Friday, December 20, 2013

Nitel Nacht, the desecration of the Nativity by privileged Hasidim sponsored by the Holy Roman Empire

Time and resources are short, but I do want to connect the dots for those who have not done so.

Inspired by B'nai B'rith's recent honoring of that enemy of Christ and heir of Holy Roman Empire nobility, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, we pointed to the Schönborn clan's descent from the very same locality that the 'royalty' of Khazar Judaism, Katzenelenbogen, originates from. We documented that the Schönborn bishops sponsored such 'Jews' as stewards of their Munkacs estate, even inviting them to live and build synagogues therein. We documented that a key revenue stream for the Schönborns was the sale of alcohol to the Munkacs Christian peasants via these 'Jews' and that a key revenue stream for these 'Jews' was moneylending at exorbitant interest rates. We documented the reactionary Hasidic desecration of Christmas called Nitel Nacht. We pointed out the rabbinic propaganda blood libel and cover story that this hateful tradition is inspired by "drunk Christians killing 'Jews' on Christmas Eve."

The Munkacs Hasidic Dynasty which served as stewards of the Schönborn Munkacs estate, whose holy books (Minchas Elazar of Munkacs, Sefer Divrei Torah, Sefer Darchei Chaim veShalom) teach that the 'evil' 'parasitic' 'kelipoth' are at their peak strength on 'Nitel Nacht' (Christmas Eve), and justify this hateful theology by claiming that drunk Christians hunt them down to kill them on Christmas Eve, are the same Hasidim who, under Schönborn patronage, sold these Christian peasants alcohol on credit and enslaved them with usury.

Est Coelum Nobilitorum. Paradisus Judeorum. Et Infernum Rusticorum. If you don't deeply contemplate the wisdom of this saying now, you'll be living what it warns of later.

P.S. The Munkacs are of that anti-zionist "Torah-true Jew" variety who are supposed by many gullible conservatives and 'truth seekers' to be allies.

Also see:

Schönborn blasts Holocaust deniers

Fatima Rabbi Mayer Schiller's Skver Sect Teaches its Children to Hate 'Evil' Non-'Jews': "The entire essence of the gentile is evil and impure"

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Nitel Nacht Has a Theological Basis

5 years ago, the details of the hateful tradition of Hasidic Judaism observed on Christmas Eve called Nitel Nacht were revealed to a non-Judaic audience at this space. The writings on Nitel (or Nittel) Nacht have since, predictably, taken on a more apologetic nature. It is being argued that this tradition has no theological basis, is derived solely out of fear of Christian persecution, and is no longer observed. I can assure readers that all three of these assertions are false.

The theological basis for Nitel Nacht, which is a natural extension of rabbinic Judaism, was published for ghetto consumption in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz in 2004:

On Christmas Eve, known in Jewish circles as Nitel Night, the klipot (shells) are in total control. The klipot are parasitical evil forces that attach themselves to the forces of good. According to kabbala (Jewish mysticism), on the night on which "that man" - a Jewish euphemism for Jesus - was born, not even a trace of holiness is present and the klipot exploit every act of holiness for their own purposes.("For them, it's wholly unholy," Shahar Ilan, Haaretz, December 24, 2004)

So, given that Nitel Nacht does in fact have a theological basis deeply rooted in the Kabbalistic tradition, we will dismiss the pious legends of drunk Christians hunting down and killing 'Jews' on Christmas Eve throughout Europe as the rabbinic protection racket propaganda blood libel that it is. And if some Christian peasants were drunk on Christmas Eve, perhaps Yiddish alcohol peddlers and their Catholic nobleman sponsors deserve some blame for selling them 'spirits' on credit.

And be very much assured that the Hasidism who still wave chickens over their heads and spill their blood in a deal with Satan, and still suck blood from infant boys' penises, do still observe Nitel Nacht.

Please see:

How Benedict's Fathers in the Faith Observe Christmas Eve

Elder Brothers' Traditional Christmas Hate

What Does Christmas Have To Do With The Hanging Of Saddam Hussein?

And with that reactionary, traditional Judaic Nativity hatred in mind, please see:

"Alias St. Nick"

Friday, December 13, 2013

Why Does Pope Francis Promote the Hasidic Painting, "The White Crucifixion"?

A reader, Therapsid has commented on the previous entry, "Pope Francis' 'Modernist' Hasidism"

It's difficult to come up with any innocent explanation for the cover of Pope Francis' book.

We've been told that Chagall is his favorite painter.

But why, pray tell?

He wasn't exactly an accomplished painter according to traditional criteria. Far from it. On Wikipedia you'll see a portrait of Chagall by the Jewish artist Yehuda Pen that is superior to his own work.

To be frank, "White Crucifixion" is a very crude and childlike painting. Why is it the pope's favorite painting? What does it show about Christ that isn't revealed in Gothic reliefs, renaissance sculptures, and baroque paintings?

Dear Therapsid, thank you for your thoughts.

My take is that, aside from Pope Francis' collusion with Judaism and its adherents, which is plainly manifest, which does adequately explain the image in my mind, he's a revolutionary of a crude, bolshevik type. In overthrowing the old culture, bolsheviks attempt to replace it with something, but they're at the disadvantage of not having centuries of development and refinement to draw from. They have to throw a replacement together quickly.

This phenomenon is readily observed at many venerable old institutions where the patrons have changed over from old money Europeans to new money Judaic East Europeans. In hurriedly making their mark they impose crude paintings, sculpture and architecture of jarring contrast to the former asthetic. Then, there are fellow tribe members and helpers elsewhere in the establishment (i.e. The New York Times) positioned to authoritatively tell us how 'talented' these artists are and how 'great' their work is (Chagall was backed by Solomon Guggenheim and Irene Rothschild-Guggenheim).

But beyond aesthetics, "White Crucifixion" is a bolshevik ideological representation of Jesus. It has nothing to do with the real Jesus or Gospel. It depicts a "Jesus" who was crucified solely 'because he was a Jew,' just as it is alleged that 'Jews' are always persecuted, for no other reason than that 'they are Jews,' in other words, "Esau hates Jacob," the fundamental tenet of the protection racket of rabbinic Judaism.

Chagall may have physically left the ghetto, but he was still preaching the message of the ghetto in his art. This is Chabad Lubavitch Hasidism par excellence ('be modern on the outside but Chabad on the inside').

I believe this is why Pope Francis promotes this image, because it empowers the rabbinic racket by instilling fear in 'Jews' and shame in non-'Jews.'

Also see:

More on Hasidic Painter, Marc Chagall's Golem 'Jesus' Resurrected by Pope Francis

Wrapping Up Bergoglio's Love and Promotion For Chagall's Hasidic 'Christ'

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Pope Francis' 'Modernist' Hasidism

Shortly after the election of Pope Francis we deconstructed his favorite painting, The White Crucifixion by 'Marc Chagall' (born Chabad Lubavitcher, Moyshe Shagal) HERE. The image now adorns the cover of his new book.

The "Jesus" that Pope Francis is Vicar of; a concoction of Hasidic Judaism.

Those who call Pope Francis a 'modernist' are missing the picture entirely. He's as modernist as Marc Chagall who was born and raised at ground zero of Lubavitcher Chasidism, who "left" but nevertheless asked the Lubavitcher Rebbe for advice, and married a Lubavitcher. He's as 'modernist' as the suit-and-tie wearing descendant of rabbis, Benjamin Netanyahu, who also sought the Lubavitcher Rebbe's approval and advice. And what advice did the Lubavitcher Rebbe give to so many of these outwardly modern figures that sought him out like a godfather? it'hapkha; 'Go out into the evil, modern, goyishe world looking modern on the outside but BEING Chabad on the inside, and don't let a moment pass without doing something to speed the coming of the [so-called] Mosiach.'

If you want to understand Pope Francis' 'Modernist,' this-world Churchianity and it's myriad of contradictions you have no chance to understand it but to look to its source, Hasidic Judaism.

Also see:

Catholic Tradition-Wrecking Pope Works to Preserve Backwards Rabbinic Kosher Slaughter Tradition

Pope Francis: Judaism is not engaged in idolatry; serves the true God

'Noahide Law' Proselytizing Chabad Rabbi Shlomo Riskin Congratulates Pope Francis

Pope Francis and the "Chosen People's" Purimspiel

The 'Holocaust' Relics in the Sanctuary of Bergoglio's Cathedral

Monday, December 2, 2013

Netanyahu Gifts Pope with his Racial Supremacist Father's Race War Book

Benzion Netanyahu's middle name should have been Purimspiel. The poor man, a descendant of a long line of rabbis, was haunted by Judaism-fueled mental illness; racial supremacist megalomania, paranoia and impending race-war delusion.

He believed that Arabs are biologically programmed to be at perpetual war with "Jews" and could never be negotiated with. His Inquisition thesis is that Conversos were genuine, sincere converts to Christianity who were targeted for no other reason than that 'they were Jews:' “What was going on in Spain was a bitter and full-fledged racial war under the cover of religious agitation."  The aim of the Inquisition was “not to eradicate a Jewish heresy from the midst of the Marrano group, but to eradicate the Marrano group from the midst of the Spanish people.”

The book that needs to be written and given to the Pope is one that explains how the religion of rabbinic Judaism caused Benzion Netanyahu's paranoid megalomania which so clearly has been passed on to his son Benjamin Netanyahu BY NURTURE--NOT BY NATURE--and how this sick ideology is causing the other 7 billion of us to experience increasing hell on earth.

This is an excerpt from an interview with Benzion Netanyahu which was published shortly before his death:

Prof. Netanyahu: “The Jews and the Arabs are like two goats facing each other on a narrow bridge. One must jump to the river – but that involves a danger of death. The strong goat will make the weaker one jump… and I believe the Jewish power will prevail.”

Q: What does the Arab’s jump mean?

A: “That they won’t be able to face [anymore] the war with us, which will include withholding food from Arab cities, preventing education, terminating electrical power and more. They won’t be able to exist, and they will run away from here. But it all depends on the war, and whether we will win the battles with them.”

Q: I suppose you don’t believe in the peace process.

A: “I don’t see any signs that the Arabs want peace… we will face fierce attacks from the Arabs, and we must react firmly. If we don’t, they will go on and Jews will start leaving the country… we just handed them a strong blow in Gaza, and they still bargain with us over one hostage… if we gave them a blow that would really hurt them, they would have given us Gilad Shalit back.”

Q: Operation “cast Lead” was one of the worst blows we handed on a civilian population.

A: “That’s not enough. It’s possible that we should have hit harder.”

Q: You don’t like the Arabs, to say the least.

A: “The bible finds no worse image than this of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases. The tendency towards conflict is in the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won’t allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn’t matter what kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one of perpetuate war.”

Q: Is there any hope of peace?

A: “Out of agreement? No. the other side might stay in peace if it understands that doing anything [else] will cause it enormous pain.

The two states solution doesn’t exist. There are no two people here. There is a Jewish people and an Arab population… there is no Palestinian people, so you don’t create a state for an imaginary nation… they only call themselves a people in order to fight the Jews.”

Q: So what’s the solution?

A: “No solution but force… strong military rule. Any outbreak will bring upon the Arabs enormous suffering. We shouldn’t wait for a big mutiny to start, but rather act immediately with great force to prevent them from going on…

If it’s possible, we should conquer any disputed territory in the land of Israel. Conquer and hold it, even if it brings us years of war. We should conquer Gaza, and parts of the Galil, and the Golan. This will bring upon us a bloody war, since war is difficult for us – we don’t have a lot of territory, while the Arabs have lots of space to retreat to. But that’s the only way to survive here.”

There is valuable experience [on this matter] we don’t pay notice to. I mean the Ottoman rule over the Arabs. The Turks ruled over the Arabs for 400 years, and there was peace and quiet everywhere. The Arabs hated the Ottomans, but every little thing they did brought mass killings and hanging in towns squares. They were hanging people in Damascus, and Izmir… every town had hanging posts in its center…the Arabs were so badly beaten, they didn’t dare revolt. Naturally, I don’t recommend the use of hangings as a show of force like the Turks did, I just want to show that the only thing that might move the Arabs from the rejectionist position is force.”

Netanyahu gives pope book by father on Inquisition

By Associated Press, December 2, 2013
VATICAN CITY — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given Pope Francis a book about the Inquisition in Spain that was written by his late father.

Netanyahu presented a Spanish translation of the 1995 book, “The Origins of the Inquisition,” to Francis during their 25-minute private audience Monday.

Netanyahu’s father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu, was an Israeli historian who died last year. A Zionist activist who opposed partitioning Palestine between Arabs and Jews, he was best known in academic circles for his research into the Catholic Church’s medieval inquisition against the Jews of Spain.

“To his Holiness Pope Franciscus, a great shepherd of our common heritage,” the Israeli leader wrote on the inside front page of the book.

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Rabbi Abraham Heschel's Paranoid Conspiracy Theory

… one of many.

An entry from Vatican II Council theological expert, Yves Congar's, My Journal of the Council, July 31, 1964. He is speaking of a meeting with Oscar Cullmann, a Lutheran 'observer' at the Second Vatican Council:

In fact, it was Rabbi Abraham Heschel who endeavored to attack Christian souls, HERE. 'Spiritual pogrom' indeed!

And, it was the philosemitic contingent at the Council which did in fact cut off the microphone as traditionalist Cardinal Ottaviani was speaking, HERE.

Apparently, the facts were jumbled up in Heschel's Judaism-addled mind.

Also see:

The Final Nail in Malachi Martin's Coffin

Friday, November 29, 2013

Schonborn and B'nai B'rith Ancestors, Together Cruelly Exploiting Common People for Centuries

Traditionalist pundits have pointed to the recent honoring of Cardinal Schonborn by the Juedeomasonic B'nai B'rith lodge. The information is typically framed; as a post-Vatican II aberration. We will attempt to get to the true essence of the matter here.

First, what really is Schonborn being honored for? We say, precisely what his family has done for centuries, that is, keep the Christian common folk as mystified, dumbed down, docile sheep for shearing by themselves and their fellow rabbi and banker mobsters.

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn is a descendant of old nobility of the Holy Roman Empire known for its sheltering of usurers, rabbis, intelligencers and the Talmud itself (see: Judaism Discovered) and peddling of alcohol on credit via Judaic front-men to the poorest of Christian peasants.

The Schonborn clan was made at Kazenelnbogen, coincidentally (or, rather, not), where the Katzenellenbogen rabbinic dynasty originates, whose descendants allegedly include the Rothschilds, Karl Marx, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, 'Messiah' Schneerson, Arnon Milkman, among many others (see: The Unbroken Chain* by Neil Rosenstein, himself allegedly a descendant of Katzenellenbogen, who recently plead guilty to the charge of knowingly possessing child pornography).

The first Jews likely settled in Subcarpathian Rus’ [Western Ukraine] during the Turkish occupation of Hungary (1526–1686); they were probably of Sephardic origin. Refugees from the Khmel’nyts’kyi rebellion of 1648–1649 followed. Later, a tiny stream of Moravian and Bohemian Jews arrived via the northern Slovak counties. The major influx of Jews, however, occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and consisted of migrants wandering southward from Galicia. The newcomers were welcomed by Magyar magnates, in particular by the Schönborn dynasty, which owned much land in the area. Nobles hired Jews to administer estates, sell spirits, and develop local trade.

Est Coelum Nobilitorum. Paradisus Judeorum. Et Infernum Rusticorum

The following is excised from an article,"Die wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhaeltnisse der Juden auf dem Dominium Munkacs-Szentmiklos im XVIII Jahrhundert." (Economic and social conditions of the Jews on the Munkacs-Szentmiklos Estate during the 18th Century) by Dr. Andreas Sas, in Juedisches Archiv 2, issue 1-2, Oct.-Dec. 1928:

In 1711, after the revolt of Franz Rakoczi II (1705-11) against princely absolutism had been quashed, the Habsburgs confiscated the Rakoczi estates and Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain was administered as a state property. In October 1728, Lothar Franz Schoenborn (1655-1729), archbishop of Mainz, was awarded this domain as a reward for his loyalty to the emperor, but he died almost immediately thereafter. Successor to the property was Schoenborn's nephew Friedrich Karl Count von Schoenborn (1674-1746), the bishop of Wuerzburg and Bamberg.
Both rulers represented princely absolutism and the age of the baroque life at court. Their personalities leaned toward the worldly; their zeal went to the accumulation of wealth; their enthusiasm for the arts competed with their splendid ambitions for the Munkacs estate. Their methods of governing, which were slightly affected by the coming enlightenment and which they introduced into their territories, provide a key to understanding the economic and social conditions of the second largest estate in Hungary in the 18th century.
The Munkacs and Szentmiklos estates in the former Hungarian Komitate (county) Bereg (today [1928] part of the province Podkarpatska Rus in the Czechoslovak Republic) were liquidated on January 1, 1928, as part of a Czech landholding reform. In 1749, this enormous complex comprised 61.5 percent of Komitate Bereg. [Since the Middle Ages Munkacs had been ruled variously by the houses of Arpad, Anjoy, Piast, Hunyadi, Jagello, Lazarevics, Valois-Bourbon, Hohenzollern, Rakoczi and Bethlen. The old fortress of Munkacs was the site of far-reaching political decisions well into the 18th century.]
The internal history of the estate is a typical slice of the economic past of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. Rich in natural resources, but worked inefficiently by a thinly scattered population, its peasantry remained economically and culturally backward until the 19th century. The most recent two centuries of the rule of the Schoenborns can be studied thoroughly on the basis of large archival holdings. All of the data comes from the handwritten material of the archive of the Munkacs domain in Munkacevo.
For Eastern European Jewry, the giant domain provided an entry to the West; on its territory is the town of Munkacs in which Jews today [1928] make up a plurality. Soon after the Schoenborns took over the Munkacs-Szentmiklos estate in 1729, one of the first decisions of Friedrich Karl Graf Schoenborn included a claim to the protection fees (toleration taxes) imposed on Jews. Schoenborn claimed that the collection was a royal privilege that devolved to him along with all other fiscal entitlements. The protection tax entitled those who paid to receive certain privileges under private law, assurance to a kind of island in a world of serf-like attachment to the land and similarly confined industrial production, an island on which the Jews, within firmly established limits, could enter into contracts, could buy and sell under conditions of the then prevailing aristocratic private laws.
At the beginning of the 18th century, Jews adapted themselves to the life of the estate by paying for concessions to deal in liquor (as innkeepers), sale of meat, sale of distilled spirits, grinding of cereals and collection of tolls (custom duties). At Munkacs-Szentmiklos, concessions for the sale of soap and candles existed until 1761, longer for trade in wool and kosher wine. In 1738, the adjoining village of Rosvigovo even had a concession for the trade in cheese.
According to documents in the Munkacs Schoenborn archives, the custom of leasing concessions to Jews dates back to the middle of the 17th century. Around 1730, the fees paid by Jews represented one-third of the official income of the Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain. The importance to the owners of the fees from concessions may be determined not only from the amounts, but also from the fact that they were truly secure and could be controlled. That is, they were incomes that reliably could be delivered to the central administration of the Schoenborn domains in Vienna.
Income from the Munkacs domain during the 18th century was extremely small because of low population density and inefficient exploitation of the land. The Schoenborns lived far away and exerted control indirectly through agents; this made possible increases in the personal income of some agents at the expense of the owners. The careers of numerous senior employees on the domain during the 18th century ended with sudden discharge and investigations embarrassing to the employees.
Under such circumstances, Vienna appreciated the income secured by the concessions, income that was known because it derived from a public auction and the winning proposal was forwarded to Vienna for approval. The income could not be diverted and flowed undiminished into the coffers of the Schoenborns.
Records show the first concessionary or resident Jews in the domain of the Munkacs castle as of 1649. During the revolt of Franz Rakoczi II against Leopold I, a series of concessions covering the entire domain were conveyed to Jews for the dispensing of wine, beer and brandy. Later, during the 17th century, grants of entitlements were made for running the inn, collecting tolls, quarries and meat storagealmost exclusively to Jews. The Schoenborns imported German colonists from Franconia to their north Hungarian domain in an attempt to make them concessionaires, but they did not succeed in this role.
The attitude of the owners and administrators of the Munkacs Schoenborn property during the 18th century toward the Jews living on their property was determined primarily by economic considerations. The founder and accumulator of the family fortune generally was tolerant toward Jews, a view the Schoenborns brought with them from Germany. After the turmoil of the Thirty Years War (1618-48), the largest Jewish population in Germany at the start of the 18th century was in the city of Fuerth near Nuremberg where 400 Jewish families lived. There also was a large printing concern that supplied central Europe with Hebrew books. 
Fuerth was under the rule of the Bamberg diocese, and the holder of the diocese in 1729-46 was lord of the Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain. The view of Jews that the bishop of Wuerzburg and bishop of Bamberg, Imperial Prince Friedrich Karl Schoenborn, held which also were followed by administrators of the domain, were relatively humane. This helps to explain why the Schoenborns wanted to establish a Hebrew press in Munkacs-Szentmiklos to publish books in 1768, if the Jews could assure production and distribution. Undoubtedly, the Schoenborns knew of how profitable the famous Hebrew presses in Fuerth were and hoped to duplicate the process in Munkacs-Szentmiklos. Count Friedrich Karl von Schoenborn knew the revenues of the residence (tolerance) tax  and income taxes imposed on the Jews only too well, since he shared half the income from the Fuerth tolerance tax with the Margrave of Ansbach. Jewish communities managed to persist in Ansbach and Fuerth even in those days when the sweeping and radical measures of the Catholic counter-reformation expelled even Protestants from various cities in southern Germany.
Occasional cries arose against the Jews in the domain in the first half of the 18th century. An edict of the owner in 1739 emphasized that Jews could acquire no real estate and referred to them as bloodsuckers who feast on the other subjects of the ruler. He added that it would be preferable if the concessions could be leased by Christians insofar as they were reliable. In fact, the idea surfaced that it might be necessary to introduce a quota for Jews.
This outburst, however, stands apart amid a long series of declarations that contradict it and, even more important, of policies that contradict it in their economic applications. When in the same year no Christian could be found who was willing to pay the annual rental of 300 guilders for the toll concession in the border town of Verecke, the antipathies of the bishop of Wuerzburg and Bamberg against the Jewish lessors were reduced. He even ordered that, under certain conditions, some Polish Jews were to be brought or admitted to settle in Verecke. Many years later in 1761, the prefect representing the owner sought to award the concession in Szentmiklos to a non-Jew. He was not successful because the local administrators declared that they could not find a single reliable and qualified Christian man.
The Countess Maria Theresia Montfort, mother and guardian of the then-minor owner of the domain, in 1748 asked only that when a concession was to be awarded at auction, a Jew was not to be preferred over a Christian provided that an award to a Christian would not impair the revenues of the owners.
This means that existing antipathies toward the Jews were limited by the understood economic interest of the owners of the domain. When the Countess Montfort issued her 1748 ruling, the inspector replied (in archaic, stilted German):
While your excellency had ordered most graciously that the aforementioned lessors are to be awarded by preference to Christians and subjects rather than to Jews, experience has shown that no subject is as productive as a Jew.
The inspector also recalled that in the German village of Unter-Schoenborn, the local village official had leased the inn for 6 guilders per year, but at the most recent auction, Jews had offered 15 guilders. In addition, the problem of harmful competition also made exclusion of Jewish lessors ill-advised. As an example, the inspector told of the Jew Isaak, lessor in Munkacs and at the same time holder of the concession for the inn in the domain of the noble Leövey family. Were Isaak to be dismissed by the owners of Munkacs, he could offer his drinks in the inn on the Leövey property which would represent dangerous competition. Young Eugene Erwin Schoenborn understood this reasoning and, in 1752, ordered that the concessions be awarded to whomever offered the most money, no matter whether his name was Schmul or Itzig.
Jews were considered a nation on the domain of the Schoenborn, which is only natural since the Jews, who increasingly infiltrated from Poland during the 18th century, carried the stamp of Eastern European ghettos. An occupation that could almost be said to be hereditary is the dealing in drinks (all of which were taxed).
The inn was an important source of revenue for Polish nobility, but Polish lords did not like to have Polish innkeepers, because when it came to providing payment or accounting, Polish innkeepers dared to be difficult, while Jews delivered the sometimes very high concession fees most punctually to the lords and magnates. German and Austrian diplomats, who expressed surprise in their travel accounts that, during the 18th century, the largest share of Polish inns was in Jewish hands, could have made a similar observation about the Munkacs domain.
Reports dealing with the administration of the domain during the 18th century are full of complaints about the typically negative attitudes of the serfs, the poverty of the population living in the hills of the estate and their lack of initiative. With this went the knowledge that the cares and misery of the locals would not be alleviated even if they worked harder for their overlords. Of local population groups, the Jews were the ones who made it possible, without special incentives or administrative duress, for the owners to exercise their feudal rights and also to utilize their natural resources. They brought to the slow rhythm of agriculture some notions of movement and trade that increased the scarce cash incomes which, because of their rarity, were that much more desirable. The large landowners sought to increase their revenues, and to achieve this the Jewish concessionaires were essential. The charge by the owners, that the peasantry was delivered to the mercy of the Jews, was neither sincere nor tactful because the landowners made no efforts to protect the serfs against the Jews. For example, whenever a serf violated the monopoly on alcohol (i.e., bootlegged) and thus damaged the Jews, the fine was 12 guilders.
The social position of the Jews unquestionably was more favorable than that of the serfs, because even when they were oppressed by demands for various feesthe status of the Jews in the economy and in the legal order of the domain was governed by a contract that had its roots in the economy (i.e., contracts could be enforced by the courts). There also is no doubt that in the rural feudal society, the Jews followed the lead of the ruling landlord and sided with him. This lifestyle, when considered objectively, cannot be used to justify either historically or morally the claim that the large landowners were defenders of the peasantry vis-a-vis the Jews. The serfs could have been protected against their indebtedness at the local pubs by preventing the establishment of dispensaries of beer and brandy in the poorest villages. The landlords who awarded the concessions for the pubs cannot be relieved of their responsibilities when, on the one hand, they accumulated the considerable concession fees, which they sought to increase through the sales of beverages with all of the means at their command, while, on the other hand, cast the concessionaire, the Jew, as a bloodsucker.
If there is a responsibility in this matter, it falls equally on the domain as well as the Jews, except that the landlords were, from a social point of view, in a more despicable position because their use of the liquor licensing power was a governmental function. The Jews, scattered individuals who fought a hard battle for their existence, were isolated, without legal rights at the bottom layer in a society in which, without permission of the rulers, they never could have dealt with the peasantry.
The concessions were based on annual contracts until 1748 when they ran for three years. The public auctions were held during the second half of December under the following conditions: The highest bidder was awarded the concession but was obligated to meet the need for grain from the landlord at prevailing prices. The concession fee had to be paid quarterly. The innkeeper could extend credit up to two guilders to better situated serfs, and only one guilder for a poor one. Beverages had to be served in mugs that were flawless and marked with the etch mark of the domain. (Even today in many European countries, beer and other alcoholic beverages are served in glasses with a horizontal mark, etched to show that the glass has been filled to the proper level.) Joseph II von Habsburg-Lorraine, who became emperor of the Austrian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire in 1765, later reduced credit at the inn to 30 kreuzer.
The Toleranz, the tax paid by the Jews, introduced in 1718 by the same Karl VI von Habsburg (1711-40) who had awarded the Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain to the Schoenborns, consisted at first of a head tax, a capital tax and an income tax. Later the toleration tax was put on a uniform schedule for all of Hungary, but scaled according to each county. Within each county, it was allocated according to the leases paid by the Jews. The domain protested this practice as late as 1735 because the county wanted to determine the number and the economic conditions of the Jews in the domain. Later the local rulers were forced to yield when the Royal Chamber in Kaschau (today Kosice, Slovakia) installed a tax collector, who also was a Jew, by awarding him the concession to collect the toleration tax. The system of collecting taxes through concessionaires ended, and the public administrative office in Munkacs administered the toleration taxes.
On May 21, 1730, an administrator of the domain petitioned that officials charged with the collection of toleration taxes not collect more than the officially prescribed sums from the Jewish innkeepers "for otherwise it is to be feared that the concessionaires, now frightened, might leave the domain." The administrators of the domain clearly differentiated between the Jews living in the four districts of Bereg County, the so-called Komitatsjuden, and the Jews living within the domain.
As an example of how the administrators concerned themselves with the interests of the Jews living within the domain, consider the conflict between Inspector Rosshirt in 1751 with the deputy, because the latter reportedly overburdened the innkeepers of the domain with toleration taxes, especially the Jew Schmul from Munkacs who paid the largest fee. Rosshirt complained that the deputy assessed the Jews not according to their wealth (net worth) but rather according to the concessionary fees paid. Rosshirt noted especially that in the four districts of Bereg Komitat controlled by nobles: Jews in many localities are members of the AKompossessorates (an obsolete term that apparently refers to a form of ownership or control of land), that they enter only into smaller leases and thus are better off when it comes to toleration taxes, while the Jews of the domain have entered into large leases but own no real estate.
The administrator of the domain, in opposing the deputy, found it necessary to explain that in this matter he (the administrator) was not guided by the interests of the Jews, but those of the rulers of the domain. He feared that to the extent the concessionary fees might be the basis for assessing the toleration taxes, Jews would be willing to take on only smaller leases and the expensive leases (like the liquor concession for Munkacs-Rosvigovo, for which 160 guilders were due and some 80 guilders of toleration taxes on top of that), would remain without innkeepers, leaving the ruling landlord stuck.
According to Rosshirt, the Jews paid toleration taxes in return for royal protection. Thus, the greater the wealth and larger the household of a Jew, the greater the need for protection.
Within the domain it may happen that some Jews pay high leases and thus acquire nothing (no property), while in the noble Komitate districts it happens that the Jew who pays a modest leasing fee may, at the same time, accumulate as a Kompossessor a considerable fortune through cattle.
Rosshirt's effort was successful. The assembly of the Komitate opposed his proposal and sided with the deputy. What is clear is that the domain sought to protect its Jews from overtaxation ...
… During the early days of the Schoenborn rule, the leading figure among the local Jews was Berko Daniel Dalovicz, holder of the tax concession and military supplier, who was a confidant of the commander of the Munkacs fortress as well as of Ungvar Baron Anton Behmen. The latter for several consecutive years had acquired the lease from the Chamber for the Munkacs property. In 1732, the widow of Baron Behmen complained to the Chamber in Zips that Dalovicz had failed to provide an accounting for his dealings with her late husband. In his rebuttal, Dalovicz rejected the charges, invoked his proper and useful services and emphasized, "I never was a subject or slave of His Lordship."

Jews residing in the domain also provided political services. Innkeepers were obliged to observe their customers and were responsible not to serve "suspicious persons" and even to report them to the authorities. The lessee for Szentmiklos, Israel Lazarovits, was sent to Poland in 1742 as a buyer of arms and supplies for the army of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. When General Field Marshall Count Alexander Karolyi, whose possessions were in the adjoining Szatmar Komitat, learned of this, he urgently contacted the prefect of the domain because he wanted to know what intelligence the Jews had brought and whether or not the Poles were planning an invasion.

*[This writer views Judaic genealogies with skepticism; one of the key mechanisms used to gain unearned prestige. Judaism's stepchild, Freemasonry, adapts this mechanism by writing itself into major historical events and usurping historical figures and legacies. My interest is primarily in the associations these storytellers claim about themselves].

Also see:

Schönborn Upstages Falwell

Queen Beatrix Makes Chabad Chief Rabbi 'Officer of the Order of Orange-Nassau'

The "Sorcerer's Apprentice” Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Maimonides and Rabbi Riskin's 'Morality' of Cruel, Wildly Disproportionate Vengeance

We have thoroughly documented that Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have sent priests to learn at the feet of Chabad Rabbi Shlomo Riskin at his 'Noahide' center in Counterfeit Israel.

Rabbi Riskin's teachings published in the The Jewish Week routinely give us cause to acknowledge the wisdom of Pope Innocent IV in his observation that the rabbis render their students utterly alien to Scripture.

I have no time for in-depth analysis. I ask the reader to simply read Riskin's justification of Simeon and Levi's subterfuge and subsequent murder of all males in an entire city as "retaliation" for the rape of one woman by one man. Riskin goes so far as to claim, "It is especially important to note that Jacob does not charge his two sons with moral opprobrium."

Compare this rabbinic analysis with the moral opprobrium, and indeed, the curse that Jacob does in fact charge his sons with:

"Simeon and Levi are brothers indeed, warriors both, and ready tools of violence. Never may this soul of mine take part in their conspiracy, this heart be of their company; raging, they slew their enemy … A curse on this unrelenting rage of theirs, this bitter spite! I will distribute them here and there in Jacob, I will scatter them throughout Israel." (Genesis 49; 5-7)

 No better advice has ever been spoken by a pope regarding these so-called "fathers in the faith" than that of Pope Innocent IV. Certainly, they render their listeners utterly alien to the intended meaning of Scripture. Beware the leaven of the rabbis.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Guilt Chambers Operate Despite Government Shutdown

Despite the government shutdown, Lancaster Catholic High School students learned 'tolerance' from an evidently intolerant Don Greenbaum who:
... grew stern when discussing how some people and organizations claim the Holocaust never occurred, that six million Jews were not murdered.

"I know it happened, because we were there," Greenbaum said.

But what if you were not there, were born decades after the alleged events and are justifiably skeptical of outlandish persecution tales from the adherents of a tradition known for its outlandish persecution tales?

There is no tolerance for disbelief in the 'Holocaust' story of 6 million gassed 'Jews' from this Judaic fellow whose disbelief in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is tolerated quite well from his Catholic high school audience.

How long do these oppressive 'victims' expect this outrageous hypocrisy to be tolerated?
Despite the shutdown, students get a fuller Holocaust experience


October 17, 2013

The government shutdown ruined plans of Lancaster high school students to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, but a Philadelphia group jumped in Wednesday to offer a vivid firsthand lesson of the 20th century's great horror.

"They called us and their first question was, 'Are you open?' " said Phil Holtje, program director of the Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center in Northeast Philadelphia.

The center was open. But the theater and bigger rooms at the Klein Jewish Community Center, where the museum is housed, were already booked.

Museum president Chuck Feldman quickly contacted Ruth Hartz, who survived the Holocaust as a child, and she reached out to her synagogue, Keneseth Israel in Elkins Park.

Shortly after 11 a.m., two tour buses rolled to a stop outside the synagogue, and seniors from Lancaster Catholic High School filed into the soaring, stained-glass sanctuary.

"It was today or nothing," said English teacher Leslie Laird, who helped organize the Washington trip as part of her classes' studies of the Holocaust.

The partial government shutdown - which after 16 days appeared poised to end Wednesday night - closed not just the Smithsonian museums on the Mall but others that depend on federal funding, including the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The museum ranks among America's most popular, hosting more than 34 million visitors since it opened in 1996. Its vast holdings include the technical, such as a detailed model of the gas chambers and crematoria at the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, and the emotional, including a pile of 4,000 shoes that the Nazis took from their victims.

The local Holocaust Museum houses fewer artifacts in a smaller space. But on Wednesday it, too, offered something special.

At the front of the sanctuary, slowed by age but strong of spirit, stood Ernie Gross, 84, who survived both Auschwitz and the Dachau concentration camp, and Don Greenbaum, 88, who as a GI helped liberate Dachau in April 1945.

"Two heroes," Feldman said.

And two men challenged by their task: To explain the enormity of the World War II genocide to a generation that hardly recognizes the name Eisenhower.

Some students yawned as the men spoke. Others closed their eyes. Most sat rapt, particularly when Gross began rummaging through a bag he had set in front of him.

What was inside? Several items.

A cup, which served as Gross' drinking glass and dinner plate in the camps. He carried it on a string around his neck, a possession too valuable to lose.

Next emerged a loaf of bread. Too small to feed one man, it was divided among eight in the camps, where every morsel could mean the difference between life and death.

Gross told how he watched a father and son quarrel over who deserved the minutely larger slice, the younger man insisting on keeping it, snapping, "I'm just as hungry as you."

"In the camp," Gross told the students, "there is no father, son, brother, uncle. . . ."

Last he brought out a potato, plain and brown. Gross recalled how a fellow prisoner, a friend from his native Hungary, had somehow miraculously obtained the tuber.

Gross begged to be given just the skin. His friend thought it over, then said no - he needed it to survive.

In spring 1945, a struggling and suffering Gross was shocked to suddenly see the German guards throw down their weapons and run. American forces were advancing on Dachau, 10 miles northwest of Munich.

"An odor hit us," said Greenbaum, on that day a 19-year-old forward artillery observer. Nearly 70 years later, the smell is still with him, the stench of scores of dead and decaying bodies.

Among the German soldiers they met that day, Greenbaum said, his unit took no prisoners.

He grew stern when discussing how some people and organizations claim the Holocaust never occurred, that six million Jews were not murdered.

"I know it happened, because we were there," Greenbaum said.

He and Gross, though both present at Dachau's liberation, did not meet until decades later, when Gross began searching for soldiers who had taken part.

From the synagogue crowd came questions: Did Greenbaum face anti-Semitism after the war? (No, but friends did.) Did Gross lose faith in God in the camps? (Not for a minute.)

None of the students seemed disappointed at missing a trip to Washington, having gained the chance to talk to people who actually lived through the genocide.

"To hear it firsthand," said Kylee Legenstein, 17, "was really cool."

Her friend Andrew Speitel agreed.

"Anyone can go to the Holocaust museum," said Speitel, 17, "but not everyone gets this experience."


Tuesday, October 15, 2013

The Latest Kosher Slaughter Attempt on the Gospel

This fellow Joseph Atwill would have you believe that Jesus Christ never existed, but that the Khazar woman interviewing him is a relative of Abraham ...

As the rabbis say:
"Yimach sh'mo v'zikhrono (May [Jesus'] name and memory be blotted out)”

On the contrary: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away."

Friday, September 27, 2013

Pope Francis, Marek Halter and the Tyranny of the Minority

As an Uzbekistan delegate for the Communist youth organization, Marek [Halter] attended the victory celebration in Moscow in 1945 and presented a bouquet to Stalin. (Marek Halter, Stories of Deliverance, ix)

French imams back pope after Vatican audience

Eight imams were part of the audience - seven from Paris and suburbs and one from Marseille

AFP , Wednesday 25 Sep 2013

A group of French imams attended a general audience with Pope Francis on Wednesday, saying they saw the Catholic leader as a figure of reconciliation.

"We feel something strong with this pope. We the minorities need him," Hassen Chalghoumi, a Tunisian imam in Drancy, a suburb of Paris, told AFP.

"Moderates should be supported. We should not be grouped with extremists who burn churches," he said.

The visit was organised by Marek Halter, a French writer of Polish Jewish origin, who briefly met with the pope during the audience in St Peter's Square.

There were a total of eight imams -- seven from Paris and suburbs and one from Marseille. Chalghoumi said they were all "sufis" -- a moderate current in Islam.

Tunisian cinema and television tycoon Tarak Ben Ammar brought the imams on his private plane and said the visit would boost inter-religious dialogue.

"We have a problem to resolve ourselves. Christians had this in the Middle Ages. Political Islam is winning the upper hand," Ben Ammar said.

Halter said that Francis "can do what Benedict XVI never managed to do: reconcile Christianity and Islam".

John Paul II and Benedict XVI both made overtures to the Muslim world but Benedict was widely criticised for appearing to link Islam and violence in a speech in Germany shortly after being elected in 2006.

Also see:

A Lesson in Multiculturalism

The Masqueraders' Jest

Bernard-Henri Lévy Indicted for Playing the Great Game

'Noahide Law' Peddling Rabbi Incites the Mob re:Sharia Law

Thursday, September 19, 2013

The United States' 'out of control military rabbinate'

Philip Weiss has written a piece on the 'civil war' in Counterfeit Israel between its meshuggah and more meshuggah wings which mentions that Rabbi Colonel Eyal Qarim, a representative of the "out of control [Israeli] military rabbinate" "wrote a statement justifying rape."

 The U.S. has its own out-of-control military rabbinate, of which Rabbi Dov S. Zakheim is representative. And not coincidentally, the former Pentagon Comptroller (among a myriad of other military appointments and positions) Rabbi Dov Zakheim, has also written a statement on the 'ethics' of rape of non-Judaic women during wartime from which I highlight the following passage:

It is the consensus of many halakhic [rabbinic law] decisors that the yefat to’ar [non-Judaic female prisoners] can be subject to involuntary intercourse [rape], though only once, after which she must undergo a specific regimen prescribed in the Torah [i.e. Talmud], conversion and marriage, before her [Judaic] captor is permitted further sexual relations with her. (Dov S. Zakheim, "Confronting Evil: Terrorists, Torture, The Military and Halakhah," published by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School),com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,304/

These rabbis are as out of control as the rabbinic Judaism which informs their disgusting 'ethics.' God save us from this Synagogue and State curse.

Monday, September 9, 2013

Synagogue Honored Creator of the Polka Mass

Many point to the Rev. George Balasko as the creator of the polka Mass in the early 1970s, a time when the Vatican was permitting musical variations on the liturgy. Balasko, a Cleveland priest also known for his contributions to Catholic-Jewish dialogue, re-worked polka favorites of his youth with English lyrics. ("Polka Mass to be celebrated Sunday," Steven Spearie, The State Journal-Register, Sep 06, 2013)

Friday, September 6, 2013

Bishop Williamson's Apocalyptic Theology of Human Blood Atonement

Also see: " ... the Church will suffer even more, with the consent of God who wants to purify his Church. It takes blood to wash away sin, says St. Paul. We shall see blood."

On the contrary: "Christ['s blood] was offered once to exhaust the sins of many," says St. Paul. "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world," says St. John.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

'American' Judaic Committee Congratulates Newly Appointed Vatican Secretary of State

AJC Welcomes New Vatican Secretary of State

September 1, 2013 -- New York -- AJC congratulates Archbishop Pietro Parolin on his appointment by Pope Francis as Secretary of State of the Holy See, and wishes him every success in his position.

"Both our AJC liaison to the Vatican, Lisa Billig, and I have enjoyed a long and warm association with Monsignor Parolin in the past," said Rabbi David Rosen, AJC’s International Director of Interreligious Affairs.

"We are delighted to learn of in his appointment to this most important position and look forward to our continued close relationship, advancing the values and aspirations that we share for the betterment of the world ['Tikkun Olam'] at large."

Parolin, currently the Vatican envoy to Venezuela, served as the Vatican’s deputy foreign minister from 2002 to 2009.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Catholic Tradition-Wrecking Pope Works to Preserve Backwards Rabbinic Kosher Slaughter Tradition

If you have the stomach for it you can witness video of the backwards kosher slaughter tradition of the rabbis that the Catholic tradition-wrecking pope and bishops are fighting to preserve HERE.
Pope wishes Jews sweet new year, pledges to ‘investigate’ Polish shechita [kosher slaughter] ban 
Sam Sokol - Jerusalem Post 
Sept. 2, 2013 

Pope Francis on Monday assigned a senior church official to investigate the current ban on Jewish and Muslim religious slaughter in Poland, where these practices have been illegal since January. 
After being appraised of the situation by World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder during a meeting held in his private office in the Vatican yesterday, the pope turned to Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity as well as the Vatican’s Commission for Relations with the Jews, to take responsibility for the matter. 
According to the WJC, a follow- up meeting with Koch may be scheduled for “as early as next week,” although it may be pushed off due to the upcoming High Holy Days. Lauder explained to the pope that although he is personally not observant, allowing ritual slaughter is important for the continuing religious freedom of Polish Jewry. 
Polish Chief Rabbi Michael Schudrich expressed gratitude for the pope’s decision to involve Koch in the ongoing debate over Kosher slaughter, telling The Jerusalem Post that “anyone who supports shechita anywhere in the world is something that is very welcome and encouraging and especially coming from the pope, it really gives us encouragement that together with the Polish government we will find a wise and quick solution.” 
The Jewish community of Poland filed a lawsuit with the country’s Constitutional High Court to lift the ban on shechita, asserting that the law violates a 1997 statute granting permission for Polish Jews to slaughter according to tradition ... 
The pope also reiterated a statement he made earlier this year that “a Christian cannot be an anti-Semite” and told the Jewish delegates that “to be good a Christian it is necessary to understand Jewish history and traditions.” 
Lauder, who was accompanied by several prominent WJC officials, presented the pope with a kiddush cup and a honey cake in honor of Rosh Hashana, which falls on Wednesday evening ... 
Speaking with the Post on Monday evening, Lauder called the meeting “extremely cordial” and said that “the pope promised to do whatever he can in finding a solution to the problem with shechita in Poland. He stressed it several times: What counts for him is dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. The religious leaders need to speak with each other and find ways to reduce tensions and build bridges. The alternative is conflict and ultimately war, and that’s what we want to avoid. Pope Francis then asked me to convey on his behalf to all of the Jewish people worldwide wishes for a “Shana tova and a very sweet new year.” 
full article:

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

L.A. Times Publishes Rabbi Adlerstein's Regurgitation of Counterfeit Papal 'Prayer'

When Malachi Martin devotees are confronted with his own indefensible words and deeds of treachery against the Church which he never retracted or made reparation for, they're wont to cry, "you're attacking a dead man who can't defend himself!"

This entry is on the topic of the fake papal 'prayer' which Malachi Martin put into the mouth of the dead Pope John XXIII, years after he had passed away and was unable to defend himself, and the disastrous effects that this fake 'prayer' has had in the 48 years since Malachi Martin first published it in the American Jewish Committee periodical, Commentary in January of 1965 under cloak of anonymity.

The L.A. Times recently published an editorial by Rabbis Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Simon Weisenthal Center of Holocaustolatry titled, "John XXIII and John Paul II: Righteous popes." Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein's fanatical desire to kosher slaughter Catholicism is documented HERE and HERE.

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is also a professor at the nominally Catholic Loyola law school, where nominal Catholics learn the modern lawyers' racket which is really secular Talmudism, hence, among other reasons, Adlerstein's presence there.

From the L.A. Times editorial of Rabbis Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Adlerstein we read:

Perhaps because of what he saw during the Holocaust, [Pope] John XXIII never lost an opportunity to modify church practices that nurtured anti-Semitism ... The pontiff decried theological anti-Semitism: "Across the centuries, our brother Abel was slain in blood which we drew...." he once prayed. "Forgive us, Lord, for the curse we falsely attributed to their name as Jews." ("John XXIII and John Paul II: Righteous popes," Rabbis Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Adlerstein, L.A. Times, July 13, 2013)
These phrases are taken directly from the fake 'prayer' that Malachi Martin published in the American Jewish Committee publication, Commentary, January 1965 which read:

We are conscious today that many, many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer see the beauty of Your Chosen People nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren. 
We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood we drew, or shed tears we caused by forgetting Your love. 
Forgive us the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying You a second time in the flesh. For we know not what we did.

Now, this fake 'prayer' on its face constitutes a blood libel against Christians put in their own mouths, "... Across the centuries Abel has lain in the blood we drew ..." It also constitutes a curse upon Christians ("... the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads..."), an idolatry of Judaic 'race' self-choseness (Your Chosen People ... our privileged brethren) and a misidentification of Christ with people who reject His teaching, messiahship and divinity ("Forgive us for crucifying You a second time in the flesh ..."), so it's easy to understand why the rabbis would want to keep this fake 'prayer' in circulation.

And indeed, that zealous helper of the rabbis, Malachi Martin also published a fake claim that Pope John XXIII intended for the 'prayer' to be recited in all of the churches of the world (see: "Vatican II and the Jews," Commentary, January 1965). While that extravagant goal was not reached, the 'prayer' has been recited in many churches throughout the world, even regularly in some areas such as in Poland. As we can see in the L.A. Times this ridiculous counterfeit 'prayer' still circulates widely even in the mainstream.

A paper has been published by the Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations in which the author, a Rev. Dr. Murray Watson, reluctantly documents and acknowledges that the 'prayer,' which he views as a "beautiful and stirring" ... "[summation] of the repentance of post-Shoah Christianity," is indeed a counterfeit, but he nevertheless sees it as bearing good fruit by engendering other papal prayers and gestures of contrition to 'The Jews.'

There are people who will tell you there is no such thing as the revelation of the method, but that is exactly what we see here; 'yes, the revolution was subversive, but so what, look at the "good fruit" it bore.' In other words, the 'good' end justifies the subversive means. In addition, you're being subjected to conditioning via a narrative which has it that the Church and your ancestors were so channeled in traditions of "Jew hate" that it was only by subversiveness that they could be brought around to their present state of pholojudaic 'good,' which I attempted to illustrate HERE.

And so, getting back to Malachi Martin's devotees, yes, he is dead and unable to "defend himself" from responsibility for his own words and deeds, but I am alive and able to defend against his legacy of treacheries, which I will do so long as God permits me.

Also see:

The Self-Deception of Judaism and its Offshoot, Holocaustolatry

"Some events do take place that are not true; others are [true]--although they never happened."

Purim Shpiel 2009

The Pontificate of Benedict XVI began and ended with the 'You are Nazis' Meme

The File on Malachi Martin

Friday, July 26, 2013

Proof of Close Association Between Opus Dei and Cursillo Rainbow Movement Founders

The friendship between St. Josemaría Escrivá and Msgr. Juan Hervás as seen through their correspondence: A brief study of the relationship between Jose- maría Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei, and Juan Hervás Benet, Bishop of Ciudad Real and promoter of the Cursillos de Cristiandad (Short Courses of Christian- ity) is presented in this article.

Washington State Archdiocese 'Noahide Law' Sermon

This sermon was published in a church bulletin covering two parishes in the Washington State Archdiocese. It accepts the talmudic 'Noahide Laws' as authentic and further takes for granted the rabbis' delusion that these rabbi-made laws are binding on all of humanity going even further to suggest that the 'Noahide laws' are spoken to every conscience by the voice of God.

"Fr. Dickey" sez:

Today we celebrate the First Sunday of Lent. It is significant in the opening reading that we hear about the covenant God made with Noah. Our Jewish brothers and sisters refer to this as the Noahide Covenant. This covenant does not just apply to Jews, but to the whole human race. You will remember That in the Bible Noah and his family were the sole survivors of the great flood. According To Jewish scholars, the Noahide Covenant has seven pillars. They include the prohibition of idolatry, murder, theft, sexual immorality and blasphemy. 
This Applies to us today. Sometimes people ask if there are moral rules that all humans must follow. We have an answer in the Noahide Covenant: It is wrong to kill, to take innocent human life. It is wrong to steal - to do violence to another human being by robbing his possessions. It is wrong to engage in sexual immorality. Do I need to go into details. 
These teachings are not new - They go back to Noah. The Covenant with Noah lives today in the voice of conscience. Just as God spoke to Noah, I speaks to us in our conscience. In recent weeks our bishops Catholics have been reminding us - and our fellow citizens as well - that conscience is real. In our conscience God speaks to us about the meaning of human life and human sexuality. Even if it means the end and imprisonment, our That bishops are telling we must not go against conscience. It is the voice of God. It is good to have that reminder, especially as we these begin forty days of Lent ...

Full sermon:

Thursday, July 11, 2013

The 'Noahide Laws:' The Rabbis' Double Standard that they call "Universalism"

Here's a 2002 talk given by The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni which touches a number of matters which have been addressed here over the years. I haven't time or resources to write anything in-depth on this. The knowledge necessary to separate the facts from the deception have been freely given over the past 6 years of this journal's existence. And Rabbi Di Segni, true to rabbinic form, is indeed a deceiver, see HERE.

I will draw attention to what I believe is the most noteworthy point of this address which is that in explaining two possible approaches to Judeo-Christian dialogue, Di Segni suggests the eschatological approach as more fruitful path, that of ostensibly delaying resolution of insurmountable obstacles until the end of time. While this on its face appears to be a conciliatory gesture, there is much evidence as to how this gambit plays out in reality. Quite tellingly, Di Segni offers as an example the delay in resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict which any half-educated observer realizes is a time-buying operation during which the Israelis have walked away with nearly the entire cake.

In Novermber 2010, I wrote:

... the fruits of the Pope's apocalyptic theology--praying for the end to come quickly so "The Jews" will convert--is of the same lunatic tree that bore "Pastors" John Hagee and Tim LaHaye's eschatology. What is Hagee and Benedict doing when they discourage evangelizing "Jews"? They've made the Gospel of no effect. They've neutralized the one thing that has the power to save their souls and impede their hostility against us. They're buying these "children of the covenant" time to build up Pharisaic Talmudism. How much time? All of it! For whatever time there is left until the end of time we're to refrain from "wounding" evangelization of "Jews" according to the Hagee-Ratzinger dispensation.

Think about this. This is as fraudulent and pernicious as the time-buying "Peace Process" by which an Israeli state steadily emerges on Palestinian land allegedly allocated for a Palestinian state. In that case the Israelis make an occasional token concession and feign a light at the end of a very long tunnel. Benedict's theology is a more plain raw deal than that; there's no concessions and the time-frame, by design, is until the end of time; we're to "deepen our religious relations" with people who're undermining our religion until there's no time left. What of the souls that will be lost, Christians, "Jews" and all, during this strange dispensation lasting until the eschaton? How do we begin to account for such a loss? It would be a spiritual catastrophe on a much greater scale than the temporal Palestinian catastrophe.

It's not Christian to await the conversion of a remnant of Jews in the last days and to disregard the spiritual welfare of real or counterfeit Jews until then. Any Christian who buys this message will have been converted themselves, and that would be a satanic masterstroke.


Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni
Itália (2002/01/17)

1. First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of this study session for the invitation which has been extended to me, and for the opportunity that has been created for a fertile exchange of ideas, taking a biblical image as its starting-point. This meeting is taking place at a site that I have never visited before, but about which I have heard much; for many years, I have had the privilege of working together with a group of priests who graduated from this school, on common goals aimed at making the Bible more accessible to people. I have thus had a chance to appreciate in them, not only a solid foundation of learning, but also a spirit of great openness and willingness for discussion. I think that these are the most gratifying results for any school, and I can only hope that an outlook which has proven so fruitful may continue for a long time to come. 
2. And now we come to our theme, which is Noah. One could certainly wonder what he could possibly have to do with universalism and with the relations between Jews and Christians. To start with, we could say that, at first glance, the only thing universal in the story of Noah is the Flood. The Bible recounts how humanity had arrived at such a point of degeneracy that God decided to destroy it completely, saving only one family—that of Noah, who had distinguished himself among his contemporaries by his righteous and proper behaviour. When everyone else perished, submerged in a flood, Noah saved himself, together with his family and every species of animal, in an ark. Therefore, all of humanity is descended from the family of Noah; because of this, all the nations are called, in rabbinic language, Noahides—children of Noah. Rabbinic interpretation pauses here, to reflect at length on the messages which the Biblical text offers about the person who would become our common patriarch, and about the story of how he was saved. When the text introduces Noah, it says of him that he was righteous and upright in his generation, and that he walked with God. The fact that the text specifies that he was righteous in his generation makes one think that, if that generation had been a bit more morally-advanced, perhaps Noah would not have stood out as an exceptionally righteous person. But at least he was for his own time. As for what we might term his “religiosity,” the text specifies that “Noah walked with God.” In order to understand the value and the limits of this expression, we must jump ahead a little. Concerning Abraham—the righteous man who appears ten generations after Noah—the text says that he received the divine command to proceed ahead of God. One story speaks of walking together with, the other of preceding. In practice, Noah did his duty and followed the rules honestly—but he did not push himself any further with any burst of enthusiasm. And again, still comparing him with Abraham: when it was announced to him that humanity would be destroyed and that he would need to build an ark to escape, Noah reacts as he always does, obeying without saying a word. When the imminent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is announced to Abraham, he launches into an exhausting bargaining-session with God, seeking to save the sinful cities. There are those who are normal people, and those who are special. Abraham is the prototype of these “special people,” and Noah is the prototype of those who are honest but ordinary and not impulsive. The noteworthy fact is that, according to the Bible, it was enough to be ordinary and lacking in any particular enthusiasm in order to save oneself and found an entire new humanity.

3. It is well-known that Jewish religious doctrine has built around the name of Noah and his descendants a doctrine of twofold laws and twofold salvation. None of humanity can escape from the yoke of the divine law, which is expressed in at least seven essential principles. These principles are expressed in rabbinic oral traditions which are based (more or less obviously) on scriptural references. However, within the human family there exists a particular group, that of the children of Israel, who also were originally Noahides, but who—by virtue of their descent from Jacob/Israel, the grandson of Abraham and the one who carries on after him—are set apart, inasmuch as they must observe a much more extensive set of rules, made up of other regulations as well, which deal in part with religious ceremonies. It is a status that we could define as priestly, a rôle of service: “a kingdom of priests and a people set apart”. The fact that some are priests, with special requirements and laws, and that others are not, does not preclude rewards and salvation for the latter. The great novelty of this rabbinic doctrine is that it is not necessary to subject oneself to the special doctrine of the Israelite priesthood to obtain the future rewards which are promised to the Israelites. Jewish universalism means two parallel roads toward salvation; it is sufficient that every person follow the road in which they find themselves at the moment of their birth, and that they respect its particular norms. A Noahide who follows the seven rules and recognizes their divine origin is defined as a “devout person [hasid] among the nations of the world,” and has a share in the world to come.

4. These rules are: the prohibition against any worship apart from monotheistic worship; the prohibition against blasphemy; the obligation to establish law-courts; the prohibition against murder, theft, adultery and incest; the prohibition against eating anything taken from a still-living animal. These express the respect which is required toward creation, toward other people, and in relation to God. If we transfer these principles from theory to reality, we can see:

- that the social portion of the seven laws is a patrimony common to all civilized humanity;
- that the sexual laws are more or less those paralleled in civil legislation, and are certainly prescribed in religious legislation;
- that the norm of respect for animals is rarely transgressed.

Blasphemy is certainly prohibited in organized religions. With regard to monotheistic worship, apparently there are not any doubts regarding the major religions. For Christians in particular, the fact that they acknowledge the sacredness of the Bible serves as a recognition of the divine origin of these norms. Having arrived at this point, it would seem that everyone, both observant Christians and Jews, can arrive, each by their own path, at the salvation that has been promised. That said, we could conclude there, but that is not exactly the way things are. It would be worthwhile to explain this, because clarifications on this problem will throw light upon the current difficulties in Jewish-Christian discussions, and will provide tools to define future scenarios.

5. At this point, a clarification is necessary regarding Jewish theology, in which the topic of monotheism and how it is lived out by Christianity poses an essential dilemma which is the subject of debate. What is being discussed is whether the divinity of Jesus might be compatible, for a non-Jew, with the idea of monotheism (for a Jew it absolutely is not compatible). As might be expected, the answer to this question in Jewish theology is not unanimous; there are those who firmly deny this possibility, and there are those who admit the possibility, under certain conditions. The consequence is that, according to a strict opinion, a Christian is perhaps not on the path leading to salvation.

6. I can imagine what a Christian’s reaction would be when faced with that analysis. I can imagine it, because that sense of disbelief, of protest, of rebellion that a Christian feels is the same as that which Jews might feel when Christian authorities say to them that their faith is incomplete and cannot lead to salvation—except in mysterious ways known only to God. It is incomplete, because it has not been crowned by faith in salvation through Jesus. Many Jews protested last year when an official and particularly noteworthy Church document reasserted this concept. But the problem is not so much the Church’s conviction of the necessity for Jews to be saved by means of Jesus. The real issue is what is done with that conviction. If we were to apply the system of Noahide laws to the letter, we would have to do everything possible in order that the Noahides observe them—including the law dealing with the prohibition against worship of any other gods. Each person would have to become a missionary of the pure faith. And so we find ourselves at the current crux of our dialogue and discussions. What good is it for us to speak to each other? What really bothers Jews is what has been said in official Catholic documents: that the goal of dialogue is to convert one’s discussion-partner to one’s own faith. And what if we were to do exactly the same thing—if we used every opportunity for discussion to convince you that, yes, you are on the right track, but that you must “purify” your faith, by eliminating precisely that which for you is essential?

7. This, therefore, raises the question of whether there are alternatives to this dialogue between people who do not hear each other, which risks becoming disrespectful and not in keeping with the dignity of everyone involved. I can attempt to imagine two scenarios which are different but not necessarily contradictory. The first is of a primarily theological type, the second is predominantly political. The first solution relates to the possibility of elaborating, on both sides, a doctrine that we could appropriately call “parallel salvation”. Christians would have to come to a point where they could admit that Jews, by virtue of their original and irrevocable election, and of their possessing and observing the Torah, possess their own autonomous, complete and special path toward salvation—a path that has no need of Jesus. It is not enough to say (just as was recently said, with a praiseworthy attempt at doctrinal elaboration) that our “hope is not in vain” because it serves as a stimulus to Christians; no, what must be said is that we have value in and of ourselves, and that no one need justify our faith on the basis of any other faith. Concretely speaking, the consequence would be the end of every temptation on the part of Christians to transform dialogue into a system of gentle persuasion, alleviating Jewish mistrust. On the Jewish side, this movement would have to be matched by an affirmation of the principle that faith in Jesus (understood: on the part of Christians, not Jews) is not incompatible with the worship of the one and only God. This is a principle which has been accepted in authoritative traditions within Judaism, but which would have to become more prevalent and accepted by the majority. From this would have to follow, on the part of Jews, a greater understanding of Christian spirituality. Now then, anyone who has even a minimal experience of the ways in which theologies develop on both sides can understand the difficulties in achieving these results, at least in a short time and at the same pace.

8. And now the other scenario, which could be defined as a political one, and which essentially consists of a willingness for a type of moratorium, of a suspension and deferral to the inscrutable superior will until the end of time. Two great Jews, eleven centuries apart, and marshalled in opposing camps, have perhaps said the same thing. The first, Saul of Tarsus, the Apostle Paul, when faced with the fact of Israel’s unbelief (which to him was inexplicable) formulated in Romans 11:25 the idea of the stubbornness of Israel, which will last until all other peoples shall have arrived at salvation, and only then “will all Israel be saved”. The second, Moses Maimonides, in the rules he gives for kings in his treatise (Chapter 11), after having denounced the invalidity of faith in Jesus, nevertheless formulated an interpretation of the providential significance of the spread of Christianity, “to prepare the road for the king-Messiah, and to help the whole world become accustomed to serving God together, as it is said, ‘At that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord’” (Zeph. 3:9). Perhaps the parallel suggests the solution, which cannot be immediate but is eschatological. Each of us has the right to hope that the other will acknowledge that there is true faith in us, but we allow for that to unfold over a long period, which is beyond our control.

9. We have a dramatic and very current example of this, very near to us, which suggests some analogies for us: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two peoples, two cultures who are fighting over the same land. For both sides, it is the same land that they desire, on the basis of history, faith and politics: from the sea to the Jordan, and perhaps beyond. From a political point of view, it has been said that the alternative to the violence and bloodshed could be the partitioning of the land. But that does not mean that one must surrender one’s memories, one’s dreams, or the sacredness of the land. It means only that the dream cannot be realized immediately. Many people do not tire of repeating that the priority must be a territorial surrender on the part of both sides. For dreams—and each side has a dream from their point of view—there is time.

The political realism that almost everyone is preaching could perhaps provide a model for behaviour in the Jewish-Christian theological debate. Even if today there are no lives endangered by this debate (though perhaps some souls are endangered, in some of the more extreme perspectives), needs and responsibilities demand a different climate, without renouncing one’s own convictions, or the dream that perhaps at the end of time, one’s own faith will be the one and only. But in the meantime, it would mean removing this goal from the agenda and limiting the discussion to everything else, which is certainly no small amount.

10. By putting forth these two possible scenarios, we depart from the theoretical presupposition that the only problem of Jewish-Christian dialogue that remains is that of the conversion of the other. Despite notable progress, that is not the way things are, because there are always signs of standstills and of a reversal of direction, even on topics and problems that we should consider resolved like, for example, the question of preaching. Scarcely a week ago, from the most authoritative of sources, concepts and methods have reappeared which threaten to send us back to the past again. With regard to the Middle East conflict, there has once again been talk of the law of talion, whose logic, it was said, “is not suited to preparing paths of peace”. We are sensitive to this vocabulary, because the law of talion (which among other things is absent from rabbinic law) is a theological symbol of the false and unacceptable antithesis between a presumed “religion of love” and another which is, instead, focussed on revenge. As if this re-flowering of Marcionism were not enough, lately there has appeared the risky use of a theological category to interpret and judge political behaviour. If we speak of “a logic of talion” (a religious concept) in the context of the Middle East, we risk attributing to the opponents a fundamental religious and cultural defect, and this judgement certainly does nothing to facilitate “the paths of peace”.

11. To conclude, let us return to our ancestor Noah, whom we have left bobbing along on the water in an ark. We know how the story ends. Noah comes out of the ark, plants a vineyard, and what happens is well known. The man who was saved from the water is not saved from the wine. The man, ish, who had started off an ish tzaddik, a righteous man (Gen. 6:9) ends up as an ish ha’adamah, a man of the earth (Gen. 9:20). There is another Biblical character (Moses) who starts off by being saved from the water, drawn out of a boat made waterproof with the same materials used for Noah’s ark. And for him as well, there is a metamorphosis in his being an ish: from being ish mitzri, an Egyptian man (Exod. 2:19), to ish ha’elohim, a man of God (Deut. 33:1). If we are all children of a common ancestor, who is too human and questionable, we can also be disciples of special Teachers, like our Teacher Moses. For this reason, we appreciated the journey of the Pope to Sinai, as a reminder to Christianity of the Torah which was given to Moses from heaven. This is no small thing—a common element which we are to witness to the world, each one according to their own path. The Torah was given in the desert, in a land belonging to no one, with no water. The water of the Flood had submerged the whole world, bringing death with it, but we await the day when “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Is. 11:9). It is not difficult to define common goals: to respect human beings as images of the divine, to offer them dignity, solidarity and justice, to carry the sense of the sacred in the world. In the face of these goals, these little theological shoving-matches (which derive from the more or less unconscious desire to impose one’s own truth on others in a short time) truly appear as petty disputes.

As he left the ark, Noah received the assurance that humanity would never again be entirely destroyed by God. Now, however, this risk still exists—not destruction by a divine hand, but by a human hand, with no guarantees other than our responsibility, which we (especially as religions) cannot escape. Commitments and facts must come before forms and ceremonies. This is the authentic message of the prophets, which we recognize as a common source, and the comfort promised by the divine mercy will recall once more the waters of Noah, no longer as a sign of destruction, but as a sign of protection. As the prophet Isaiah says (54:9): “This is like the days of Noah to me: Just as I swore that the waters of Noah would never again go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you”.

Translation from the original Italian by Father Murray Watson, revised by the Author
(SIDIC, Roma)