Benedict and the Jews
- Part III -

THE EDITOR

I. Absorbing the Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Philosemite as Subversive: The PEEP Pulverisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verily, the spirit of Cromwell lives!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. "Fear of the JINOs"

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

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

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

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

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

And for the cowardly and complicit, just as intimidating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. "Iron Fist": East and West

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

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