October 2011

Benedict and the Jews
- Part II -

THE EDITOR

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

Many do not regard doctrine as important, they are more concerned with works. Doctrine is the only thing we can use to discern what is straight or crooked. They have reduced themselves to humanitarians only, whose sole intention is to uphold the signpost of morality in a corrupted society and world. They care more about our culture than the TRUTH. The basis to find what we have in common is a wrong foundation, that is the basis of humanism, and no Christian should fall for this type of counterfeit unity.

Are they actually thinking this through, or are they all on auto-drive without brakes? Either these men do not understand the gospel any longer or they do not have the courage to defend the faith. Because they have a mutual common cause, a friendship has been established — they are in unity.

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:

Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would "be converted" and return to being "Catholics." This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.

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.

Masonic agenda

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:

We are witnessing a great movement of apostasy being organised in every country for the establishment of a one-world Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy; neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions [Nôtre Charge Apostolique, 1910].

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:

"When the harvest time will come, when the deepest foundations on which all religions rest will be released, perhaps these foundations will be used again for asylum, as once the catacombs and crypts of our cathedrals. To those who, in one cult or another, aspire to something more pure, than what they have found in their rituals, sacrifices, in offices and in the prayers of those religious circles where fate has brought them ... you will leave behind the things you worship or teach in the Hindu pagodas, in the Buddhist monasteries, in Muslim mosques and in Christian churches. However each will bring with him, into the quiet of the crypt, that which he holds in highest esteem, the most precious jewel of his legacy. This crypt, close and yet so obscure, nevertheless, has been visited by a number of those who have contrasting opinions, fleeing the tumult of the crowds, the glare of the lights. How many - Who knows? In time, perhaps, it will grow in size and will become brighter, until the crypt of the past will become one day the Church of the Future."

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].

B'nai B'rith

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:

"We've covered the Catholic Church with the most abominable slanders, we have falsified Her history and we have soiled Her noblest activity, we attributed the wickedness of Her enemies to the Church .... but we can't claim to have achieved our goal of our work. The Catholic Church is still alive ... We must destroy it, without the least delay and without mercy. ... May our children become Bishops and Cardinals, so they can destroy the Catholic Church!"

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:

It was nothing more nor less in its inception, character, and meaning than an attack upon the Church. The weapon used was a familiar one. First, the assertion that a great injustice had been done — and that presented in a light which made the deed seem inhumanly wicked; next it was suggested or asserted that the authors of this monstrous iniquity were the priests of the Catholic Church. In precisely the same manner are the events of the past of Europe presented by those who hate Jesus Christ and the Institution He founded. The mark of persecution — and especially of persecution by falsehood — was stamped upon the whole business.

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:

From a personal point of view, being involved in the Stations of the Cross I saw first hand the destructive effect of the Modernists in the Church. They turned the event into a politically-correct shambles and my friends and I who were honoured to be involved were filthy with what went on. For example, when news first broke out that the Stations were going to be dumbed down to accommodate the [B'nai B'rith] ADL, we confronted the director of the play (a priest) about it. He simply waved us away. Most shockingly, he stated that the Gospels were anti-Semitic, hence the need to water down the Stations! This came out of the mouth of a priest and someone who was in charge of one of the central events of WYD. I am almost ashamed to have been a part of what otherwise should have been the most honoured event someone could be involved in. How ironic, Cardinal Pell actually first asked Mel Gibson to direct the play, then in typical style he chose a local Modernist.

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":

...the question of how to reconcile the conviction, binding for Christians as well, that God's covenant with the people of Israel has permanent validity with the Christian faith in universal redemption in Jesus Christ, in such a way that, on the one side, the Jews should not get the impression that their religion is seen by Christians as obsolete, and on the other that Christians should not renounce any aspect of their faith.

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,

finds himself in a dubious position. If he admits that at least some Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, he will, no doubt, be rejected by his Jewish dialogue partners who have made it clear they want the Catholic Church to rid all Jews of any responsibility for Christ's death, ostensibly to extinguish any anti-Semitic feelings against Jews at large. Since anti-Semitism has been made the ubiquitous determiner as to what is permissible in ecumenical dialogue, any previous Catholic teaching, or even Scripture, that the Jews claim is anti-Semitic is liable for elimination. ["The Wax Nose of Catholic/Jewish Dialogue," Culture Wars, July-August 2011]

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:.

What we learn from this confusion is, whoever throws out vague and ambiguous assertions today saying "the Old Covenant is not revoked" has an agenda and is looking to stir things up. At the least, he is required to clarify what covenant he has in view, since applying the wrong covenant will be heretical. But this is precisely the problem with modern ecumenical language. The phrase "Old Covenant" is thrown around with abandon yet remains ill-defined, and I believe it is deliberate. A few years ago I was in an email exchange with Dr. Eugene Fisher, former director of Catholic-Jewish relations at the USCCB [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops]. He kept insisting that the "Old Covenant with the Jews had not been revoked." When I finally pinned him down to answer precisely what covenant from the Jewish era he was referring to, he suddenly shut down the dialogue and my attempts to revive it were rebuffed. I learned something very valuable from that exchange. We are in a war of words today, and there are many who are surreptitiously trying to sneak in various novelties by creating word packages that, on the surface, seem to have such unifying power (e.g., "the Old Covenant is not revoked"), but are nothing but facile and farcical attempts to promote the liberal agenda of Jewish independence from Christianity.

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)."

Christ-killers?

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:

No Jew today (perhaps barring a deliberate and unrepentant condoning of his Jewish ancestors' murdering of Jesus) should be held guilty, and not all Jews even of the first century should be held guilty. Conversely, [liberals] concluding that "one cannot hold that the Jewish people, either in the first century or at any other time, are responsible for the death of Jesus" implies that no Jew of the first century was responsible for the death of Christ, which is clearly against Nostra Aetate, not to mention Catholic tradition and scripture.

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:

On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for forty days and proclaimed 'Jesus of Nazareth is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray. Whoever knows of an argument that may be proposed in his favor should come and present that argument on his behalf.' But the judges did not find an argument in his favor, and so they hanged him on Passover Eve. [Steinsaltz edition, Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a, 1990, p.158]

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:

This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of [St. Paul]: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; (1 Cor 2:8) while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on Him.

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:

By their malice, the Scribes and Pharisees and princes of the Jews were a considerable hindrance to the salvation of the people, both because they opposed Christ’s doctrine, which was the only way to salvation, and also because their evil ways corrupted the morals of the people.

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:

As anyone who understands Jewish hermeneutics could have predicted, the Torah of Nostra Aetate was irrelevant to the Talmudic interpretations which followed its promulgation. Dr. William Wexler of the World Conference of Jewish Organizations, one of the most prescient commentators on the Jewish schema, said, "The true significance of the Ecumenical Council’s statement will be determined by the practical effects it has on those to whom it is addressed." In terms of its practical effects, Nostra Aetate became a weapon against the Church, something which Poncins had claimed was its purpose from its inception. The Catholic Church lost control of the document because she lost control of its interpretation, which was forged in the media which the Jewish interest groups controlled.

But there were passages that aided the hijacking of its meaning. The most glaring was, "the Church ... deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews." Zachariah Schuster deplored use of the word "deplores," thinking it too weak, but from a semantic viewpoint, the significant word was "anti-Semitism." The Church had condemned anti-Semitism without defining what it meant by that term, an omission of truly catastrophic proportions because, as Poncins pointed out at the time,

In Jewish eyes, every measure of defense and protection against the penetration of Jewish ideas and conceptions, against anti-Christian Jewish heresies, against Jewish control of the national economy, and in general every measure of defense of national Christian traditions is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, many Jews consider that the very fact of the recognition of the existence of a Jewish question constitutes a declaration of anti-Semitism.

Poncins reminded Catholics

Jules Isaac accuses all the Fathers of the Church of anti-Semitism ... He accuses them of having unleashed the savagery of the beast and of being the real people responsible for German anti-Semitism and the gas chambers at Auschwitz. He finds them even worse than Hitler and Streicher and others for their system resulted in the Jews being tortured slowly and being left to live and suffer interminably. ... Does the Church admit Jules Issac’s thesis and plead guilty?

The answer came 30 years later when Pope John Paul II issued an apology to the Jews. Benedict XVI later explained the Church was not apologizing for the Holocaust because Nazism was a "neopagan ideology" for which the Church took no responsibility. But, as the behavior of Rabbi Paul Spiegel at the synagogue in Cologne during a papal visit in August 2005 indicated, Jews weren’t listening. If the Catholic Church was unabatedly wicked, then the only reparation would be self-annihilation.

Fascist marker

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:

In November 1966, Phil Baum, director of the American Jewish Congress’ Commission on International Affairs, demanded the Oberammergau Passion Play purge its script of anti-Semitism or face a boycott. With a supporting cast including Arthur Miller, Lionel Trilling, Stanley Kunitz, Leonard Bernstein, Leslie Fiedler, Theodore Bikel, Irving Howe, Alfred Kazin, and German writers George Steiner, Guenter Grass, Heinrich Boell and Paul Celan, Holocaust industrialist Elie Wiesel called a news conference in New York City to announce the boycott. Wiesel said "the artist cannot be silent when the arts are used to exalt hatred. If the people of Oberammergau feel that they cannot faithfully represent their vision except though an explicitly anti-Semitic text, then others have no choice but to denounce that vision and urge that all who share our view join with us in condemning the performance."

[Jewish professor] James Shapiro [Oberammergau, Pantheon, 2000] makes clear no group of literary and artistic luminaries would have gotten anywhere if the Catholic Church had not provided an opening in Nostra Aetate, not in what it said but in what the philo-Semitic media represented it as saying. The thinly-veiled aggression behind Jewish enthusiasm for conciliar documents is apparent in Shapiro’s claim "it was only after Oberammergau was caught between the anvil of Vatican II and the hammering criticism of Jewish groups that serious changes were grudgingly made." The Bavarians were being hammered because of Nostra Aetate. Without it, they could have deflected the blows. With it, the Jews played the bishop against his flock to eviscerate anything the Jews found repugnant, leading one observer to conclude "Nostra Aetate was the cornerstone of the abusive relationship that has hamstrung the Catholics for the last 40 years." The villagers in Oberammergau blamed the Jews for the assault on their passion play. "But the truth" Shapiro says, "is that without a dramatic turn in the teachings of the Catholic Church, Jewish protesters would not have had much success in changing the play, boycotts notwithstanding."

Because of Nostra Aetate, the Oberammergau Passion Play was portrayed "as disturbingly out of step with official [Catholic] dogma." The Jews would have gotten nowhere "without the liberalization of official Catholic policy following Vatican II and the intense pressure subsequently brought to bear on this conservative village." The Jews considered Nostra Aetate as their most important weapon in their arsenal of cultural warfare. "It was," says Shapiro,

a rude awakening for Oberammergau. The ensuing boycott of the 1970 production was the first time in this century when there were blocks of empty seats in the Passion playhouse. Until 1970, the Oberammergau play had been given a missio canonica, an official Church blessing signaling that Church doctrine was being taught. In that year, the first production following Vatican II and its revolutionary "Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions," this blessing was withheld ... [because the play] was now, according to the archbishop of Munich’s pronouncement a play that "contained anti-Semitic elements and needed revision." The play hadn’t changed, but the Church’s message had.

Shapiro is right in saying that the play hadn’t changed. He is wrong in saying that the Church’s teachings had changed. Nostra Aetate, however, did change the tactics Jews used to undermine those teachings. The Jews coopted Catholic scholars into accepting their interpretation. Shapiro claims the ADL and the AJC "quickly enlisted" Catholic theologians "in their struggle to change the play." The AJC and the ADL, actively involved in interfaith dialogue, stepped up pressure on their Church contacts. "From the perspective of these Jewish organizations," Shapiro says, "Oberammergau was an important test of the commitment of the Church: if it couldn’t change what was taking place on stage at Oberammergau, it could at least condemn it." Cardinal Doepfner of Munich quickly asked the mayor of Oberammergau to submit the script for review. The Jews had succeeded, in the initial stage at least, in dividing the shepherd from his flock.

That this was their intention becomes clear when Shapiro discusses the play’s use of typology, the fact that events in the Old Testament prefigured events in the New. All typology, he says, is triumphalist and repugnant to Jews. As a rabbi "who rejected typology categorically" put it, "all configurations in the Hebrew Bible are the mental property of Judaism" and therefore "off limits to Christians." The Jews, according to Shapiro, could exploit "the sensitive issue of collective Jewish guilt ... in a post-Holocaust world," but "there is little wiggle room when it comes to typology, nor can there be, insofar as Christianity is built upon its foundations." "Oberammergau and the Vatican took one and the same position" on typology "leaving Jewish critics with little leverage."

Leverage is precisely what the Jews got with Nostra Aetate — not so much because of what the document said but because the Church could never make its interpretation of its own document prevail over the interpretation which the Jews wanted to impose on it. With the help of Catholic scholars they were able use their interpretation to drive a wedge between the hierarchy and the peasants. One of the scholars most willing to help in this regard was Leonard Swidler of Villanova University. Swidler had a long history of saying whatever the ADL wanted to say whenever it would have been considered impolitic for the ADL to say it themselves. In the early ‘80s, Swidler wrote that "Jesus was himself not a Christian. He was a Jew." Swidler left the term Jew deliberately ambiguous as a way of undermining the Church’s reading of its own historical roots. This meant that the Gospels could no longer be considered historically accurate. They were, instead, part of the "faith facts" school, which means that they "are records of the way specific communities remembered Jesus the risen Christ, rather than careful accountings of historical accuracy."

Swidler then collaborated with Gerard Sloyan, another Catholic, in exploiting "the gap" which "existed between the new historical research and the traditional representation of the characters of the Passion story" as a way of subverting the 1984 Oberammergau production. By supporting the "new historical research" of "Catholic scholars" like Swidler and Sloyan, the Jews were forcing the Bavarians into a bind. Since, according to Shapiro, "the villagers had long insisted that what they were staging was historically true," they could either capitulate to scholars like Swidler and Sloyan and eviscerate the Gospel or they could accept the Gospel in its entirety but admit that it had no historical foundation.

As a result of their inability to see through the Jewish lobby's strategy of cultural warfare, the Bavarians began to give ground and make concessions. "One by one," Shapiro tells us, "the details of their play were shown to be ahistorical." Since the Jews wanted to eviscerate the play as a prelude to eviscerating the gospels, no amount of concessions would satisfy them. "Even as changes were adopted in 1970, 1980, and 1984," Shapiro writes, "more and more changes were suggested." The more the Jews gained concessions, the less interested they were in historical accuracy. During the seemingly never ending negotiations someone suggested, "Some of the Jews [in the Play] ought to wear prayer shawls and cover their heads with kippot," "even if Jews in the first-century didn’t!" The purpose of the revisions, according to Shapiro, "was not only to make the play less offensive, but also to change the story line." That meant downplaying the "opposition between Jews and Christians" and rewriting it as "an intra-Jewish squabble that turns deadly only when the occupying Roman forces get involved." The Jews promoted this reading because "arguing for Jesus’ Jewishness also has the effect of delegitimizing Christianity itself." [JRS, pp. 935-937]

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:

The New York Times ran a piece by James Rudin, "Oberammergau Play: Still Anti-Semitic." In the play, "the Jews," says Rudin, "emerge as a corrupt, brutal people, driven by harsh and cruel law — clearly the 'bad guys' of the play." Jews must redouble their efforts. Now the real concessions could begin. Rudin later claimed his column was "‘the turning point, the wake-up call’" for Oberammergau. "Then," Rudin says, "they felt the power of the Jews. It stunned them. It’s one thing to publish [Jewish propaganda] in the [CINO] Journal of Ecumenical Studies, another in the New York Times." [JRS, p. 1024]

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:

It was an attack on the idea of vow as something that would be "rewarded by divine intervention," as opposed to financial calculations based on expedience, the first law of the Jewish modernity. The "villagers of Oberammergau … remained faithful to the tradition that a vow was taken by their ancestors in 1633 ... if their lives were spared they would perform a Passion Play in perpetuity." If "the refusal to honor" a solemn vow was considered "an act of impiety," then the Jews would promote impiety, and the deracination that goes with it, by undermining the villagers belief in the historical foundation of their vow. Shapiro indicates "the identity of Oberammergau, its notion of its own past, present, and future, was closely tied to this powerful narrative. To question [the vow] was necessarily to call into doubt the exceptional nature of the village and its steadfast commitment to Passion playing."

"The problem," he says, "is that the chronicle narrative — the story’s only source — rests on very shaky foundations." To the Jewish debunker of Christian piety, the unreliability of the play’s antecedents is similar to the historical unreliability of the gospels. In fact, "The problem of the transmission of the vow story," Shapiro says, "bears an uncanny resemblance to the more controversial one raised by the Evangelists’ retelling of Jesus’ Passion: How accurate are versions of the past set down by writers several generations removed from the events that they describe?"

The historical basis of the vow had to be destroyed because the vow validated a world the Jews find unacceptable. Shapiro cites "the Catholic Eugen Roth," who sees the vow as something that saved the villagers from modernity: "Recent years have brought such revolutionary changes to the whole globe that only a securely anchored vow, an unbroken tradition, can explain why Oberammergau remained true to itself in the midst of a disintegrating world spiritually impoverished by technical achievements and the desire for sensational distraction."

Shapiro cites another writer who

uses the village as a stick to beat those who commit adultery or have stopped going to church: "In an age when many people break their vows of baptism, confirmation or marriage if they no longer feel like keeping them, it is refreshing to find a community which believes that the vow made by the ancestors is still solemnly binding on them." This may keep the pilgrims coming to see the play, but it is a myth of piety that has begun to suffocate many in Oberammergau, especially the young, when held to this impossibly high example.

So we can conclude from this that Shapiro considers the Mosaic prohibition against adultery "an impossibly high example." This may explain his vehement attempts to debunk the villagers’ vow. The attack on the vow is an attack on anyone who believes that a sphere of life can be reserved for something other than commercial purposes. As such, the attack on the vow becomes an attack on marriage. Those who resist the commercialization of sex are deluding themselves with "a myth of piety," which is ultimately "suffocating." The attack on the marriage vow as an "impossibly high example" becomes so vehement, one must assume that for once personal, as opposed to ethnic, motives are entering into the discussion here.

But the attack on the vow is above all else an attack on the idea of a rooted culture. The Jews clearly saw "the fantasy of Oberammergau" as an affront to what they see as universal progress, which is to say the universal commercialization of every aspect of human life. Shapiro’s account makes clear that the fact that Oberammergau was perceived as "inaccessible, the people neither influencing, nor being influenced by the outer world" was intolerable. The idea of a "‘mountain-girt’ village" that was "far removed from the world ... defined by progress, secularization and social revolution" was clearly repugnant to Shapiro and by extension to the Jewish organizations which waged cultural warfare on Oberammergau for that reason.

Shapiro then goes into his debunking mode. "This little valley in the Bavarian mountains" is not different "from the outside world;" nor is it "strangely untouched and uncorrupted." Shapiro delightedly quotes the impressions of the first tourists to arrive as a prelude to debunking them because no place on earth can escape the forces of "progress, secularization and social revolution." When Winold Reiss writes Oberammergau is "one of the few spots in all the world where faith and idealism have successfully withstood materialism and commercial greed," Shapiro responds "nothing could have been further from the truth than the idea that these were rural peasants, cut off from intercourse with the outside world by a ring of mountains." The contrary impression, Shapiro says, is "a credit to the collective acting ability of the villagers ... One wonders to what extent they even began to believe it themselves."

To show it is "impossible to protect the villagers from uncontrollable forces from the outside world, Shapiro attacks "the much-heralded morality of the villagers" by delving into the village’s illegitimacy rate. "If local records of illegitimacy rates are any indication," Shapiro says, "reports of Oberammergau’s extraordinary virtue are overrated." Shapiro is not the first to spread rumors to undermine their passion play. The rumors go back to 1890 when Rev. E. Hermitage Day said "some of the more malicious rumors ... were traced to disappointed Jewish financiers, who had hoped to secure a share of the profits by financing the play." [JRS, pp. 1024-26]

Perverse hatred

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."

Huber was stunned. Foxman wanted Oberammergau to perform a passion play without the Crucifixion. Huber realized "the ADL wants to destroy our identity." Huber tried another approach, appealing to "Oberammergau’s tradition." This too got him nowhere. Foxman, recounting his version to Shapiro, told Huber "to hell with tradition if it fuels hatred and contempt that ultimately kills Jews." [JRS, p. 1026]

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:

After the war, when Foxman was six or seven, his biological parents returned and demanded their son back. The Polish woman refused. Foxman refused to leave the Polish woman, the only mother he had ever known. Foxman’s biological parents went to court and prevailed. They told Foxman the woman he loved as his mother was not and never had been his mother. He was also told he was not and had never been a Catholic. So, from the perspective of Foxman as a child in a Polish custody battle, the Catholic story of "love and understanding" was what Professor Shapiro might call "a myth of piety." [JRS, 1027]

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

was overruled by a harsh Jewish reality. Foxman was torn from the only mother he had ever known. Was it because the Catholic mother allowed this trauma that she must be first demonized and then punished? If Foxman’s Catholic mother could not be punished, then Holy Mother Church could be punished in her stead. The pain of separation from the mother was intense and impossible to remedy. Blood and the Law triumphed over love. The only way Foxman could alleviate pain of this sort was to demonize the source of the pain, namely, his Polish mother and Holy Mother Church.

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 Sanhedrin would no longer condemn Jesus to death; a speech would be added in which Gamaliel accuses Caiaphas of having failed to invite all the members of the Sandhedrin; all remaining references to the Pharisees would be deleted; and Jesus would offer a blessing in Hebrew at the Last Supper.

"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:

It describes Tony Kaye as "one of Britain's, and America's, leading directors of television adverts and a man whose eye-catchingly unorthodox style has made him a legend in his business." The story arose from a classified advertisement which Kaye had placed in the Cars for Sale section of the paper two days before Christmas. The full text of the advert read: "JEWISH CAR FOR SALE. Four telephones and one fax machine. £1.3 Million. Ring Tony Kaye on 0101-310-720-3613." He also placed the advert in the Sunday Times, but within a few days was shocked to be on the receiving end of a "deluge" of abusive and threatening telephone calls from Jews who thought it was anti-Semitic. "There were some horrible messages on my answering machine", including death threats, he told the Standard. As a matter of fact he did have a nearly new Lincoln executive-series limousine for sale at the price mentioned, and it did come complete with four phone lines and a fax, and its American registration plate did read "Jewish" because, as Mr. Kaye was at pains to point out, he is Jewish "and very proud of it."

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:

Marcuse considered the traditional way of conceiving tolerance — permitting another person's viewpoint regardless of how one personally felt — to be "repressive tolerance." What was needed instead was what he termed "liberating tolerance." Significantly, liberating tolerance involved "intolerance against movements from the Right and tolerance and toleration of movements from the Left." Movements from the Left included various groups that Marcuse enouraged to self-identify as oppressed, including homosexuals, women, blacks and immigrants. Only groups such as these could be considered legitimate objects of tolerance.

.... the new tolerance built on the [neo-Marxist] theories of Gramsci in seeking to redistribute cultural capital. Marcuse made no secret that these were his ultimate goals, reflecting once, "I suggested... the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right...."

Marcuse also made no secret of the fact that he was willing to stamp out academic freedom in order to shift this balance of power. Significantly, he acknowledged that the new paradigm of tolerance involved "the withdrawal of tolerance of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies" while "the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behaviour...."

By the 1960's, the ideologies forged by Marcuse and the other members of the Frankfurt School had become the dominant position for most of the college radicals. Many of them entered academia, media or politics, with the deliberate purpose of changing the world. The change they would bring would be along the lines that Aldous Huxley articulated in his Foreword to Brave New World:

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."

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

More than three million Jews died in Poland and the Polish people are not going to be the heirs of the Polish Jews. We are never going to allow this. (...) They're gonna hear from us until Poland freezes over again.

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:

The tragic truth is that for each Jew who was saved in the midst of these horrors, several Poles risked their own lives. Most Polish gentiles could not save Jews any more than they could save their own people. They could not prevent the killing of millions of Polish Christians, and the Polish Nation itself faced genocide from the Nazi government plans for the "1000 Year Reich" of ethnically pure Germans, who would populate the area from the Rhine to the Denept rivers. It is difficult to find a Polish gentile family, which did not lose several family members and close relatives under the Nazi and Soviet occupations.

In his four books, Gross ignores the fact that the death penalty for helping Jews was unique to wartime Poland... Poland was to be colonized by Germans and the Polish nation eradicated. For this reason the Nazis used every opportunity to kill Poles. One of the examples of this policy was the death penalty and summary execution of entire Polish families and immediate neighborhoods for helping and hiding Jews.

[...] Gross hides the fact that the ethnic Poles considered German and Soviet invaders as equally dangerous, whereas many Jews were trying to find security on the side of the Soviets. The ethnic Poles were naturally preoccupied with saving their nation, which was exposed to massive executions starting two years before the genocide of the Jews began.

From the beginning of the war, the Nazis were committing mass murders on the Polish civilian population, especially throughout western Poland, newly annexed by Germany. Nazis brought with them lists prepared long before the invasion of Poland of people to be executed. The Soviet NKVD prepared a list of 22,000 people of the Polish leadership community all of whom were executed during the Spring of 1940. Mass execution of the Jews in Nazi gas chambers began two years later.

The Polish resistance movement was the largest in occupied Europe. In order to break the Polish resistance, the Nazi terror apparatus (1939-1945) and the communist security forces (1939-1956) tortured more gentile Poles than any other European ethnic group. The Jewish tragedy consisted of mass executions but did not involve the massive hunt and tortures, related to resistance activities, which was inflicted on the Polish Catholic population.

Gross does not recognize the fact that helping Jews was also a part of the resistance against the Nazis. Illogically he makes an accusation out of the fact that more Poles were engaged in the armed resistance against occupation than in saving of individual Jews. Gross cites this fact as proof of Polish anti-Semitism.

Under the Soviet occupation there was a policy to nominate Jews to the most visible posts in the Communist terror apparatus. It happened on one hand because plenty of Jews volunteered for these positions and on the other because the Soviet government was shifting the blame to the Jews for Soviet crimes. The Soviets deliberately aggravated the intra-ethnic relations by their policy of "divide and rule."

This perfidious Soviet policy did not facilitate a postwar admission that one risked one's and others' lives while sheltering Jews, who after the war became, as Daniel Jonah Goldhagen might say, "Stalin's willing executioners" in Poland. The widespread complicity of the Jews in the Soviet terror apparatus which Stalin installed in Poland was considered to be a proof of Jewish lack of concern for the existence of a sovereign Polish nation.

The collaboration between the "Jewish committees" and the NKVD in Soviet-occupied Poland is well documented. The last memory of many Polish citizens before the door was slammed shut on a boxcar bound for Siberia was the face of a Jewish militiaman slamming the door. (There was no similar collaboration between Polish Catholics and the Nazis for example.) However the problem of Jewish collaboration with enemies is more complicated. Let us remember the fact that the last experience of Jewish victims in Poland, packed into boxcars bound for the gas chambers, was that of a Jewish ghetto policeman slamming shut the death car door. The recent Roman Polanski film The Pianist vividly shows these horrible scenes. It is a matter of record that Jewish policeman in the Warsaw Ghetto sent on average about 2,200 Jewish victims to the gas chambers.

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:

[Wilkomirski's book] Fragments, published in Switzerland in 1995, "was acclaimed a masterpiece, and soon became an international bestseller. Wilkomirsrski won the National Jewish Book Award for autobiography, the Prix Memoire de las Shoah in France and the Jewish Quarterly Literary Prize in Britain. He was also given a cash award from the American Orthopsychiatric Association. His fame grew, and Wilkomirski received standing ovations throughout America, at public lectures organised by the U.S. Holocaust Museum. He was cited in newspapers as an authority on the Holocaust. Some compared him to Primo Levi. Professors of history assigned Fragments as obligatory reading to their students. Then suddenly he was exposed as a fraud. It turned out that the harrowing Holocaust memoir had been written by an impostor, in fact, by a gentile who had spent the war in a comfortable Protestant home in Switzerland.

[...] Were those who believed him easily fooled or were some of them also members of what Norman Finkelstein called the "Holocaust Industry"? Were they "Holocaust profiteers," to use the term coined on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal?Holocaust historian Daniel Goldhagen highly praised the book, and the director of the U.S. Holcaust Museum made "Wilkomirski" a guest of honor at a $150 per plate luncheon at the New York Carlyle Hotel.

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 dean of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg, has effectively been called a Holocaust Denier by [leading JINO attorney] Alan Dershowitz! Given that Hilberg essentially invented Holocaust studies when he published his magisterial study The Destruction of European Jews it is incredible that Dershowitz can get away with this kind of flagrant nonsense. Of course when one comes across an actual Holocaust Denier it's shocking because one has become used to the term being used as a libel rather than an accurate description.

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:

According to Deborah Lipstadt, ... , "Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism"; it is "the new anti-Semitism".... According to Professor Lipstadt's definition of the term, anyone who says the word apartheid and Israel in the same sentence is guilty of the "new anti-Semitism" otherwise known as holocaust denial. The term "Israel Apartheid" was, of course, a veiled reference to former President Jimmy Carter, who is now routinely dismissed as an anti-Semite. Perhaps "New Anti-Semite" might be a better term, since it corresponds with the "New Anti-Semitism" and reflects, of course, the fact that no one dared to level the term when Carter was president.

According to Professor Lipstadt:

Any claim that Zionism is a form of racism or anything linking Israel and South Africa also constitutes anti-Semitism. The same goes for UN resolutions condeminng Israel behavior toward Palestinians, something she terms "legalised anti-Semitism." The same goes for people who refer to Jews as a group, as in what she terms "the so-called Jewish lobby," which was a veiled reference to Walt and Mearsheimer's book on the Israel Lobby.

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:

According to Professor Lipstadt, there are two forms of Holocaust denial: Hard core and soft-core. As examples of hard-core holocaust denial, Lipstadt mentioned David Irving and "so-called Bishop Williamson." Lipstadt also objects to historians who claim that "otherwise David Irving is a good historian," making clear that they are guilty of what might be termed secondhand Holcaust denial, a pathogen contracted by intellectual proximity in analagous fashion to how lung cancer is supposedly contracted by secondhand smoke.

Then there is soft-core Holocaust denial. As examples thereof, Lipstadt listed things like "cancellation of Holocaust remembrance day celebrations," something that happened in Barcelona recently, "because of Israeli behavior in Gaza." As another example of soft-core holocaust denial, Lipstadt mentioned "Eastern European countries governments arguing that Nazis and Communists were equivalent, and that the communists perpetrated genocide." The fact that a Jewish resistance fighter was indicted by the Lithuanian government for war crimes committed while he was a partisan is an instance of soft-core holocaust denial, according to Professor Lipstadt.

Another example of soft-core denial was Mel Gibson's interview at the time of the release of the Passion of the Christ — which the Jews, according to Professor Lipstadt, made into a blockbuster by their protests. Mel Gibson became a holocaust denier, in Professor Lipstadt's eyes, when he mentioned in an interview with Diane Sawyer that "in the Ukraine millions of people were starved to death." As Norman Finkelstein has pointed out in his book The Holocaust Industry:

To question a survivor's testimony, to denounce the role of Jewish collaborators, to suggest the Germans suffered during the bombing of Dresden or that any state except Germany committed crimes in World War II — this is all evidence, according to Lipstadt of Holocaust denial... The most "insidious" forms of Holocaust denial, Lipstadt suggests, are "immoral equivalencies": that is denying the uniqueness of The Holocaust.

As conclusive and irrefutable proof that Mel Gibson is a Holocaust denier, Lipstadt mentioned that he said in the same interview that the Jews "died at Auschwitz" not that they were "murdered," which is what he should have said if he wanted to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism. Holocaust denial is also something that can be contracted genetically, like the goyische equivalent of Tay-Sachs disease. Professor Lipstadt makes it clear that Mel Gibson contracted it from his father, or better, he contracted it because he refused to denounce his father as a holocaust denier. As further proof of Mel Gibson's "soft-core holocaust denial," Professor Lipstadt claimed that Gibson said, "My father never lied to me in his life." (Does this mean that genetic transmission of holocaust denial causes an amelioration from the hard-core variety manifested by Hutton Gibson into the soft-core variety manifested by his son? If so, what are the prospects for the third generation? Holocaust doubt?) We are left to assume that Gibson should have behaved more like Pavlik Moroslav, the Ukrainian boy who denounced his father to the Soviet secret police. Little Pavlik was murdered by his outraged relatives, but the Soviets erected statues and schools in his honour. ["Foot in Mouth Disease," Culture Wars, Jan. 2011]

"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;
• Professors John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt, for their 2008 book, The Israeli Lobby;
• Karl Marx, for his youthful idealist condemnation (too harsh, in my opinion) of "the practical religion of the Jews" as the belief that money rules the world;
• John Sack, for his book, An Eye for Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945;
• Norman Finkelstein, for his 2000 book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering;
• Alexander Solzhenitsyn, for portraying Dmitry (Mordko) Bogrov, the assassin of the Russian Prime Minister and reformer Peter Stolypin, as a Jew, which he was;
• Fyodor Dostoevsky, a Russian novelist, for arguing that revolutionary theories and sentiments attracted a disproportionate number of Jews and for warning, correctly, that the revolution will harm both Jews and Gentiles;
• Lev Tolstoy, a prophet of nonviolence, for refusing to condone the violence of Jewish revolutionaries, even while condemning government violence;
• George Steiner, a Jewish scholar, for criticizing Jewish nationalism and Israel;
• Mahatma Gandhi, for converting Tolstoy's principle of non-violence to an effective political strategy and censuring the violent foundation of the Jewish state;
• Albert Einstein, for calling the founders of Israel "fascists";
• Patrick Buchanan, an adviser to President Reagan, for stating that the Republican party was taken over by the neocons;
• Israel Shahak, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for being an outspoken critic of the Israeli government;
• Shlomo Sand, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University, for his book, The Invention of the Jewish People;
• Jimmy Carter, U.S. President and Nobel Peace Prize winner, for stating in his 2006 book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, that Israel's control and colonization of Palestinian land have been obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement;
• Cynthia McKinney, a former six-term U.S. Congresswoman, for her fight for the rights of Afro-Americans in the U.S. and of Palestinians in the Middle East.
Apologising for its "brevity and apparent randomness," Krasnow notes that "many others deserve to grace this list." To say the least! The Catholic litany alone covers 2,000 years, featuring Pius XII and Cardinal Hlond as prominent 20th century additions. The black legend cooked up about the latter remains a vital part of the defamation and shakedown of the Polish nation described by Iwo Pogonowski.

Cardinal Hlond

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:

One of the classic instances which we are given of "modern" anti-Semitism is the pastoral letter on morals which was issued by Cardinal Hlond, the primate of Poland, on February 29, 1936. The part beginning "It is true that Jews ... have a corruptive influence on morals, and that their publishing houses are spreading pornography ..." is invariably quoted as proof of Hlond’s anti-Semitism, but no mention is made of what follows. Far from being an anti-Semitic diatribe, Hlond’s pastoral letter, as we saw in the introduction, is a classic instance of the two part teaching on the Jews that goes by the name of "Sicut Iudeis non," something which becomes apparent when the above-cited passage is quoted in its proper context:

So long as Jews remain Jews, a Jewish problem exists and will continue to exist. This question varies in intensity and degree from country to country. It is especially difficult in our country, and ought to be the object of serious consideration. I shall touch briefly here on its moral aspects in connection with the situation today.

It is a fact that Jews are waging war against the Catholic Church, that they are steeped in free-thinking and constitute the vanguard of atheism, the Bolshevik movement, and revolutionary activity. It is a fact that Jews have a corruptive influence on morals, and that their publishing houses are spreading pornography. It is true that Jews are perpetrating fraud, practicing usury, and dealing in prostitution. It is true that, from a religious and ethical point of view, Jewish youth are having a negative influence on the Catholic youth in our schools. But let us be fair. Not all Jews are this way. There are very many Jews who are believers, honest, just, kind, and philanthropic. There is a healthy, edifying sense of family in very many Jewish homes. We know Jews who are ethically outstanding, noble, and upright.

After reciting the dangers that Jews pose to a Christian society like Poland, Cardinal Hlond goes on to warn the Poles 1) that racism imported from Germany poses a danger to Polish culture and 2) that no one has the right to harm the Jews. In doing this he is simply restating Sicut Iudais non in its entirety:

I warn against that moral stance, imported from abroad [he is clearly thinking of Germany] that is basically and ruthlessly anti-Jewish. It is contrary to Catholic ethics. One may love one’s own nation more, but one may not hate anyone. Not even Jews. It is good to prefer your own kind when shopping, to avoid Jewish stores and Jewish stalls in the marketplace, but it is forbidden to demolish a Jewish store, damage their merchandise, break windows, or throw things at their homes. One should stay away from the harmful moral influence of Jews, keep away from their anti-Christian culture, and especially boycott the Jewish press and demoralizing Jewish publications. But it is forbidden to assault, beat up, maim, or slander Jews. One should honor Jews as human beings and neighbors, even though we do not honor the indescribable tragedy of that nation, which was the guardian of the idea of the Messiah and from which was born the Savior. When divine mercy enlightens a Jew to sincerely accept his and our Messiah, let us greet him into our Christian ranks with joy.

Beware of those who are inciting anti-Jewish violence. They are serving a bad cause. Do you know who is giving the orders? Do you know who is intent on these riots? No good comes from these rash actions. And it is Polish blood that is sometimes being shed at them.

Cardinal Hlond was not expressing racial hatred here; he was warning his Polish flock about the dangers of Bolshevism, which, as all of Europe had learned during the 1920s, was an essentially Jewish movement. Cardinal Hlond was opposing Jewish revolutionary activity on the one hand, but he was also opposing the vicious reaction to Jewish revolutionary activity that was known as Nazism and had taken over Germany at that time. The Church was consistent in its opposition to revolution on the one hand, and in defending the Jews against physical harm on the other. Both parts of this teaching are necessary. If either one is ignored, trouble follows.

Joe Sobran

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:

Calling Sobran an "Antiwar Prophet," Jon Utley, a Russia & America Good Will Associate (RAGA) subscriber and antiwar activist, wrote in his eulogy in The American Conservative magazine, "If Joe Sobran's warnings had been heeded, America would not be on the path to bankruptcy and unending, unwinnable wars."

I, too, regard Joe as an American patriot, man of peace, friend of Russia, honorary RAGA associate, and personal friend.

I came to the United States in 1966 from Sweden, a country that was rapidly turning anti-American. Even with my shaky English, I quickly found out that William F. Buckley Jr.'s National Review (NR), for which Joe Sobran soon became the principal writer, was the only intellectual magazine that was unabashedly pro-American. It was anti-communist, not in the sense of belligerency but by virtue of its defense of the fundamental American values of individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, and academic freedom — values that were under communist assault around the world.

These values were also under assault on most American campuses. The intellectual establishment raged against "American imperialism," "capitalist exploitation," and "racism." The New Left — actually refurbished Marxist-Leninists — effectively controlled the ideological and political discourse on the campuses. Domestic terrorism was in vogue. ....

[...] The "realistic" ambitions of American politicians did not stretch further than a negotiated division of the globe into two spheres of influence. Joe Sobran and NR were the only consistent champions of superiority of freedom over tyranny. They argued for the primacy of human rights in U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations. They warned that the peaceful coexistence that Soviet leaders promised was illusory; these leaders refused even to coexist with their own citizens.

[...] Some American dissidents, including Joe, took a skeptical view of U.S. sponsorship of Russian reforms devised by free-market neoliberal fundamentalists at Harvard, most of whom were Jewish. However, Sobran and his friends were more concerned with another group of influential people known as the "neoconservatives." The neocons, most of whom were also Jewish, were actively pushing the U.S. on a global ideological offensive — hence the Persian Gulf War, the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, the expansion of NATO, and the global war on terror. Sobran and his friends did not want to be associated with this aggressive American triumphalism, with its russophobic tinge.

When I learned that Joe had resisted the neocon pressure at NR and was fired, I asked my conservative friends to introduce me to him. Joe struck me as a friendly, generous, and jovial man who came for a light-hearted conversation rather than to pronounce intellectual profundities or ponder geopolitical strategies.

Joe knew me as the author of Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky, so I presented a copy to him. He told me he admired Solzhenitsyn as a great novelist and a man whose very presence in the United States stiffened the backbone of resistance against global Soviet expansion and inspired the Reagan revolution. Solzhenitsyn, he said, was a Russian gift to America. "By the way, even though I am a good Catholic and product of American melting pot, I am a Russian by blood," said Joe referring to his family name. In Russian "Sobran" means "gathered," "concentrated," and "ready to go." ...

[...] I asked him about his departure from NR. It was an outcome of a protracted process, Joe told me; over the years, [Jewish] neocon publishers Norman Podhoretz and Midge Dexter pressured Buckley to stop Sobran from writing columns critical of Israel. Buckley finally caved in. However, Joe evinced no bitterness against the boss who fired him or the people who tipped the boss's hand.

"The neocons did what was advantageous to them," Joe said. "They wanted to take over NR as an influential voice of conservative opinion in the country. They wanted to turn it into a pro-war propaganda tool. I happened to be there, with my own views, so they had to eliminate me in the struggle for Buckley's soul. The best way to do so was by labeling me an 'anti-Semite.' The term is a misnomer, and the charge is unfair. But who cares? People are so afraid to be around 'anti-Semites,' of giving them jobs or prominence, that the accusation automatically becomes a verdict. I'm fortunate to have friends whose livelihood does not depend on jobs. I enjoy my new independence. Now I don't have to tailor my opinion for one editorial policy or another."

... Historically speaking, Joe was proven right. According to Wikipedia, Buckley changed his view of the Iraq war. He "saw it as a disaster and thought that the conservative movement he had created had in effect committed intellectual suicide by failing to maintain critical distance from the Bush administration."

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:

"Are you anti-Jewish?" I asked him point blank. "Goodness no," Joe replied. "I am aware that Jews played a prominent role in Russian revolution. I know how prominent they were in the antiwar and civil rights movement here. Many of them were pro-socialist and pro-Soviet. They never raised the issue of human rights in Russia, Eastern Europe, or China. At that time, they were anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American. They were not particularly pro-Israel. But I also know Jews who are as American as can be. They are not just my personal friends. They are allies in a struggle against militant Zionists who equate U.S. national interests with those of Israel. I am intellectually indebted to my Jewish friends, and I'd never turn against a Jew simply because he is a Jew."

Joe made it clear that his case transcended his person. What he endured was indicative of a dangerous social malady — stifling all debate in favor of political shibboleths. Joe asked me if I remembered seeing how the Prime Minister of Israel was received by the joint session of Congress. I did. After the speech was over, the camera showed everybody standing up and applauding, not knowing when to stop and afraid to be the first to sit down. "Didn't that remind you of the country from which you defected?" Joe asked.

Our conversation ranged over the period from the late 1960s to the fall of communism. We discussed the Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the '60s, a book written in early 1990s by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, two former editors of the New Left magazine Ramparts, in which they admitted their philosophy then was "we murdered to create." Alas, David's enlightenment did not last long. He became a right-winger, racist, and avowed pro-war Zionist. In 2004, Horowitz and Collier even published the Anti-Chomsky Reader. David's life curve was typical of many American Jews who, on the road to Damascus, switched from the anti-war radicalism of the 1960s to today's pro-war propaganda, believing that the war now is in Israel's best interests.

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

As the son of Arkady Berdichevsky, a Russian Jew executed in 1938 during the mass purges of Trotskyites, Jon knows well what it meant to be smeared "anti-Soviet" for no reason but political expediency. That is why he feels special compassion for Joe, who was smeared as "anti-Semite."

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:

I'd like to nominate Michael Joseph Sobran to be proclaimed an honorary Jew. He was right in the prophecy that the war in which we are engaged, while wreaking death and destruction in the countries for which we are self-proclaimed benefactors, would do nothing good for either Israel or the United States. .... Even though Joe lived and died as a faithful Catholic, I am sure he would not mind the title of honorary Jew.

I also propose to declare the words "anti-Semite" and "anti-Semitic" to be outdated, hyperinflated, and unfit for modern use. Incompatible with his dignity, these words should be buried in a cemetery far removed from that of Joe Sobran. Or perhaps they should be cremated and literally turned to dust. Any substantive content found in this dust should be archived for the benefit of future generations.

But won't we thus deprive English of its richness and expressiveness? As any Shakespeare scholar would vouch, we can still find ample use for such words as anti-Zionist, anti-Judaic, or Jew-hater. Only the first would partially apply to Joe Sobran. He was a person of great integrity; kind, clever, civil, and quietly courageous. He was a positive man of peace. The only "anti" he deserved was anti-extremist.

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.

 

CLICK HERE FOR PART I

CLICK HERE FOR PART III

 

 

 

 

Back to Top | Editorials 2011