Benedict and the Jews
The fact that Rome has spent so much time countering objections to this month's Assisi III extravaganza, assuring everyone, especially themselves, that it is not a syncretic enterprise, is itself a vindication of objectors. The desperate spin merely confirms the corrosive nature of a gimmicky franchise initiated by John
Paul II. At very best a misguided PR stunt, it symbolises and promotes the "lethal system of religious indifferentism" [Pius VIII] repeatedly condemned by pre-conciliar popes. If Assisi serves any purpose at all, therefore, it is merely to recall and mourn the walking dead; the many prelates who journeyed to similar talk-fests and returned home in spiritual body bags, having contracted the fatal virus of indifferentism and lost their faith. These episcopal zombies have dragged the Church to the very edge of apostasy with them.
Unwilling to acknowledge that Anglicanism is a "rotting corpse," as Father Paul Crane SJ plainly stated, Archbishop Murphy O'Connor, for one, lost the Catholic plot during years of globe-trotting ARCIC discussions with the oxymoronic "Anglican Communion." He finally signed off a cosily "agreed statement" with his Protestant pals on key doctrinal matters. It was favourably received by almost every Catholic hierarchy in the world — but not, thank God, by the present Holy Father. As Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he found the statement incompatible with Catholic teaching by reason of wrong concepts, omissions and ambiguities.
Thus, Vatican efforts to allay our fears in the build up to October have only served to evoke a sense of d(éjà vu: of hail-fellow-well-met ecumenical jamborees instilling error and confusion, even and especially at the highest levels of the Church. All in the name of a counterfeit Social Gospel.
On the Protestant side, honest evangelical groups share our concerns and express them with the clear-sighted simplicity of a Pius X encyclical. "Let Us Reason Ministries," for example, rightly laments that within the ecumenical movement
By his own admission, the Holy Father's "private" view that we should disavow traditional teachings, apropos conversion of the Jews and their responsibility for the death of Christ, is a sop to his Jewish friends. Assisi III can only reinforce this ecumenical human respect which hinders the salvific mission of the Church.
I. "Peace Train" Theology & The Lodge
In this regard, as with much else, Pope Benedict simply mirrors John Paul II, whose ecumenical journey began with Jerzy Kluger, his life-long Jewish friend from Wadowice. Tragically, the noble interreligious sentiments this great friendship inspired in the young Karol Wojtyla were ultimately deformed by the same insidious Nouvelle Theologie that bewitched Joseph Ratzinger.
As noted by Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, the legendary Thomist who oversaw his doctoral studies at the Angelicum University, Father Wojtyla constructed his own personal theology around the erroneous vocabulary, formulas and intellectual categories of this fashionable neo-Modernism [Witness to Hope, George Weigel, 1999, pp.84-87]. Driven by an almost juvenile discontent and restlessness, a hankering to cross theological boundaries articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas that informed, sustained and protected orthodox faith and belief, proponents of the "New Theology" waged intellectual war against Catholic Tradition. Viewed as too harsh, demanding and difficult for modern man, Scholasticism was an obstacle to the kinder, gentler, easier faith they sought. Above all, it restrained their insatiable desire for a more "inclusive" ecumenical outreach.
And so, casting off the protective and prudent "Old Theology," Fr Wojtyla's interreligious ideals inexorably gave way to Modernist utopianism, ending with the sacrilege, blasphemy and "lethal indifferentism" of Assisi I. Indeed the syncretic images broadcast to the world in 1986 were precisely those damnable fruits predicted by Garrigou-Lagrange, who had repeatedly warned the future pope and his many other Angelicum students (including the radical Fr Chenu) against imbibing and sowing the false seeds of Modernist thought, since "even a small error regarding first ideas and first principles has incalculable consequences which are not foreseen" ["Where is the New Theology Leading Us?", Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Angelicum, 1946].
But John Paul II was far from finished. The "small errors" that had burgeoned to produce the grotesque religious pantomime of Assisi I spiralled on. The rise and rise of arch-Modernist Walter Kasper was indicative.
By 1994, as if his thoroughly Lutheranised German diocese qualified him for greater things, the dissident Kasper was named by John Paul II as co-chair of the International Commission for Lutheran/Catholic dialogue. In 1999 he was appointed Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. He was also made President of the Pontifical Council for Religious Relations with the Jews. In the consistory of 21 February 2001, he was then elevated to the sacred college. Just five days later, speaking to Adista, the small "progressive" Catholic news agency (whose director, according to defector Vassily Mitrokhin, was a KGB agent), Kasper opined:
The Council Fathers said no such thing, of course. Only the forked tongue of an elastic Modernist mind, expanding to accommodate wishful-thinking liberal errors and pernicious agendas, could possibly have reached and spouted that absurd conclusion. Nonetheless, on 3 March 2001, within a week of his subversive comments, His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper was named President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
Less than a year later, "Assisi: The Sequel" accelerated into view. As described in The Great Façade, on 24 January 2002, taking up where the original cringing pantomime left off, representatives of various world religions, including voodoo and various other polytheistic religions, left the Vatican bound for Assisi in what Church authorities called a "peace train." The train had seven cars; one for the Pope, one for the cardinals and bishops, one for the Orthodox, another for the Jews and Muslims, one for the Protestant "ecclesial communities", one for the Buddhists, the Tenrikyoists, the Shintoists, the Confucianists and the Jainists. At the end of the train was a caboose filled with Hindus, Zoroastrians and Sikhs.
It seems the eighth car, for defenders of "extra Ecclesia nulla salus," was uncoupled and left behind. Understandably so, since unyielding faith of that kind, denounced in 1999 by John Paul II as "Catholic fundamentalism," was incompatible with a PR stunt far from the Holy Spirit and closer to the Spirit of Vaudeville — "I do benefits for all religions," quipped Bob Hope. "I'd hate to blow the hereafter on a technicality."
Bob captured the spirit, but Cat wrote the script! "Now I've been crying lately," warbled Cat Stevens, "thinking about the world as it is/Why must we go on hating, why can't we live in bliss/Oh I've been smiling lately, dreaming about the world as one/ And I believe it could be, some day it's going to come./Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a peace train/Oh peace train take this country, come take me home again./ Yes, peace train holy roller /Everyone jump upon the peace train."
A veritable anthem for the Assisi trilogy, the 1971 hit was doubtless piped through to each carriage, to spur the passengers on to greater syncretic heights. Little did Stevens realise all those years ago, long before he embraced Islam, that he was at the theological cutting-edge, articulating the Modernist yearnings of post-conciliar Rome! It took fifteen years and a deeply compromised pontiff acting out endgame Modernism — the "incalculable consequences" of those erroneous ideas and principles to which he stubbornly adhered against the expert advice of his old professor — to catch up with the pop singer's prophetic ecumenical vision, and a further sixteen for John Paul to board Cat's "holy roller" bound for Assisi II.
Truly, the godless Monty Python crew themselves could not have concocted and choreographed a more scathing satire of ecumenism, or religion in general. Yet while it is easy to view the "Peace Train" as surreal and Pythonesque — the theology of the madhouse — it is dangerous to presume that sanity will prevail anytime soon. For if Rome has lost the plot, those who have nurtured the ecumenical project from within and without the Church for over a century have never lost sight of their goal. They understand that Assisi-Ecumenism is neo-Modernism and neo-Modernism is Assisi-Ecumenism. And in that sense, the catastrophe generally anticipated by Garrigou-Lagrange was specifically articulated by St. Pius X:
By the increasingly clueless standards of many neocons and even myopic, self-serving traditionalists, that "conspiratorial" proclamation now qualifies the great Saint for "lunatic fringe" status! To most readers of this magazine, however, Pius X was a model pontiff who not only assessed the signs of the times based on the chilling facts presented to him, as well as social, political and religious patterns taking shape before his very eyes, he also acted accordingly. Thus, his mighty 1907 encyclical Pascendi ("On the Errors of the Modernists") included both fierce condemnation and a plan for systematic suppression of the very ideas and concepts later embraced in more subtle neo-Modernist form by Fathers Wojtyla and Ratzinger.
A realist who viewed the big socio-political picture through a supernatural lens, St. Pius X would not have been distracted by useless blather about the relative merits of ecumenical gatherings; whether, for example, Assisi III turns out more or less scandalous than Assisi I or II. Like the popes before him, he was fully informed of the stated revolutionary, nihilistic intentions of the Masons and their fellow-travellers. True conspirators who think long-term and will not be denied, he took these men at their word.
The difference between his realistic supernatural view and the fanciful humanistic vision of his post-conciliar successors could not be more stark, misguided or dangerous. Although ignoring the scriptures and all their papal forebears in this matter, our recent popes have not consciously sought the syncretic ecumenical outcome forecast by St. Pius. And yet, as renowned proponents of the Nouvelle Theologie condemned by the Pope Saint, each has been easily instrumentalised by smiling enemies of Christ who seek that ruinous end.
This is why the Holy Father was always destined to follow the missteps of his predecessor, even though he himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger, once expressed doubts about the wisdom of the Assisi undertaking — reservations recently echoed by leading Catholics who pleaded with him to reconsider [see "Assisi III: A Complete Error," CO, March 2011]. Despite all his great intelligence and many fine qualities, Pope Benedict XVI (aka "John Paul III") is simply too theologically "Nouvelle" to change ecumenical tack. A paralysis all the more disturbing since he is well aware of the Masonic power at work in Europe.
In May and June, just as our readers were digesting Fr Luigi Villa's documentation of the scourge of ecclesiastical Freemasonry, Cardinal Canizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, was telling Italian writer Antonio Margheriti Mastino that Benedict's biggest fear is the Lodge. The Cardinal was directly quoted as saying that the Pope had personally confided to him that he fears the ever-greater control "of Freemasonry on the cultural level and of the centres of power of the European Union" ("della massoneria a livello culturare e dei centri di potere dell’Unione Europea"). Specifically, as related indirectly by Margheriti Mastino, Canizares explained that the Holy Father sees the invisible Masonic hand (vede la mano invisibile) directing the burgeoning number of special interest lobbies in Brussels that increasingly specialise in the legalistic persecution of Catholicism (sempre più specializzato nella persecuzione 'legalistica' del cattolicesimo).
It is inconceivable that Benedict would be unaware that the same "invisible hand" is guiding the ecumenical movement. He would surely know that Masonic encouragement in that regard is not the sound of geniality and disinterest. However diplomatically proffered, it is nothing less than a hellish din emanating from the sworn enemy of Christ and His Church; a noise that only wantonly deaf Catholics could fail to hear. Assisi I, above all, sounded the tocsin, calling us to defend Catholic Tradition against the syncretic malignity of the Lodge and its ecumenical puppet, the World Council of Churches. The alarm was familiar because ancient. It has been resounding since Calvary. "A call to revival, and cry for insurrection — a Christian insurrection — it is heard throughout the world," proclaimed Pius XII. Its salvific message is ever the same: "The world will have to be rebuilt" — not via Allah or Buddha or the Great Thumb, but exclusively "in Jesus."
Alas, only the despised "Catholic fundamentalists" heard the warning bell. They responded with the iron logic of St. Paul: false "gods" are fallen angels; ergo, we must avoid "communion with demons" and never seek an impossible accord between "the temple of God and the infidels" [1 Cor. 10:20-21; 2 Cor. 6:14-15]. Failure to heed St. Paul duly led in 1986 to the demonic rituals perpetrated by snake worshippers and other infidels within the churches of Assisi. Infamously, the statue of Our Lady of Fatima was prevented from entering the Basilica, yet a statue of Buddha was allowed on the altar of the church of St. Pietro, above the tabernacle.
Quite apart from such acts, the unholy magnitude of which escape both uncatechised Catholics and the unchurched masses alike, the bewildering Assisi spectacles dictate a public perception that accords perfectly with Masonic notions and goals. During the induction ceremony for entry into the 32nd degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, for instance, the Grand Master turns to the initiate and says:
Commenting on this passage, Father Villa asks if "The day in Assisi on October 27, 1986, was perhaps the dawning of that day? Perhaps it was then, that, in the wake of the ecumenism and irenicism of Vatican II, the "contrast of opinions" began to fail and the crypt of the Masonic Lodge began to expand to become the universal Temple of the New World Order?"
In any event, it did not take a comprehensive knowledge of Masonic ritual to conclude that the Assisi "Peace Train" should have been shunted into a marshalling yard the moment the Grand Lodge of France expressed its enthusiasm for the original gathering. In a written statement of gleeful support for his 1986 ecumenical brainwave, they assured John Paul II that "The Masons of the French National Grand Lodge wholeheartedly wish to join the ecumenical prayer on October 27th in Assisi that will unite all the leaders of all religions in favour of world peace."
Quelle surprise! These are the same high-ranking Masons who have never hidden their goal of replacing Catholicism with their own universal church without Christ! Publicly boasting of its inevitability, they have proffered syncretic templates to that end, such as the Marxist World Council of Churches and the UN's United Religions Initiative [cf. "One World Church Starts Up," June/July 1997]. Yet these and other compromising Masonic vehicles have been embraced by Rome since Paul VI broke with centuries of papal proscriptions to welcome the Lodge as partners in "dialogue" [cf. "The Masonic Papacy," May 2011].
Pius X and his immediate forebears and successors up to Vatican II were ever alert to the dire implications for the Church of this Modernist-Ecumenical-Masonic nexus, condemning the devilish triumvirate out of hand. Yet Benedict XVI demurs.
On the one hand, as Cardinal Ratzinger he saved the Church from the doctrinal abyss opened up by Cardinal Murphy O'Connor and the hierarchies who supported his error-strewn Anglican "agreement." On the other, as Pope Benedict, he has neither the inclination nor the will to abandon the Masonic "Peace Train" pulling the Catholic carriage towards the same precipice.
It begs the questions: Why rely on yet another ARCIC-style turnaround at the eleventh hour when the ecumenical brakes can be applied now? Why not simply avoid all the damage sure to be inflicted on a journey mapped out by your worst enemy? Alas, obvious and urgent queries now fall on diabolically disoriented ears, in the same way that episcopal eyes are blind to the progressive nature and purpose of mega-"assemblies" like those of 1986, 2002 and 2011. In fact, these act as markers, mirrors and facilitators which signify, reflect and encourage the escalating damage being perpetrated at the Catholic grassroots in-between ecumenical spectaculars.
We have long documented the devastating impact of Assisi-like ecumenism in England and Wales. The ignorance, confusion and loss of faith manifest in the episcopate's teaching document Meeting God in Friend and Stranger [see "Critique," Nov. 2010] is reflected high and low. In our compromising shepherds themselves, whose complicity with the dissolute wolves of secularism is increasingly shameless [cf. March, April, May and Nov. 2010]. And in the parishes, where ecumenical anarchy reigns [cf. "The Wages of Ecumenism," Nov. 2002; "Facing Reality," Oct. 2009].
This apocalyptic corrosion of Catholic faith and belief, replicated in every local Church, reduces to a simple equation: Modernism = Ecumenism = "Peace Train" Theology = Freemasonry. Synonymous and seamless, both individually and as a whole they equate to the secularisation of faith and morals. And this makes the Holy Father's latest Assisi venture even more perplexing because his two other great fears after the Lodge, as confided to Cardinal Canizares, are: 1. the ongoing secularization within the Church; 2. the peaceful invasion of Europe by Islam. The former, however, precedes the latter. It is secularisation that opens the door to opportunistic Islam, not vice versa. Despite appearances and media drum-beating to the contrary, the internal Western apostasy, not the existential physical threat, is our greatest undoing. Consequently, Pope Benedict's own worst fears are merely exacerbated by the Ecumenical Movement; ecumenism being Freemasonry's major vehicle in its boastful drive towards the total secularisation of Church and State.
For over two hundred and fifty years the popes knew this to be the very raison d'être of Masonry. The aim, declared the satanic Lucis Trust, is to "Dissolve all religions, rejecting resolutely, as fomenters of discord and war, the dogmas, namely the statements by which alleged truth are claimed to be formulated," in order to usher in a New Universal Religion "drawn from all religions and spiritual groups [that] will end the heresy of separateness." As proclaimed in the Alta Vendita, the secret Masonic blueprint obtained and published by the popes, this demonic goal entails "the complete annihilation of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea." To that end, the "relentless hatred" with which the Freemasons "persecute Christianity" [Leo XIII, Humanum Genus] has currently adopted a more seductive guise. "Catholicism is not persecuted," notes philosopher Augustine del Noce, "but, in fact, re-incorporated into Masonic ecumenism, and in this sense Freemasonry can present itself, today, and so it does, as the most moderate of secularisms."
This is the Masonic/Luciferian agenda fuelled by enticing ecumenical appeals to "tolerance" and "what unites us is more important than what divides us" — siren songs condemned by Piux XI yet given fresh voice at every interreligious gathering.
In which case: Why did the Holy Father not signal an end to the complicity by simply ditching the flagship Assisi venture? And why has he not moved to reverse the treacherous policy of Paul VI: to cut all ties and all "dialogue" with a Masonic enemy dedicated to wiping every last trace of dogmatic Catholicism from the face of the earth? Based on the Holy Father's recognition of the pre-eminent Masonic threat and his fear of secularisation, to eschew these ecumenical about-turns is both self-contradictory and suicidal. So why the death wish? Wherefore the intransigence?
The answers are as obvious now as they were in 2005 at the outset of his pontificate when he listed ecumenism as his top priority, despite far more pressing issues in urgent need of attention within the Church.
First, as already noted, friendships cultivated on the back-slapping ecumenical circuit naturally breed a deadly human respect that easily accommodates false unity (epitomised by the ARCIC delusion) and a fraternal sense of destiny that will not be denied, regardless of the toll on the Church and souls.
In addition, and above all, consumed and blinded by the best of utterly misguided neo-Modernist intentions, all censured long ago by his predecessors, Benedict XVI's entire intellectual formation cries out against the ecumenical naysayers (i.e., the same "voices of gloom" denounced by John XXIII just before the neo-Modernist plague they were prophesying cast its thick pall of error and vice over the Church, plunging us into decades of darkness). This Liberal pedigree also accounts for Benedict's otherwise inexplicable praise of Teilhard de Chardin — a syncretist condemned by the Church but lauded by the Lodge! — and his penchant for Teilhard's pantheistic evolutionary blather ["Spirit in the Sky," Feb. 2011].
And so Benedict chooses to retain the status quo: the Masonic ecumenism established by Paul VI and cemented by John Paul II, especially flagged by their shocking embrace of B'nai B'rith.
Apparently it did not bother Paul VI or John Paul II, any more than it does Benedict XVI, that the exclusively Jewish Lodge of B'nai B'rith "was (and still is) in a relentless struggle to wipe out all traces of Christian institutions" in the United States [per Fr Villa, citing Mystères et Secrets du B'nai B'rith, 1993, p.105 and subsequent]. Nor is any heed given to the hatred of the Church expressed in 1936 by a secret Lodge of B'nai B'rith. Among other things, and consistent with the Alta Vendita and fulminations of high-ranking Masons of every race and religion, B'nai B'rith members said at this secret meeting in Paris:
Regardless of whether or not their own progeny entered the Church, within thirty years of that statement of intent the Roman Curia was riddled with Freemasons ["The Masonic Papacy," May 2011] and the Church, as famously lamented by Paul VI, was soon in the throes of "self-demolition." It was the disingenuous Paul himself, of course, who orchestrated every aspect of that orgy of self-destruction, still rampant everywhere, and never more obviously than by welcoming B'nai B'rith as partners in "dialogue." Ever since his visit to the Holy Land in January 1964, and in keeping with his emphatically humanistic papacy, he had signalled his intentions by wearing on his breast the embroidered linen Ephod of the Jewish High Priest: a symbolic negation of the divinity of Christ since also worn by Caiphas while condemning Jesus to death. By 1971 he was eagerly receiving Jewish Masons in public audience at every opportunity, often at the expense of meeting representatives of Catholic tradition, until the Jewish Telegraph Agency gleefully reported on 28 November 1977: "The Conference of Catholic Bishops and the 'League Against Defamation' of the B'nai B'rith (ADL) announce the establishment of a common work group devoted to examining the issues relating to the faith of the Jews and of the Catholics."
This self-destructive rapprochement resembled Coliseum Christians welcoming Nero and his lions to a round-table peace parley. It enabled the Jews to carry on where they left off at Vatican II: perverting Catholic history; looking to take opportunistic offence when none is intended; demanding a change in Church teaching on the specious pretext of protecting themselves from 2,000 years of Catholic persecution. An utterly perverse notion, of course, since the only persecution involved here is that directed against the one true Faith and practised so artfully by Jewish ecumenical partners in "dialogue." Indeed, the age-old Jewish defamation of the Church perpetuated by rabbis and the various satellites and spokesmen of B'nai B'rith, who, as we saw in Part I, equate Catholicism with Nazism, recalls Belloc's analysis of the Spanish riots of 1909. A precursor to the anti-Catholic bloodbath that constituted the Spanish Civil War of 1936, they were fomented by the anarchist Francisco Ferrer, a high-ranking Mason acting under orders from his international handlers:
Seeking to emasculate and destroy the Church using all the skills, resources and dark arts for which they are renowned, the Masonic element within the tightly knit and powerful Jewish lobbies makes honest "dialogue" impossible; betrayal inevitable. Hence the particular gravity of erroneous first principles and ideas when applied to Catholic-Jewish relations, the "incalculable consequences" of which include the routine traducing of the Evangelists, now seen as "anti-Semites" (never mind that they were all Jews!), and the Holy Gospels thus reduced to racist hate literature. Cardinals, prelates, priests and the disoriented post-conciliar popes themselves have all trampled upon Tradition to actively promote the self-defeating "dialogue" that has produced this blasphemous, quintessentially Masonic outcome.
Nor is it just the usual liberal suspects who embrace the blasphemy, although they certainly take the lead. In 1995, the late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago, a predatory homosexual who was also feted and honoured by the Freemasons ["Bernadin's Boys," Jan. 2002], predictably declared that St. John's Gospel is riven with anti-Semitism. But this scriptural revisionism has now spread far beyond clerical perverts at war with Catholic orthodoxy and thus of one mind with Jewish propagandists. Its diffusion through the ranks was captured in this encounter related by a CO reader following the 2008 World Youth Day in Sydney:
Voilà! Modernism as Masonic Judaisation.
II. Supersessionism & Deicide
Despite this ecumenically correct convergence, seasoned Italian "Vaticanista" Sandro Magister maintains that "the more progress is made in [Catholic-Jewish] dialogue, the more the two faiths see how far apart they are." True enough, objectively speaking. Subjectively, however, you can always bank on the Catholic side caving in and selling out with a utopian view to closing the unbridgeable gap. In 2002, the same year that the Cat Stevens Express and its vaudevillian cargo pulled out of Rome and headed for Umbria, Cardinal Keeler endorsed "Covenant and Mission," a Catholic-Jewish joint document that denied 2,000 years of Catholic teaching on the Jews.
Yet even rank apostasy is not enough for the "stiff-necked" Jews, who, "uncircumcised in hearts and ears, ... always resist the Holy Spirit" [Acts 7:51-53]. There is always another exculpating finger to point; one more grievance to air; further offence to take. Even as I write, Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni has taken exception to Cardinal Kurt Koch's insistence that the Cross is essential to Assisi, raising questions "about whether he and other Italian Jews might pull out of the interfaith gathering for peace." In response, the Cardinal diplomatically tip-toed across eggshells to defend what he called "one of the most central and sensitive questions in Catholic-Jewish dialogue":
Covenantal war of words
This sort of weasel-worded pandering is at once the default setting and Achilles Heel of "interreligious dialogue." Uncharitable because equivocal, it embodies the false ecumenism forewarned and proscribed by pre-conciliar pontiffs. Any Catholic with a rudimentary grasp of the Faith understands the obsolescence of the Old Mosaic Covenant. It was rendered juridically, politically, nationally and religiously null and void the moment the veil of the Temple was split asunder on Good Friday. Cardinal Koch simply covered over this teaching in weasely ecumenical fashion to avoid confirming the "supersessionism" affirmed by John Paul II (and also upheld by Joseph Ratzinger in Many Religions, One Covenant): that the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant and is indeed, therefore, “obsolete,” dead, finished, kaput, terminated, over and done [cf. Heb. 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9; 2Cor. 3:6-14; Col. 2:14-15; Gal. 3:17-19; Council of Florence; Council of Trent; Pius XII, Mystici Corporis].
There is no way to say it politely. And as with apportioning blame for the killing of Christ, there is only one way to say it charitably — and that is just to say it! Plainly and simply. That they cannot, preferring false-charity to the Catholic truth which sets us free, speaks to the subversive nature of the Ecumenical Movement in general and Catholic-Jewish relations in particular. The latter, as Robert Sungenis attests, is "out-of-control" because "It is very difficult to appease the Jews unless you are willing to compromise to a certain degree on Catholic doctrine." The Catholic spokesman, he writes,
As a result, many liberal clerics and theologians are now self-proclaimed anti-supersessionists — "i.e. those who believe that the Jewish Old Convenant was never replaced by the New Convenant in Jesus Christ, and that the Jews not only have their own convenant but also have their own mission from God and need not be regarded as eligible recipients of the Christian Gospel."
They appeal repeatedly to the comment made in November 1980 by John Paul II to a German audience in Mainz: "... the old Covenant, never revoked by God." And yet, as Sungenis states, nobody knows precisely what he meant by this "offhand and unofficial remark." He obviously did not mean the Mosaic/Sinai covenant because his encyclical, Redemptoris Mater, duly affirms that "According to Gal. 4:4 and its context.... the period marked by the promise made to Abraham and by the Law mediated by Moses has now reached its climax, in the sense that Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law." So which of the other multiple covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, Talmudic, Orthodox, Reformed, eschatological.....) that God made with the Jews did he have in mind?
Paragraph 121 of the Catechism he published in 1994 indicates that he probably meant the Old Testament Scriptures, which "books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked." Or perhaps he meant the Abrahamic covenant, as suggested by his 1986 speech in Australia where he said: "and in the irrevocable covenant made with Abraham... for it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling." But since there were two covenants made with Abraham — one strictly for Jews, marked by circumcision and eventually annulled, and one for both Jews and Gentiles, pointing to fulfilment in Christ and thus eternal — we still cannot be certain what John Paul II meant. And it is this ambiguity and uncertainty, explains Sungenis, that suits the subversive purpose of Catholic-Jewish dialoguers:.
By exploiting John Paul II's undefined 1980 remark in Mainz, the liberals thus advanced their Jewish agenda by spreading the false teaching that the Jewish covenant with Moses had not been superseded. As noted in Part I, the heresy ended up in the 2006 US catechism, only to be later excised after formal protests to American and Vatican authorities by Robert Sungenis. But that, of course, did not save him from being calumniated by the clueless vicar general of the Harrisburg diocese, who in 2008 emailed the diocesan clergy to inform them that "Dr. Robert Sungenis' ... personal opinions ... including ... supercessionism [sic] of the Old Testament Covenant, stand apart from (and in discord with) authentic Catholic teaching on these subjects." Since both John Paul II and Benedict XVI agree with Sungenis, is the vicar general saying that they, too, are "in disaccord with with authentic Catholic teaching" in this matter?
The clergy, need to understand, "once and for all," says Sugenis, "that holding the position that the Jews still have a separate and independent convenant with God that remains in force from Old Testament times is nothing less than heretical."
On the other hand, if a cleric insists that the Jewish covenant remains "a living and positive reality today," and by this he "is doing nothing more than saying the Old Convenant can have 'positive' input in ours and the Jews' daily lives, so be it. We applaud him. The Catholic Church has always held that the New Covenant in Jesus Christ can borrow and apply various civil and ethical precepts from the Old Covenant. The reiteration of the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant is a perfect example of such borrowing, at least, if we understand that the use of the Commandments is under the jurisdiction of the New Covenant and not because the Old Covenant still has legal force today. ... But the New Covenant allows the practical use of the Old Covenant in the Christian community, since many of the laws given to the Jews came from the mouth of God and are eternally true (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:9; 2 Cor. 13:1; Rom. 13:8-10)."
In comparison with that clear enunciation of Catholic teaching, Cardinal Koch's response to Rabbi Di Segni was a mealy-mouthed sop to the 'independent Jewish covenant' heresy. Predictably, though, it did not satisfy the Rabbi. He accused the Vatican of wanting to impose the cross of Jesus on the Jews, in the place of Yom Kippur (the day of expiation and most important liturgical feast of the Jewish year, on which the remission of sins is granted.) Cardinal Koch hastened to point out that on 26 September 2006 the Pope had said in Munich: "His 'vengeance' is the Cross: a 'No' to violence and a 'love to the end'." Beautifully put. But not to rabbinical ears obstinately attuned to hear only "Christ-killers!" whenever the subject of the Cross is broached, no matter how often the just and balanced Catholic teaching is explained to them.
Liberal clerics deliberately muddy the waters here, too, by claiming Vatican II absolved all Jews of responsibility for the death of Jesus. This is a wilful distortion. Whatever might be said about the Council's view of Jewish culpability for the death of Christ (or Pope Benedict's peculiar take in Jesus of Nazareth, as analysed last month), Nostra Aetate does indeed blame the first century Jewish leadership and at least a part of the Jewish populace. By specifying "the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead" it merely suggests, therefore, that not every Jew was involved. Only agenda-driven neo-Modernist clergy, Judaised by years of compromising dialogue, could possibly pervert such a clear teaching. Sungenis interprets the document very simply:
Moreover, notes Sungenis, the principal authority of Judaism, the Talmud itself, accepts that some of the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. It states:
As recorded in Part I, this frank admission has been confirmed by Jewish scholar David Klinghoffer who points to ancient Jewish sources that "teach that Jesus died at least partly thanks to decisions taken by His fellow Jews." Conveniently pigeon-holed during ecumenical tête-à-têtes, the suppression of such vindicating evidence is not only unjust but also unnecessary, since the Church has always taught that the Jews were not solely responsible for the death of Christ. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states with crystal clarity:
At the same time, Aquinas teaches that "It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime." And he, too, points an accusatory finger at the Jewish leaders:
III. The Oberammergau Assault
The New Sanhedrin of Jews In Name Only [JINOs] — the Jewish Neocons, organisations/lobbies and rabbinical establishment who together rule the diaspora with a not-so-velvet-gloved iron fist — are the contemporary heirs of this wicked tradition. Implacably anti-Catholic behind the false bonhomie, these elite "Secular Jews," as Rabbi Daniel Lappin decries them (or "Woody Allen Jews" as the late Rabbi Samuel Dresner would have it) simultaneously corrupt and oppress their own pliant people. Brow-beaten by constant propaganda into a state of perpetual tension and victimhood, Jews are conditioned to see anti-Semitic shadows and impending pogroms where none exist and to react hysterically to the least perceived sleight, all the while being kept far from the liberating grace of Christ by their Zionist masters.
The good news, is that more and more Jews are daring to speak out and break free from this godless bondage. The Church, too. Despite Pope Benedict's recent personal ruminations at odds with Catholic Tradition on the conversion of the Jews, and his determination to follow in the ecumenical missteps of his predecessor, there are clear signs of a gradual reversal of wrong turns brought about by "dialogue" with the JINOs. Along with Robert Sungenis, Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, is another major catalyst of this emerging doctrinal/pastoral about-turn.
To recap: in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History [JRS], Jones has documented how contemporary Catholic-Jewish dialogue began at the Council with the attempt by Jewish lobbies to instrumentalise Vatican II for their own ends. Most Council Fathers took at face value the proffered smiles and goodwill, oblivious to the fact that the men they were conversing with were not the faithful Torah Jews of the Old Testament they purported to be. Only a series of providential events, including typical Jewish overreach and educational efforts by the likes of Viscount Leon de Poncins, ultimately preserved the essential Catholicity of the Jewish section of Nostra Aetate, the document on Catholic relations with non-Christian religions promulgated by the Council on 28 October 1965.
Nonetheless, the compromising language of the final text allowed the JINOs ample scope to claim a false victory; to propagandise via their international media outlets that Catholic teaching on the Jews had changed. Fellow-travelling Modernists (Catholics In Name Only) did likewise. Putty in their heretical hands, Nostra Aetate was easily shaped to accommodate a utopian liberal vision of Catholic-Jewish relations: an equal partnership between consenting religious adults unencumbered by puritanical Catholic Tradition. In fact, from the outset it was a promiscuous and delusory affair with no theological basis whatsoever, in which the vengeful Jewish partner repeatedly had his way with the passive Catholic concubine, so to speak.
In this abusive relationship, "dialogue" became the euphemism of choice to describe the one-way conversation that ceded everything to the overbearing Jewish side. Basking in the self-righteous glow of their self-abasement, heretical Philosemites readily acquiesced to Jewish demands: trashing the Gospels and flagellating the Church for alleged anti-Semitism, while stamping on calls for the conversion of Jews, suddenly viewed as impolite or distasteful at best, offensive or hateful at worst.
It was all so predictably tragic. The fact that the Council had rejected the most outrageous Jewish demands was never going to deter a lobby with such enormous influence and power. Used to getting what they wanted, come what may, they were not about to be refused by the detested Bride of Christ. Jones explains:
Unleashed by the bogus 'spirit of Vatican II' swirling around and within Nostra Aetate, this Jewish aggression against traditional Catholicism exploded within a year of its promulgation. The demented assault on the Oberammergau Passion Play set the fascist marker for what was to come, and not just for Catholics. For this reason the summary account in JRS is of fundamental importance:
Despite its having been purged of material earmarked as offensive by the Jewish lobby, by the time of the 1984 performance "the Jews were angrier than ever" and boasting of their "power" to get whatever they wanted:
Solve et Coagula
Unleashing "the power of the Jews" was not solely about bullying the Church into rewriting the Gospels. At a broader and deeper level, as readily admitted by James Shapiro, it was an attack on the piety and stability embodied by the Catholics of Oberammergau. Once again, it was all about Talmudic solve et coagula — "dissolve and coagulate"; destroy and rebuild — the instinctive Jewish sympathy "for everything which tends to disintegrate and dissolve traditional societies, nations and countries." As outlined last month, and as further explained in another context by Paul Girard in The Remnant of 25 July 2011, this corrosive spirit informed the "cultural revolution" — where openly bashing and vilifying Christianity and the Church alternated with spoofing its values, symbols and institutions through the Jewish-controlled entertainment-media (solve), while simultaneously showcasing nihilism in an entertaining setting and constructing a new worldview on Jewish grounds (coagula). Also at work in Western capitalism and US foreign policy, the Passion Play onslaught exemplified this devilish modus operandi:
Clearly, no amount of censorious red ink and revised versions of the Passion Play were ever going to mollify the Jews. Unremitting attacks on the Play, its Bavarian hosts and all they stood for would continue until the Cross itself was removed from sight, just as they would later bludgeon John Paul II into expelling the Carmelites and accepting Auschwitz as a Christ-free zone [see "The Cross and Auschwitz: A Dialogue Without Jesus", Nov. 1999]. Convinced that the Bavarians had purged every remnant of anti-Semitism from the 1984 script, Otto Huber flew to New York where he presented Abe Foxman with a copy and an invitation to see the Play. For his trouble, the insatiable ADL chief exploded with indignation. "I told him," Shapiro writes, quoting Foxman, "If you want to give me love and understanding, ... Give me another play; if it's about a Crucifixion in which the Jews kill Christ, you can never clean it up enough, So don't expect an embrace."
The embodiment of solve, Foxman's callous reaction to the pathetic grovelling and his desire for the annihilation of Catholic tradition should not have surprised Huber. Nor should it continue to be indulged by his papal compatriot 25 years on. Despite his awareness of the Masonic threat, does this same Bavarian naivety explains Benedict's ecumenical accommodation of Jewish Masons? Or is it just appeasement fuelled by German guilt: a defensive reaction to the cruel smears routinely directed at himself and his hapless wartime generation? Perhaps it is easier simply to presume a rational basis for such implacable anti-Catholic Semitism in dialogue "partners"; to view the derangement as understandable, explicable and deserving of endless forbearance?
Whatever the case, the Holy Father needs to re-think. Most certainly in regard to Foxman, who leads the furious charge.
Full of calculated self-pity and hate, Foxman is a microcosm of the JINO macrocosm: one screech owl in a wall of sound and fury directed at a Church whose institutions and members rescued more Jews from the Nazis than all other international organisations combined. There is no rational explanation for this epic ingratitude. Ultimately, beyond mere greed and grasping, only ideological self-serving — the organised ferocity of the Lodge — can explain why the JINO collective suddenly rounded on the Church and Pius XII; why the long list of grateful post-war Jewish luminaries like Golda Meir and the Chief Rabbi of Rome (who famously converted to Catholicism) magically morphed into a unified bloc of papal defamers. Foxman's particular animus towards the Church reflects the sheer perversity of the Catholic contempt harboured by members of the Jewish Masonic mafia.
James Shapiro typifies the sycophantic rush to laud B'nai B'rith spokesmen like Foxman (not least by Protestant Evangelicals) and present them in a heroic light, thus shoring up their anti-Catholic diatribes. According to Shapiro, Foxman "didn’t need to read history books to know [that] Passion plays led people to hate and sometimes to kill Jews. I was informed, that as a child during the war, Foxman had been torn from his family." Jones duly notes that this nod and wink conveys the impression "that Foxman had been beaten up as a child by an enraged mob streaming out of the Passion Play in Oberammergau or somewhere else in Germany."
In keeping with the deceitful lobbyists and rabbis at Vatican II, Shapiro cloaks and distorts reality. The truth is that Foxman, like countless wartime Jews, owed his life to Catholic courage. In his case, as the Nazi occupation of Poland loomed, a Catholic Polish woman (his nanny) acceded to the request of his parents and risked her life and that of her family and neighbours by raising him as her own son. As a mark of her devotion she had him baptised:
It is suggested by Jones that Foxman associated the Church’s maternal vision of love and understanding with a mother figure who suddenly disappeared; the Catholic mother promised love but could not deliver. The vision of love the Catholic mother instilled in Foxman's mind
Foxman, like Freud [whose beloved Catholic nanny-cum- mother figure was also abruptly removed from him] became a member of B’nai B’rith, the Jewish Masonic lodge, from which he waged war on the Catholic Church. Oberammergau came to symbolize the "mountain-girt" exception to a Jewish world run on commercial principles. Since Holy Mother Church and what she stands for is too good to be true, since the "mountain-girt" village couldn’t protect Foxman from his rapacious Jewish parents, Abe made a virtue of necessity: he identified with what he saw as the winning side, i.e., Jewish modernity and what it stands for: blood, the law, calculation, and hate. [JRS, 1028]
IV. "Anti-Semitism" & "Holocaust Denial"
Unfortunately, Nostra Aetate was not the only weapon available to the Jews. As repeatedly admitted by Shapiro, since the people of Oberammergau did not put on their play for free, the Jews were able to use financial leverage to force them to change it. They used that leverage on people with theatrical ambitions, like the Play's liberal director Christian Stueckl, by promoting their careers on the world stage. And since village life revolved around the play, the liberals who controlled the play controlled village life and were able to see off the resistance of conservative villagers. "Money and professionalism successfully subverted the passion play," says Jones. The "supine, money-grubbing Bavarians peasants" fell in behind the liberal faction and continued to cave in to Jewish demands.
Finally, in 2000, a Catholic scholar, quoted by Shapiro, "emphatically declared that 'there is no longer any anti-Semitism in the play'." New York Times commentator Rudin triumphantly reported that the 40 year campaign of cultural warfare by the ADL and AJC had seen "all references to Matthew 27:25 ["His blood be upon us and our children"] ... removed from the 2000 production...." Yet Rabbi Klenicki still accused the villagers of anti-Semitism and badgered the hapless Otto Huber into further last minute concessions to the 2000 performance:
"The villagers also eliminated every reference to Jesus as the Christ, or Messiah," writes Jones, "because the Jews found this offensive. But nothing the Bavarians did placated the Jews. ... The ADL was already looking toward the 2010 production" and "continued to subvert the play from within with the collaboration of Huber and Stueckl."
The eviscerated 2000 script marked a conclusion of sorts. On the one hand, Shapiro rightly observed that Vatican II had provided the "impetus for this historical revisionism." Yet while he concluded that now, "after 35 years, the Oberammergau play has finally caught up with the theological position first espoused by the Catholic Church in 1965," he appeared to sense his own wishful thinking in this regard — to perceive that immutable doctrine can never yield to passing ecumenical fads and false interpretations — because he could not rejoice. Despite all the JINO subversion and CINO kowtowing, Catholic Tradition was still evident in the script. "How culpable the Church still finds the Jews and how persistent the notion that Christianity has superseded Judaism remains," he lamented. "In some respects, the Oberammergau play has moved ahead of the Church."
Oberammergau 2000 encapsulated the runaway ecumenical "Peace Train" of Catholic-Jewish relations that a few years later careered off the tracks to produce the "Covenant and Mission" apostasy. Dialogue with the Jews had not moved "ahead" of the Church," it had accelerated out of it. And the reason for that, as noted by Robert Sungenis and fulsomely demonstrated throughout the Passion Play assault, was incessant Jewish resort to the "ubiquitous determiner" they laid down "as to what is permissible in ecumenical dialogue" — the same marker used to censor and often pulverise civic dialogue.
The Oberammergau project firmly established the strategem — thuggish deployment of "Jewish power" as demanded by the New York Times — to achieve the purpose — erosion of Catholic religious and cultural traditions. But these Jewish means and ends wholly relied on the principal method: slander and smear.
As we know, this involves yelling "anti-Semitism!" ad nauseam. A basic ploy from Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky's neo-Marxist handbook, revolutionary tactics don't get more basic than hurling racist slurs to shut down discussion and marginalise honest critics. And nobody has employed that primitive methodology more often, more loudly or more recklessly and maliciously than Abe Foxman. In so doing, B'nai B'rith's Grand Master of Defamation has come to epitomise the narrow, bigoted persona he supposedly deplores. Concurrently, he has turned the word into a dangerous parody. Like the boy who cried wolf, he and his ADL have encouraged such pervasive use of the term against all and sundry that it is now emptied of its genuinely sinful, racist meaning.
The resultant absurdities are legion and typified by the following summary of one bizarre feature article that appeared in the Evening Standard early in January 1995:
There is no need to regale readers with tales of similar violent accusations of "anti-Semitism" where none exists. We observe jaw-dropping examples on a regular basis. It is not that those who rush to falsely charge and slander the innocent are incapable of discerning genuine anti-Semitism — of recognising real racist hatred when they see, hear or read it. They have simply thrown caution to the wind: opting for the scattergun "anti-Semitism" studiously fomented by B'nai B'rith for its own nefarious ends. This results in the kind of unhinged abuse unleashed against Mr Kaye by 'anti-Semite hunters' who have abandoned all common sense, prudence, justice and charity. Willing slaves to ADL propaganda and the shrieks and slanders flowing from its satellites, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, emoting Jews and Philosemites rationalise that it is too dangerous to differentiate between dislike and enmity, criticism and hate. One leads automatically to the other and on to Auschwitz, they reckon. In the process, every critic of Jewish behaviour is reflexively compared to Hitler and Bin Laden. Good names and reputations are traduced, careers ruined and "dissidents" refusing to toe the Jewish party line cast into the outer darkness.
As with all forms of political correctness, the effect and purpose, says Father James Schall, SJ, is "to prevent us from naming exactly what we are dealing with." That the JINOs have turned this blunt instrument of bloodless oppression into a censorious art form should come as no surprise, since political correctness — especially the perversion of "tolerance" — was one of the most successful of all the insidious projects undertaken by their forebears: the atheistic Jews who dominated the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School. In utilising this PC tool with such incomparable facility to attack freedom of speech, therefore, the JINOs merely underline their revolutionary pedigree, regardless of where they posit themselves, individually or institutionally, on the political spectrum.
Jewish roots of political correctness
It was Frankfurt Schooler Herbert Marcuse, the intellectual guru of the 1960s counter-culture, who "sought to give groups aligned with the Left control over the intellectual infrastructures of the West," as opposed to the classical Marxist approach of seeking to give the working classes control over the means of production. Robin Phillips explains that one of the ways he tried to realise this goal was through redefining the notion of tolerance:
One of the "practical areas where the legacy of [this] cultural Marxism has found fruition today," say Phillips, is in "the network of tendencies that are popularly referred to as 'political correctness'." Since Christian Voice, the Evangelical Newsletter in which his excellent series of articles on the Frankfurt School recently appeared, holds to a Protestant (i.e. Judaised) view of scripture and the world (involving unquestioned support for Israel) the Jews were predictably absent from Phillips' study. Yet JINOism is Cultural Marxism; its global network of Jewish institutions, lobbies and Philosemitic allies embody "the network of tendencies" that make up and enforce political correctness.
In classic Marcusian fashion, therefore, "the withdrawal of tolerance of speech" from their opponents has become "a means of shifting the balance" to unfettered freedom of speech for Jewish propagandists, even total frauds.
Holocaust profiteering: the Polish shakedown
Running alongside the anti-Catholic ramifications of their Pharisaical self-serving and hypocrisy, is the callous exploitation of their own people. Deeply resented by Jews who lost family in the death camps, Norman Finkelstein calls it the "Holocaust Industry." The vindictive spirit informing this scam, which has earned the JINOs billions in reparations from Germany and Switzerland, was captured in a 19 April 1996 Reuters report on a meeting of the World Jewish Congress held in Buenos Aires. Rabbi Israel Singer, General Secretary of the WJC, stated that
On behalf of the New Sanhedrin, this Caiaphas figure raged that if Poland does not satisfy Jewish claims it will be "publicly attacked and humiliated" in the international forum. This scorched-earth policy is pursued through all manner of exaggerations and falsifications and greatly assisted by a subset of the lucrative Holocaust Industry. A fraudulent enterprise uncritically embraced and promoted by the JINOs, its proponents are described by the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] as "Holocaust profiteers." It turns out that Holocaust profiteering by literary hoax is widespread.
Based on a 5 February 2002 WSJ book review titled "Real Horrors, Phony Claims," an article in the April 2011 Culture Wars by Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski details the frauds perpetrated by profiteers like J. Tomasz Gross. Apparently frustrated by his obscurity, Gross, a New York sociologist turned historian, authored four books "full of ugly and false accusations against the Polish nation. This includes alleged mass killing of Jews and stealing of their property during and after World War Two."
A former wartime political prisoner himself, incarcerated for five years in the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp near Berlin, Pogonowski and his compatriots have long had to suffer these books "full of lies" written by people who demonstrate "extraordinary hatred for the Polish people and greed to succeed financially" as authors (aided by the Jewish publishing apparatus). An eye witness to what happened in the death camps, Pogonowski has seen patent fabrications by the likes of Gross included in the official JINO narrative of the Holocaust, such as the late April 1945 "Death March of Brandenberg." Writes Pogonowski: "Of some 38,000 prisoners from Sachsenhausen.... I did not see a single Jew marked with the star of David among the marchers." Clarifying complex wartime situations and refuting myriad falsehoods — lies which conveniently shore up the WJC campaign against his country — Pognowski writes:
It is no accident that these kinds of facts sound unfamiliar. You won't find them in many TV documentaries, Holocaust exhibitions or school textbooks because they undermine the received and lucrative version of events expounded by Rabbi Singer and his brethren. Pogonowski also details the WSJ account of other "Holocaust profiteers." One, "Benjamin Wilkomirski," claimed to be a Jewish Holocaust survivor who had suffered at the hands of Dr. Josef Mengele. He turned out to be the son of a single mother, a Christian, who had been adopted by a wealthy Swiss family. When he was outed as a fraud, he duly "presented himself as a victim of an 'anti-Semitic' plot involving Swiss government officials. But other evidence of the fraud surfaced, and now [Mr Doessekker, his real name] faces criminal charges in Switzerland."
The point and reason for relating all this is that these frauds have been globally lauded by the JINO apparatus:
It is all part of "trying to change the image of Poland from a heroic and tragic victim of war of aggression into a vicious partner of the Nazis for the benefit of Jewish looters," concludes Pogonowski.
Switzerland suffered the same fate. "The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles published a report alleging that almost all Swiss were Nazis in the war," recalled Stephen Halbrook, author of Target Switzerland [Sarpedon, 1998]. Eventually, "Simon Wiesenthal himself renounced the report as pseudo-history." But it did its smear job and they still looted the Swiss! Similarly, "The attempt to slander the Polish people and thus prepare them for a shakedown by the Jewish restitution movement continues," says Pogonowski, "because honest people are afraid to speak up for fear of being accused of anti-Semitism."
Adding so-called "Holocaust denial" to the "anti-Semitic" mix has upped the ante: moving us into new and terrifying territory.
The "New Anti-Semitism"
If the "Holocaust Industry" has now transcended money-making to become a veritable idol — "Holocaustianity," the atheistic antithesis of the Catholic Christianity they despise [cf. "The Cross and Auschwitz," op. cit.] — the charge of "Holocaust denial" is central to maintaining this new adjunct to Talmudic religion. "But the trouble here, as elsewhere," a leading Catholic philosopher once explained to the present writer, "is that people lump so many things together." He pointed out that
The insane libelling of Raul Hilberg can only be understood if we consider the all-inclusive definition of what constitutes "Holocaust denial" as prescribed by its Jewish inventor. "The term was invented by a professor named Deborah Lipstadt roughly 20 years ago, largely because she got named as a defendant in a libel suit," explains Michael Jones:
In which case, on 19 June 2010 Australian columnist Mike Carlton surely joined Michael Jones himself as an honorary "anti-Semite," when he mocked Abe Foxman's Aussie stooges. "With bottomless irony," he announced to his Sydney Morning Herald readership, "the Jewish lobby spent much of last week assuring anybody who would listen that there is no such thing as the Jewish lobby." Touch(é! Jones continues:
"Anti-semitic" roll call
Who can possibly hope to escape the clutches of this "New Anti-Semitism"?! Like a defamatory octopus, its tentacles reach out to calumniate on a self-righteous whim. Nobody can evade the scattergun "anti-Semitic" smear, including popes, presidents and, as we have seen, God's inerrant spokesmen themselves, the Gospel Evangelists. Last November, in paying tribute to the late great Catholic writer Joseph Sobran, a notable victim of the octopus, George Krasnow produced a roll call of famous people, Jews and Gentiles, living and dead, who were also smeared as "anti-Semites":
• Professor Albert Lindemann, for his book, Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews;
A wicked misrepresentation, this slander encapsulates the perennial Jewish ruse of shifting the blame for their misfortune to those who point out their fulsome contribution to it. JRS relates the truth of the matter:
If the traducing of Cardinal Hlond typifies Jewish reaction to a plain-speaking prince of the Church, the ill-treatment and defamation of the Catholic layman honoured by George Krasnow epitomises the workaday brutality meted out to all who go "off (Zionist) message" today.
One of the finest Catholic scribes of our time, Joseph Sobran dared to air his own eloquent opinions at odds with the JINO establishment. For so doing, Jewish Neocons and their "useful idiots" at National Review magazine, led by its renowned editor William Buckley, sought to ruin Joe: to smear and isolate him. In sketching the background to this campaign, Dr Robert Hickson reveals herein that his friend, who passed away on 30 September 2010, was an easy target; a man of immense goodwill who naturally assumed that bringing different views and perspectives to the table of public discourse was both healthy and essential. And so, in his gracious naivety, Joe suffered the Orwellian pain inflicted by JINO Jackboots, even if he weathered the kicking better than most.
Testifying to his qualities, the portrait sketched by George Krasnow, President of the Washington-based Russia and America Goodwill Associates, is also important. Firstly, it highlights the calibre of person routinely traduced and destroyed by the Jews. Secondly, although expressed more charitably than they deserve, these extracts speak to the amoral Jewish modus operandi we have noted throughout this essay:
This about face by Buckley hardly matters, however, since the JINOs who played him like a marionette continue to pull the philosemitic strings, harbouring no second thoughts whatsoever about the wars, including pre-emptive ones, that they promote on Israel's behalf. The Catholic Buckley, on the contrary, doubtless reflected not only on the intellectual suicide involved, but on all the physical death and destruction: the hundreds of thousands who have perished, and the ancient local Church in Iraq virtually wiped out in the process. Krasnow continues:
Whatever the arguments pro and con, the means by which the JINOs have managed this fusion of Israeli and American "interests" was enunciated long ago by the always prescient Sobran. Referring to one of his early commentaries, Krasnow notes one phrase in the article that "encapsulates what happened in Joe's life and in the life of America in the past 50 years." "Zionism," he wrote, "has infiltrated conservatism in much the same way Communism once infiltrated liberalism."
The nature of that infiltration can be gleaned from the aforementioned eulogy by Jon Utley and the totalitarian analogy it evokes. Krasnow explains that
Reiterating what he said to Krasnow about this unconscionable trashing of his good name and reputation, Sobran once stated at a 2002 conference of the Institute for Historical Review: "Nobody has ever accused me of the slightest personal indecency to a Jew.My chief offense, it appears, has been to insist that the state of Israel has been a costly and treacherous 'ally' to the United States. As of last Sept. 11, I should think that is undeniable. But I have yet to receive a single apology for having been correct."
Even posthumous apologies are out of the question. Dogged by the smear for decades, Jewish calumniators have persisted with the libel since his death. To "Cease and Desist" is a concept unknown to them. In life and death, "Defame and Destroy" is all they know. Hence the 12 October 2010 hatchet job perpetrated on the website of The Atlantic magazine by Jeffrey Goldberg, a notorious Israeli propagandist who beat the Iraqi war drum with spurious claims and false leads in the aftermath of 9/11.
Remarkably, Goldberg's ultra-Zionist pals at the New York Times (dubbed "Holocaust Weekly News" by Joe!)had published an obituary for Sobran which "did not stigmatize him with the obligatory 'Holocaust denier' Newspeak, preferring to describe him with the more moderate term, 'Holocaust skeptic'," as another holocaust skeptic, Michael Hoffman, reported. Furious, Goldberg promptly re-affixed the "Nazi"-"Holocaust denier" label, while complaining that the Times had not mentioned that the Institute for Historical Research addressed by Sobran in 2002 was "the country's premier Holocaust denial outfit." Bearing in mind his "anti-Semitic" ready-reckoner, the ludicrous Lipstadt Index, we can safely dismiss Goldberg's plaint as self-serving and meaningless. This is what happens to those who smear, slander and cry wolf for a living. Their credibility is zilch.
In any event, for most, including the present writer, debate about Holocaust numbers is of no interest one way or the other. But as Sobran himself queried: "Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate...?" He did not deny that these and other such assessments were anything but controversial, "but if so, let the controversy rage," he pleaded. "I would much rather be in the tradition of great American cranks like Thoreau, Ambrose Bierce, Lysander Spooner, and H. L. Mencken," he wrote in the preface to his book on Shakespeare (which argued persuasively that the real author of the tragedies was Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford), "than belong to the mass of scholars who, ever mindful of tenure, promotion, grants, and that last infirmity of ignoble minds, respectability, never deviate from scholarly consensus."
Bravo! Yet one can imagine the threat Joe posed to a JINO mindset which, by nurture and nature, cannot tolerate such open and honest enquiry. Hoffman duly noted that "Goldberg and his network exhibit the familiar totalitarian, Talmudic mentality: they desire to micro-manage every detail of how we perceive Joseph Sobran and how his memory is presented. If the portrayal is not sufficiently debased, they will proceed to dishonor the dead man themselves, in the name of that irresistible shibboleth, fighting Nazism. Their own Nazi-Zionism cannot be an issue, of course."
In concluding his tribute, Krasnow mocks the manifest absurdity of the ongoing defamation and the insufferable (not to say utterly self-defeating) scam that "anti-Semitism" has become:
And yet he he was too "extreme" for his friend William Buckley! How to explain such treachery? The answer lies in the fact that while Buckley shared the Catholic faith with Sobran, he was also a Philosemite. In cahoots with his other personality flaws, it was this alter-ego that smeared Joe and delivered him up to the New Sanhedrin — the consummate character assassins.
Concluding in November, we will look at how this same trait featured in the monumental scandal that rocked the local Church last June, when Jewish intervention caused the cancellation of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice's London conference. A disturbing case-study of all we have discussed, it exemplifies the ever-thickening rod the JINOs are once more building for innocent Jewish backs.