manipulation, and if the manipulation continues, anger and resentment eventually surface.

Conservative socio-political groups, too, speak of looming reaction to the destructive behaviour of the Jewish lobbies. In August 2009, William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration savaged the Southern Poverty Law Center:

I personally feel that the actions of the SPLC are increasing the chances of political violence in America as this group is trying to silence free expression of concerns and redress of grievances of tens of millions of Americans. The Americans the SPLC is targeting are not some violent fringe group, they are heartland Americans of every race and political party that believe in the founding principles of the United States!

Since the SPLC is actively involved in state and Federal legislation to reinforce their anti-American agenda, and since the SPLC has been identified in the effort to turn American police into political police … let us therefore resolve to seek the political removal of the SPLC from the media and political processes they seek to control.

These are all mainstream comments. But what about the fringe? In a volatile world resting on a knife-edge of financial collapse and social chaos, the real racists and bigots, who very sadly, like the poor, are always with us, will easily inflame anti-Jewish reaction amid any wider turmoil. Since all minorities are at risk in times of serious public unrest and rioting (already far more common in America and Europe than the major media bothers to report), maximising Jewish resentment is a strategem designed for drastic blowback.

Yet that strategy, of provoking hostile reaction to maintain the facade of anti-Semitic victimhood, goes on, as it has since time immemorial. Having exploited and milked dry what should have been an inexhaustible well of sympathy and goodwill bequeathed to the Jewish people in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the Jewish oligarchy has again placed ordinary Jews at risk. They count on the fact that Christians can be used and abused because they turn the other cheek. But as usual they cannot see the forest for the trees.

Certainly, Catholics are raised to be forgiving and forbearing. The divine and natural law by which they live, however, has been all but replaced by politically correct dictums. Few citizens nowadays even know of the Ten Commandments, let alone comprehend the Christian outlook and adopt it as a selfless way of life. Welcoming Britain's new ambassador to the Holy See just after the British riots last August, Pope Benedict pointed out the "moral relativism" behind them; the basic loss of awareness of what is right and wrong. This, he said, "tends to produce frustration, despair, selfishness and a disregard for the life and liberty of others." The sudden eruption of anarchic violence throughout the nation was just one explosive example of the religious void at the heart of this cause-and-effect. Beyond the abortion holocaust itself, frightening signs are everywhere apparent. The dreadful neglect of the elderly and vulnerable by so many British nurses, and their hellish lack of empathy, is another major indicator of how rapidly our post-Christian society has regressed to animalistic self-interest.

Whenever and wherever Christ is rejected, chaos follows as sure as night follows day. Yet having fomented this de-Christianisation, the JINOs refuse to take heed of where it is heading. "What goes around comes around." Summary justice dispensed by tyrants is always meted out to them in turn. Jewish overseers of the "dictatorship of relativism" are surely on this fatal trajectory.

Only a self-designated elite — a self-serving cabal — could overreach with such suicidal zeal, endangering the diaspora without a care in the world. According to Pat Buchanan, Jewish Neocon Irving Kristol complained about this recklessness over a decade ago,

warning his kinsmen and co-religionists not to antagonize a huge friendly Christian majority by using the courts to de-Christianize the country. Jews who wish to maintain their separate and unique religious and ethnic character ought not be in the vanguard of those seeking to prevent Christians from maintaining the Christian character of their country, said Kristol. He added pungently: "One can easily understand the attractiveness of this vision to Jews. What is less easy to understand is the chutzpah of American Jews in publicly embracing this dual vision. Such arrogance is, I would suggest, a particularly Jewish form of political stupidity." Kristol subtly titled his piece, "On the Political Stupidity of the Jews".

Other sensible Jews and Rabbis, who appreciate that the only Jewish shelter is beneath the Christian umbrella, concur. Rabbi Daniel Lappin, President of the National Jewish-Christian Alliance Toward Tradition, has declared that ADL/B’nai B’rith is stimulating a surge of anti-semitism throughout the world by its arrogance and anti-Christian abrasiveness. Thus, on behalf of Judaism, he has awarded Abe Foxman “Our Own Worst Enemy Award”!

Nor is Don Feder, the founder of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, completely conned by the Neocon-artists. Although he shares the JINO political agenda apropos Israel, he is not one of the "politically stupid" Jews denounced by Kristol, being well aware that "Tens of millions of Protestant Christians in the U.S. and around the world support Israel with an 'uncritical fervor'." One might appraise that kind of robotic messianism in a far more problematic light, but at least Feder, like the two dozen other notable and socially conservative Jewish personalities he attracted to the board of his organisation, understands that "Christians are generally treated to abuse that no other group receives." He lauds the opposition of "devout Catholics — and evangelicals — to abortion-on-demand, euthanasia, gay marriage and the panoply of social positions embraced by the national Democratic Party, academia, the judiciary and much of the media."

Sadly, these voices of Jewish reason lack the leverage to deliver the Jewish people from the manipulation and oppression of their JINO masters, who keep them in a fearful state of psychological and emotional bondage. Jewish high school student Alice Ollstein returned from the 2006 American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference in Washington "feeling manipulated, disturbed and disgusted" by the bossy Jewish Neocons who "got to have the first word and the last word on almost every question." She witnessed non-stop fear-mongering. "Dramatic classical music, red lighting and gigantic signs reading 'Now is the Time' … combined with the montages of terrorism footage projected onto six giant screens, whipped the audience into a 'Save Israel' fervor … the audience seemed eager to agree to anything that would protect Israel — even war…. Each speaker played upon the audience's deepest fears. … the six enormous screens flashed back and forth between Hitler giving anti-Jew speeches and Ahmadinejad giving anti-Israel speeches. Everything was geared toward persuading the audience that another Holocaust is evident… unless we get them first."

Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli musician and former Israeli soldier who was subjected to Zionist propaganda all his life, had a similar awakening. He was one of the Jews the JINOs claim to speak for until he finally rejected "the morally deteriorated conduct of the Jewish state and its supportive Jewish lobbies around the world." He writes that he knew the Zionist propaganda had failed in his case when "I somehow failed to hate the Goyim. This is when I realized for the first time that actually there was no anti-Semitism around. … I also started to suspect the entire official Jewish historical narrative…."

The first JINO dogma Atzmon came to doubt was that "Jew-hating is an irrational act of madness or some backward Christian tendency" (fostered primarily by the Catholic Church and the Popes). He began to entertain the commonsense "possibility that anti-Jewish feelings may come as a response or even retaliation to Jewish acts. The more I learned about the subject, the more I realized that anti-Jewish feelings are often intentionally generated and orchestrated by Jews themselves. This is when I realised that self-loving Jews love to be hated, and more than that, they need it. Indeed, Zionism is maintained by anti-Semitism. Without anti-Semitism there is no need for a Jewish State and without the Holocaust there wouldn't even be a Jewish State."

To some, the Jewish State is a prophetic homecoming. To others, a tragic mistake that owes more to the vindictive Jewish revolutionary spirit than it does to providence. As recounted in Simon Seabag-Montefiore's (pro-Zionist) tome Jerusalem: The Biography [Weidenfield & Nicholson, 2011], Israel was contrived by a handful of wealthy and well-connected Zionists like Chaim Weizmann and Theodore Herzl (who "loathed Jerusalem") and socialists and terrorists of the Ben-Gurion variety mentioned earlier. This godless mix of gentlemanly idealists ("half-pragmatist, half-utopian") and ruthless revolutionaries represented few but themselves; the Jewish diaspora settled around the globe being largely indifferent or opposed to the mega-chutzpah of erecting a Jewish state slap bang in the middle of enemy territory. Herzl embodied this disconnect, believing in "a Zionism, not built from the bottom by settlers, but granted by emperors and financed by plutocrats." Although the Holocaust provided fresh impetus for his plans, not even that cataclysm sparked a mad rush to embrace the concept. Both before and after its 1948 establishment, acceptance of the project was gained only after decades of persistent lobbying, terror and steady Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Whatever its merits or demerits, in keeping with Atzmon's thesis of deliberate provocation, Israel has become the major vehicle of anti-Jewish hostility worldwide, creating an apocalyptic tinderbox for the rest of us in the process. A hardly surprising turn of events, since its establishment by unrepresentative Jewish forces in such a hostile environment clearly had no regard for the prime socio-political consideration — the common good (both Middle Eastern and international). After all, there were other less explosive geographical alternatives available whereby to realise their dream of a Jewish homeland cum safe-haven while preserving the common good. Among them was "Uganda or rather part of Kenya," offered by Arthur Balfour and provisionally accepted by Herzl, only to be overruled by the Zionist revolutionary faction.

Whether or not he considered that the common good trumped all ancient claims to geographical property, just as it overrides an absolute right to private property, for St. Pius X the religious aspect was paramount. He could not support a Jewish state. As related by Herzl himself, during a twenty-five minute audience on 26 January 1904, the Pope was adamant, stating:

We are unable to favour this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem — but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

… I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared — in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them.

The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

[…] This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner — on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

[The Diaries of Theodor Herzl by Marvin Lowenthal]

To this truly great Vicar of Christ, the only canonized pontiff since 1712, such an atheistic construct could only bode ill. Not that this stopped the Zionists from playing the religious card to get their way. Finally rejecting all the alternatives and sticking with their problematic Palestinian vision, they sought to sway Jewish opinion with a faux religious appeal: the mystical notion, ever popular among sola scriptura Protestants, of a "Return" to the Promised Land. Never mind that most Zionists (like the vast majority of the irreligious diaspora) could give no meaningful context to "Return."

Evoking the sort of power and fear that so disturbed young Alice Ollstein, they have contrived ever since to make support for their Zionist fiefdom the litmus test of Jewish loyalty, whether the diaspora likes it or not. They have even succeeded in having reasonable critics of Israel listed on the US State Department's "anti-Semitic" checklist. On which basis the Gaza offensive alone must have added untold numbers of "anti-Semites" to the annual statistics — Arabs, Gentiles and even Jews like Uri Avnery.

Described by Noam Chomsky as "one of the wisest voices in Israel," Avnery wrote that after the Israeli military victory: "What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet. In the end, this war is a crime against ourselves too, a crime against the State of Israel."

The independent Jerusalem Media and Communications Center should probably be listed as well, since it concluded that far from weakening militant Islamist groups and their sponsors, "the war weakened and undermined to a very large extent the moderates — not only in Palestine but also in the region" [Tobias Buck, FT, 6/12/09].

Ari Shavit, another Jewish war supporter, warned that the carnage is "Destroying [Israel's] soul and its image. Destroying it on world television screens, in the living rooms of the international community and most importantly, in Obama's America" [Haaretz, 16/1/09].

All these critics fit neatly into the State Department's catch-all definitions of anti-Semitism, for effectively peddling Gilad Atzmon's view: that "anti-Jewish feelings are often intentionally generated and orchestrated by Jews themselves" since "self-loving Jews love to be hated." As Chomsky comments on Uri Avnery's lament: "There is good reason to believe that he is right. Israel is deliberately turning itself into one of the most hated countries in the world, and is also losing the allegiance of the population of the West, including younger American Jews, who are unlikely to tolerate its persistent shocking crimes for long. Decades ago, I wrote that those who call themselves 'supporters of Israel' are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction. Regrettably, that judgment looks more and more plausible."

As a so-called Libertarian Socialist, Chomsky was speaking to purely humanitarian concerns. He might also have mentioned any other number of materialistic crises afflicting Israel. Like the massive divide between the tiny number of super-wealthy JINOs who control the country and the rest of the population; a gulf that makes huge wealth gaps in other Western countries look reasonable in comparison. But it is the moral and spiritual degradation that explains why the New Sanhedrin is simultaneously running Israel into the ground and leading global secularisation from the front.

Among other indicators of this dissolute condition was a July 2010 protest by 850 American Rabbis in advance of a homosexual parade, scheduled to begin in a religious neighbourhood in Jerusalem and conclude with a reception at the Israeli Parliament. Underlining the JINO-homo "hate crime" nexus explained earlier, they branded the Israeli Supreme Court the "Supreme Court of Sodom." Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America, issued a statement which read in part:

For years now the imperial judiciary of Israel has demonstrated a clear bias against things and people religious and the traditional values and heritage of a Jewish people described in the Torah (Bible) as a "Nation of Priests and a Holy People". The Israeli Government aided by a socially libertine Supreme Court … constantly denigrates the religious sensibilities and faith concerns of not only traditional Jews worldwide but global inter-religious faith communities that consider Israel to be the "Holy Land not the Homo Land".

Most recently the mayor of Tel Aviv joined the Israeli Minister of Tourism to announce the funding of an initial 6-month outreach effort to attract homosexual tourists from France and Germany. So while the Torah states in Leviticus 18:22-30: "Let not the land vomit you out for having contaminated it" (with these abominations)…, the Israeli officials import as much deviance and immorality as they can, worldwide.

The latest outrage, the sodomy celebration in Jerusalem, specifically planned to begin in an ultra-religious neighborhood, is nothing less than the spiritual rape of the Holy Land with the active support of the Israeli State, her courts and her police. This is just the next stage of confronting and silencing religious opposition locally and worldwide.


Jewish Portents: Catholic Hope
Thus, far from a physical and spiritual safe-haven, Israel has become the pre-eminent lightening rod for anti-Jewish sentiment, even outranking Abe Foxman: the ultimate "self-loving Jew who loves to be hated." Alarmed by this righteous response to arrogant Zionism (or "Nationalistic Judaism," as disgusted Israeli Intelligence chief General Harkabi described the movement in Israel’s Fateful Hour), Elias Davidsson, a Jewish native of Jerusalem, insisted that "Jews must know their place and content themselves with influence derived from their small number, Jews must learn some humility." Alas, it is a virtue unknown to the JINOs. Pernicious and insidious, at the zenith of their influence, they push on regardless, their dictatorial intent and self-serving ever more obvious to Jewish and non-Jewish eyes. Meanwhile, the Church remains in turmoil, its leadership emasculated by neo-Modernism, human respect and false charity; Social Gospel putty in Talmudic hands.

When the precarious state of the world is factored in, including Islamic reaction and the cruel neglect of the persecuted Christian majority, the scene is ominously and tragically reminiscent of the perfect storm that gathered force in the latter 19th century, as described by Georg Ratzinger in Civilta Cattolica (see Part I, Aug-Sept). While fiercely decrying the rise of anti-Semitism, which he attributed in large part to haughty, self-destructive Jewish behaviour (immoral and unethical business practises, widespread criminal activity etc.), he forecast that the Jews would be the first to suffer because:

The hegemony of social corruption has ended in every age in terror. This solution is no longer plausible. Either we are going to have Christian reform in our future or we are going to have the reign of racial hatred. The Jews should be under no illusions about what they can expect from the racial hatred that is waiting for them in the near future. Their arrogance is going to turn quickly into bitter disappointment in the future.

As Michael Jones noted, Pope Benedict's great uncle was especially prophetic when he wrote in 1892:

A reaction against the jewification of our culture is now building momentum among the common man. That movement is hardly perceptible today, but it is going to grow like an avalanche. That movement would be irresistible at this very moment if it weren't lacking a leader [Ratzinger's word was of course the German word "Fuehrer," which took on a whole new dimension some 40 years later].

Jones suggests that "what he said of working class Christians in the 1890s is now true of Muslims in 2011." Ratzinger wrote:

Since the government and the legislature provide no protection against the usurious and exploitative Jews and their lackeys, the people take to the streets. That is the meaning of anti-Semitism and the uproar it is now causing. We see in this a kind of economic self-defense and the moral defense mechanism of the exploited. It's a sign to the government and the legislature that the necessary legal protection isn't there, and a sign that the administration and the legal system aren't offering the assistance that they need to offer. Anti-Semitism is a serious and ultimate warning to the ruling class. If this warning is ignored, if the ruling class thinks that they deal with people with bayonettes, then we are heading toward a revolution that is going to make the Reformation and the French revolution look like child's play by comparison.

That the inevitable "revolution" duly arrived was equally unsurprising to Samuel Roth. In Jews Must Live (1934), he opined with rare Jewish candour:

"Do you believe a whole civilized nation would stand aside, witness what Hitler is doing to the Jews without a protest, unless there were real abuses on the part of the Jews which justified what is happening? I am a Jew myself, I know it. … Anti-Semitism is the natural effect of such a social cause. I cannot understand why such a deep mystery is made of this simple cause."

Naturally, the JINOs dismiss the likes of Roth and Ratzinger as bitter and twisted Nazi puppets. But since, on the contrary, the Holy Father holds his relative in high esteem, he should revisit and reflect upon Onkel Georg's extraordinary prescience because our modern Jewish Age evokes many similar disturbing signs. If he is to see them clearly, however, he must put aside his ecumenical obsession and stop courting the JINO-B'nai B'rith crowd.

Firstly, because he will gain absolutely no concessions or favours by bending over backwards to accommodate the Jews. It only courts humiliation (like his belittlement by the rabbis during visits to the Holy Land and the Cologne synagogue) and continued savaging of the Church and Pope by the Jewish media. Witness the March 2010 edition of the major B'nai B'rith organ, Newsweek:

"The Bad Shepherd" screamed the headline, just above a picture of a "cold" and "aloof" Holy Father and a vicious concluding paragraph: "What's needed really, is a new vision for a church that is more human. Is Benedict the man to provide that? Alas, probably not" [The Remnant].

Secondly, because not ditching Catholic-Jewish dialogue will continue to facilitate the gravest consequences for faith and freedom within and without the Church; not least through the "legalistic persecution of Catholicism" that so concerns the Holy Father. This, he frankly admits, is being perpetrated against his flock by the "invisible hand" of the Masons — i.e. by his B'nai B'rith partners in "dialogue"!

And thirdly, because if Catholics are merely "dialoguing" rather than actively and zealously seeking to convert the Jews, even and especially "unreachables" like Abe Foxman and Eli Roth, then we are leaving JINOs a free run to build Talmudic "modernity" through all manner of nihilistic vehicles — like Seinfeld, for example; a record-breaking sitcom about the aimless lives of a group of self-absorbed, irreligious, dissolute Jews.

Ex-"Jewish comedy writer" Tom Leopold is living proof that it doesn't have to be this way. A JINO who scripted the lines for the Seinfeld JINOs, Leopold was received into the Church last Easter. Torn by the life-threatening illness of his daughter, he had prayed for help and a sign that God existed. The next day, Christmas Day, a total stranger spoke to him about coming to Christ. "Come Easter I'll still be a comedy writer," he said, "but a Catholic one. I consider my upcoming baptism a blessing."

Rabbis like Daniel Lappin and those in the Rabbinical Alliance, and so many other God-fearing Jews like Don Feder, also witness to the fact that foot-shooting anti-Christian provocations are not a pre-requisite of Jewish leadership or membership. Any more than standing resolutely outside the gates of the Catholic City and refusing invitations to enter is an inescapable Jewish predicament. As Tom Leopold discovered thanks to zealous Catholic outreach, baptism — involving firm rejection of all forms of Talmudic deception, including sexual liberation, racism, Messianic politics, and deconstruction — is always an option. Or it was, until Vatican II, as Pope Benedict himself lamented in his 1988 Ratzinger address to the Chilean bishops:

In the spiritual movements of the post-conciliar era, there is not the slightest doubt that frequently there has been an obliviousness, or even a suppression, of the issue of truth: here perhaps we confront the crucial problem for theology and for pastoral work today. The "truth" is thought to be a claim that is too exalted, a "triumphalism" that cannot be permitted any longer. You see this attitude plainly in the crisis that troubles the missionary ideal and missionary practice. … In effect the conclusion has been drawn, ,,, that in the future we need only seek that Christians should be good Christians, Moslems good Moslems, Hindus good Hindus, and so forth.

Yes, and Jews merely good Jews, Holy Father. Yet according to your recent exhortation to leave them to their own devices until the End Times, that would be the highest aspiration available to desperate souls like Mr Leopold. The Congregation of Notre Dame de Sion, founded by the Ratisbonne brothers for the express purpose of converting the Jews, bears tragic testimony to where this false charity leads in "missionary practice." In 1968, a Sister blithely explained the collapse to U.S. Catholic magazine:

Our founders and the first sisters did think of this in terms of the conversion of the Jews, and their first work was to baptize and educate some Jewish children as Christians. Then the sisters undertook other tasks available to religious women, though they continued to pray for the conversion of the Jews. Today we no longer use their formulas of prayer, and we do not think of the relationship in terms of conversion to the Church. In this we are in line with the present theological thought of the Church. As the Declaration on the Relationships of the Church to the Non-Christian Religions implies, Judaism is an authentic way of salvation for Jewish believers. God speaks to them in their synagogue worship and through their other institutions. We do not seek or desire that they become Catholics.

After years of dialogue, this groovy 60's cop out reached its devilish denouement in 2002 when a committee of the US Catholic Conference, under Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore, produced the Catholic-Jewish statement Covenant and Mission; affirming that Jews could be saved without accepting Christ as their Saviour. It was final, incontrovertible proof of Michael Jones' basic contention that "The Church can proclaim the Gospel or she can have good relations with the Jews, but dialogue, which is to say both at the same time, is impossible."

Providentially, however, as so often in our long history, this low point marked the start of a hierarchical re-think. "In May of 2009," writes Jones, "the same bishops had to issue a 'clarification' which repudiated their own statement. It turns out that, upon reflection, the bishops concluded that the Mosaic covenant was no longer 'eternally valid,' and Jews did have to convert if they wanted to be saved after all." Significantly, Pat Buchanan noted that "When Abe Foxman, screech owl of the Anti-Defamation League, railed that this marks a Catholic return to such 'odious concepts as "supersessionism",' he was politely ignored."

Since his tenacious writings, like those of Robert Sungenis, have contributed mightily to this hopeful trend, I gladly leave the final word to Jones:

The American bishops’ repudiation of Cardinal Keeler’s "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" marks more than just a stunning reversal of 50 years of bad theology. That repudiation had global political implications as well, implications which became clear when the Jerusalem Post ran an article on "why Israel is losing the PR war." According to the Jerusalem Post, the main reason for the precipitous drop in Israel’s approval rating (from 70 to 40 percent) is the "resurgence of replacement theology," their term for supersessionism, i.e., the traditional Catholic teaching that the Jews have been superseded, and that the Church is the New Israel.

[…] The ADL now realizes that the Church is heading in the other direction on all of the issues the Jews consider important. After 40 years of unprecedented advances in subversion and covert warfare, the Jews are finally starting to lose their control over the Catholic mind. Dialogue is a failed experiment. It had no roots in tradition. In just about every instance it involved the bishops in compromising the gospel. … [T]he main requirement for dialogue is a willingness to suppress some Catholic truth of importance to the person engaged in dialogue. There was always an aura of make-believe surrounding the Church’s dialogue with the world which began in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The main element of make believe had to do with wishing away the Church’s enemies. It turns out that the Church’s enemies did not disappear after all. Instead, they used their feigned status as our friends to gain unprecedented hegemony over the Church they never gave up trying to destroy.

The Church fathers were wiser than their successors in this regard. They understood, as Augustine said, that "Heretics, Jews and Heathens have made a unity against Unity." History is another word for the story of this alliance and its war against the Church. In spite of the illusions generated by the Second Vatican Council, nothing has changed.

… As we sober up from the intoxication generated by the failed experiment of the ‘60s, we are left with certain fundamental truths. There can be no dialogue without Logos [i.e. the light of reason of the Word made flesh]. The only antidote to rejection of Logos is rejection of that rejection, otherwise known as conversion.

Since dialogue has made conversion impossible, it is time to dispense with dialogue and return to the tradition that promoted evangelization and conversion as the antidote to the world’s ills, because unity with fellow believers is more important than the ability to chatter on endlessly with our enemies.




Last August, despite printing slanderous diatribes against him, the "Catholic" Times refused to publish this letter of self-defence from biblical scholar Robert Sungenis. We therefore put it on public record: both as an Addendum to this edition, and to underline the routine disregard for truth, justice and charity by the bishops' media lackeys.

Dear Editor (Kevin Flaherty)
It has come to my attention that a person named Ruth Rees has made some rather pungent accusations against me in your paper, The Catholic Times. If you would be so kind, please include my response in your next issue. Contrary to what Ms. Rees says, I am not “anti-semitic,” since that accusation, at least the way it was originally understood in polite society, requires one to have an irrational hatred of the Jewish race; hating Jews simply because they are Jews. Ms. Rees will not find one statement I have ever made to that effect. In actuality, what Ms. Rees doesn’t like is that I expose the malfeasance that various Jewish people have perpetrated in the name of being Jews (e.g., taking land in Palestine because they think they have a divine right to it, and killing Christian Palestinians in the process; putting people in jail for even questioning how many Jews were killed in World War II, to name a few pertinent issues).

These are the practices of what I call “ultra-philosemites,” those who believe that “Jews, as Jews,” as one Jewish sympathizer insisted to me, are more blessed and protected by God than other people. These ideologues, to one degree or another, directly transgress Scripture and Tradition by teaching that the Jews are still the Chosen People; that they have a separate covenant and mission with God; that it isn’t necessary for them to accept the Christian Gospel for salvation because God will save them directly; that Catholics should celebrate various Jewish rituals; and that the Church Fathers were wrong in applying Old Testament prophecies to the Catholic Church and not national Israel.

Robert Williams, the very person responsible for inciting the Jews to pressure Westminster Hall to cancel the Pro Ecclesia conference in London on June 18, is a typical example of this ideology. On June 17 he sent me an email stating: “The real Jewish people are the salt of the earth and I am doubly blessed to have family members who are of that household of Faith. Anyone who raises a hand against them whether they be Egyptian potentate, Tsar or Dictator will always lose...because they are the handiwork of God. Our lord bears the mark of his circumcision along with his crucified marks for all eternity. Our Blessed Mother is also a Jewess forever, and one day all Israel will be saved.” This is nothing but spiritual racism, as if just being Jewish gets you a spiritual ‘get out of jail free’ card. Neither Jesus nor his Mother ever promoted their Jewish race as something that made them proud and special. What made them special is their devotion to God, not the Jews. If we lived in the Old Testament, perhaps some of what Mr. Williams wishes for would be valid, but we live in the New Testament where none of it is valid, since St. Paul said in Gal. 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” and that “God is no respecter of persons.” Anyone promoting more than what St. Paul said about the Jews is teaching heresy. But with increasing fervour, a racist ideology is being propagated today by Jewish and Zionist sympathizers who wield the “anti-semitic” label for anyone who stands in their way.

Ms. Rees also accuses me of issuing “insulting comments about Jewish converts,” but the reality is, I wouldn’t think of “insulting” them. That is not my MO. I merely point out that Jewish converts, in their published teachings and public lectures, are some of the worst offenders of these racist positions, but which they cleverly cloak in spiritual dress. Unfortunately, they sometimes receive endorsements from high-ranking clerics who are pressured by the demands of ecumenism. Ms. Rees appeals to The Association of Hebrew Catholics as her benchmark, but it is this very institution that promotes several of the above errors, so much so that its former spiritual advisor, Dr. Ray Kevane (who has his doctorate from the Lateran University in Rome and is the brother of Monsignor Eugene Kevane who is the founder of AHC) told me he had to resign from AHC a few years ago specifically because AHC refused to budge from its race-based theological errors (which he, quite frankly, called “heresies”). Dr. Kevane has subsequently defended me against scurrilous attacks, and other notable clerics have done so as well, such as Fr. Brian Harrison.

Ms. Rees also says I issue “disgraceful verbal attacks on popes Paul VI and John Paul II,” but I do no such thing. I respect them for their papal office and it is the very reason I have a picture on my office wall of John Paul II and myself taken when I visited the Vatican in 2002, the very year he conducted, to many a Catholic’s utter dismay, his Assisi prayer meeting in which he called all the world’s pagans together to pray to their false gods. No, I merely object when these popes have said or done things that are not good for the Catholic faith, such as John Paul II’s praying with African animists at Lake Togo; or his turning the other way during the homosexual/pedophile scandal; or his praising of Martin Luther and his apologies for the Inquisition; or his kissing of the Koran, and many other such things. According to Canon Laws 212, 221 & 229, I have the “right and duty” to point out these problems “to the pastors and to all the Christian faithful,” and I am allowed to do so, according to Canon Law 220, without incurring the slanderous remarks of Ms. Rees.

Here is my suggestion for Ms. Rees. If she wants to "pray the five Sorrowful Mysteries", she should pray for her own Jewish brethren who have propagated the above heterodox teachings; and she ought to begin by praying for herself, since she has publicized a personal attack against me filled with innuendos and fabrications. Like many today, Ms. Rees seems interested only in the demagoguery she can incite against critics of things Jewish. If she wants to be civilized about these matters instead of resorting to name-calling, I will gladly hold a public and formal debate with her, or anyone else of her persuasion, and we’ll let the audience judge which of us is telling the truth. So far there have been no takers, nine years running.

Robert Sungenis








Back to Top | Editorials 2011