Archive for the ‘hypocrisy’ Category
With the ‘goy’ kids’ P.R. usefulness expended, it’s time for them to be gone. See:
Which should be read in tandem with:
There is no genuine benevolence for outsiders in Judaism, only the illusion thereof.
The executive producer for ‘Strangers No More’ is Lin Arison widow of Ted Arison, an exceedingly powerful and wealthy Israeli of Romanian origin, said to be the world’s wealthiest ‘Jew’ at the time of his death. The Arisons are founders of the ‘National Foundation for Advancement in the Arts,’ likely where the funding for the hasbara piece ‘Strangers No More’ comes from.
The Arison family (née: Arisohn, Arizon) among others, with the Rothschilds, founded the town, Zikhron Ya’acov (named after James Jacob Rothschild) in Palestine in 1882. Ted Arison was born in Zikhron Ya’acov and is a descendant of founders of the town. Romanian Judaic Sarah Aaronsohn and her brother Aaron of Zikhron Ya’acov founded the N.I.L.I. spy ring which cooperated with British intelligence and was instrumental in establishing the British Mandate and expelling Turks and Palestinians from Palestine, a crucial step towards the establishment of the Zionist state. Sarah Aaronsohn was captured by Turks and shot herself rather than give information. Aaron Aaronsohn managed N.I.L.I. spy operations in Egypt. Under a thin cloak of philanthropy the Arison family are self-serving Zionist fanatics of the most extreme bent.
A museum in the Israeli state, ‘First Alyah Museum’ honors Ted Arison’s grandparents, among the first European Judaic Zionists to “settle” in Palestine:
The First Aliyah Museum opened its doors to the public in February 1999. It was established in memory of Moshe & Sara Arisohn, who were among Zichron Ya’acov’s first settlers … The museum is located in a building that was built by Baron de Rothschild’s staff in 1892. Known at times as the Administration House, when built, it was the largest and most magnificent building in Israel … The first national settler’s conference was held in Zichron Ya’acov, it dealt with opposition to the Uganda Plan.
With Rothschild funding, a ‘Christian mystic’ Zionist, Laurence Oliphant escorted Sarah and Aaron Aaronsohn’s parents, Ephraim Fischel Aaronsohn and his wife Malkah to Zichron Ya’acov, which is on Mount Carmel, a location central to mystical tradition.
Ted Arison’s father, Meir Arison was a Mason.
Kirk Simon & Karen Goodman
Kirk Simon and Karen Goodman have made over twenty documentaries and in the process have garnered four Academy Award nominations, three Emmys and the DuPont-Columbia Award for Independent Programming. They have received filmmaking grants from the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, the Ford Foundation, and the American Film Institute.
Their documentaries have been broadcast nationally on PBS, HBO, and MTV, and screened at festivals around the world including the New York Film Festival, Sundance, New Directors / New Films, London, Berlin, Montreal and St. Petersburg. In addition, they have overseen and filmed dance preservation projects for the Paul Taylor Dance Company and Lincoln Center’s Library and Museum of the Performing Arts.
Both Mr. Simon and Ms. Goodman are active voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. They have served as consultants to the National Endowment for the Humanities Media Program, on the Documentary Screening Committee for the Academy Awards and as judges for the Emmy Awards and the DuPont-Columbia Broadcast Journalism Award.
Gentiles forever on trial in Anthony Julius’s Beth Din
by Michael Hoffman | Amazon.com | published May 18, 2010 and Jan. 30, 2011
There are plenty of unintentionally funny bits in Harold Bloom’s fulsome review in the New York Times (May 7, 2010) of Anthony Julius’s tedious book, Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Antisemitism in England. The theme of Mr. Julius is that “the Jews are always on trial” and after whining thus, in the familiar full-blown paranoiac pattern, Julius and Bloom proceed to conduct their own Beth din (rabbinic court) inquisition: “Julius casts this huge book as a series of trials, not of the Jews but of the English.” (Bloom).
No one may judge the Judaic people, but Julius and Bloom presume to judge the English people. This makes perfect Talmudic sense! Israeli leader Shimon Peres said something similar after the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in Jenin in 2002, when there was a call for a U.N. war crimes investigaton. “No one judges Israel!” Peres shrieked. But counterfeit “Israel” will put western civilization on trial, or at least three of its most eminent writers, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, along with the English nation as a whole. According to Bloom:
“Trials of the Diaspora takes its title from its final epigraph, Philip Roth’s pungent observation in his still undervalued novel Operation Shylock: ‘In the modern world, the Jew has perpetually been on trial; still today the Jew is on trial, in the person of the Israeli — and this modern trial of the Jew, this trial which never ends, begins with the trial of Shylock.’…The best chapter in Trials of the Diaspora concerns the cavalcade of anti-Semitism in English literature, with its monuments in Chaucer’s Prioress’s Tale, Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice and Charles Dickens’s Oliver Twist…
“As an old-fashioned bardolator, I am hurt when I contemplate the real harm Shakespeare has done to the Jews for some four centuries now. No representation of a Jew in literature ever will surpass Shylock in power, negative eloquence and persuasiveness….Shakespeare, still competing with the ghost of Christopher Marlowe, implicitly contrasts Shylock with Barabas, the Jew of Malta in Marlowe’s tragic farce…It is Shakespeare’s continuing triumph over Marlowe that such an exchange will not work. Shylock is darker and deeper forever. For Julius, The Merchant of Venice is both an anti-Semitic play and a representation of (attack on) anti-Semitism. I dispute the latter: the humanizing of Shylock only increases his monstrosity.”
If you attend Yale University and seek to plumb the depths of the literature of the West, Prof. Bloom will be your guide —the Prof. Bloom who loves Shakespeare but despises The Merchant of Venice. We can learn an instructive lesson from what Bloom hates about the play. He writes, “No representation of a Jew in literature ever will surpass Shylock in power, negative eloquence and persuasiveness….” Then he relates to us the secret of Shakespeare’s power: “… the humanizing of Shylock.”
Shakespeare does not make Shylock a stock character of utter revulsion. Shylock is not presented as wholly evil or completely unsympathetic. The Christians in The Merchant of Venice are not completely blameless. The Bard acknowledges Shylock’s humanity and presents him as a challenge to the flawed Christians.
Shylock’s final arguments are persuasive and almost carry the day, until Portia’s speech, wherein she contrasts the Judaic call for “justice” (i.e. vengeance, the “pound of flesh”), with Christ’s call for mercy, after which a chasm materializes that Harold Bloom, Anthony Julius and all the Zionist professors and lawyers in the world cannot traverse.
Shakespeare attacked Shylock’s ideals; lesser artists would have attacked Shylock himself. They hate the sinner. Shakespeare only hated the sin. Every drama, oration, book, movie or volume of history or theology that denies the humanity of Judaic persons and refuses to love them (Luke 6:27), cannot achieve what Shakespeare achieved: “…the humanizing of Shylock only increases his monstrosity.” Call it the Shakespeare Factor, this approach toward enemies, so radically different from the rabbinic mentality which paints enemies, as Bloom and Julius do, in hateful shades of pure evil, is what is missing from many writings that oppose Judaism.
Bloom: “Dickens created the second most memorable Jew in his superb Fagin. There is no third figure to compete with Shylock and Fagin….How does one estimate the lasting harm done by Shakespeare’s and Dickens’s egregious Jews?…nothing mitigates the destructiveness of the portraits of Shylock and Fagin. The greatness of Shakespeare and of Dickens renders their anti-Semitic masterpieces more troublesome than the litany of lesser but frequently estimable traducers…”
Charles Dickens based Fagin on a real-life receiver of stolen goods, the notorious Ikey Solomons. In a statement after the book’s publication, Dickens wrote, “Fagin in Oliver Twist is a Jew because it unfortunately was true of the time to which that story refers that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew.” Shylock and Fagin are truth-types, not stereotypes, something the Juliuses and Blooms of the world can’t accept. The efficacy of Dickens’ portrayal of Fagin rests on the Shakespeare Factor: Dickens portrayed Fagin as fully human, animated and lively. The scene of Fagin in prison awaiting execution is suffused with pathos. He is evil, but Dickens puts forth gentiles who are at least as evil (Bill Sikes) or more so (Monks).
Lawyer Julius and Prof. Bloom have a bone to pick with Chaucer (for his testimony about ritual murder in “The Prioress Tale,”), and with Shakespeare and Dickens, and they are not reluctant to demean them out of deference for the offense their attacks may give to western civilization by sullying the memory of its literary giants. This is the one-way prerogative of the Talmudic mentality: they feel entitled to bash in the faces of our heroes, but when we topple their cherished icons, we are guilty of filthy, stinking bigotry. There is no reciprocity or quid pro quo with imperious personalities like these. They assess our humanity and burnish or damn our reputation predicated upon the degree to which we are willing to succumb to their sense of entitlement.
Bloom engages in some stereotyping of his own: “Julius links anti-Semitism to sadism. He might have done even more with this, since sado-masochism is something of an English vice, and is so much a school-experience of the upper social class.”
An English vice. To say that usury or fencing stolen goods are Judaic vices is rabid Shakespearean and Dickensian antisemitism, yet Bloom feels entitled to stigmatize the English as sadomasochist, as people who derive pleasure from extreme cruelty. As one of the Holy People, Bloom can libel the English nation with impunity, while the profound insights of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens constitute an “immemorial stench” (Bloom), out of a “sewer” (Julius).
In his chapter on “The Mentality of Modern English Anti-Semitism,” Mr. Julius presents what Prof. Bloom terms, “the puzzle of what appears to be an incessant prejudice, never to be dispelled.”
The concept of gentiles harboring never-to-be-dispelled prejudice toward Judaics is a troglodyte dogma taught to bochurim (yeshiva boys). They are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that any opposition to the religion of Judaism is irrational (based on no legitimate grievance) and ineradicable, the assumption being that all opposition to Judaism reflects a hereditary gentile predisposition toward hatred of the Holy People. This traditional rabbinic brainwash is expressed as follows: “Halacha hi beyoduah she’Eisav soneh l’Yaakov” (“It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob;” cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 463-466).
It will come as a shock to the acolytes of Julius and Bloom that despite their morally superior liberal pretensions, they are steeped in 2,000 years of Talmudic anti-gentile darkness.
Pharisee Tzvee (and the comments, in particular).
This bit of information comes from an investigative work anonymously posted in a few places on the internet (and immediately censored from at least one of them). I copy the entire work below with the following caveats: I don’t see that the author has proven his charge that Mr. Krah is of Judaic ancestry, as likely as it seems. It would be quite “traditional,” after all for such a champion of 15th-century aristocrat Catholicism; such a temporally ambitious man as Bp. Bernard Fellay to have a “Court ‘Jew’.” Regardless of what his actual ethnic identity may be, it’s clear Maximilian Krah fulfills that role for Bp. Fellay. Mr. Krah’s documented Zionist fundraising is highly problematic for anyone that claims to oppose racial supremacy.
Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
The Timeline –
A Corporate Attorney by the name of Maximilian Krah became publicly linked with the affairs of the Society of Saint Pius X.
January 20, 2009
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior of SSPX in Germany, issued a press release in which it was stated: “We have not seen the interview given by Bishop Williamson to Swedish television. As soon as we see it we will submit it to scrutiny and obtain the advice of attorneys.”
But, in fact, the attorney to whom Menzingen would turn had already been put into place.
It was none other than Maximilian Krah of the Dresden Corporate Law company, Fetsch Rechtsanwälte: the partners being Cornelius J. Fetsch, Maximilian Krah and Daniel Adler.
Link: Fetsch Rechtsanwälte
January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.
The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”
In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?
The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.
As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. Curious.
Link: Dello Sarto AG
Maximilian Krah is a Board Member of other associations that control SSPX funds.
In the September 2010 edition of a publication issued by EMBA-Global we read that the “EMBA-Global programme is designed for experienced managers, professionals and executives who seek to develop the skills, knowledge and networks to operate as successful Global leaders, anywhere in the world,” and that it “brings together an elite international network of business professionals.”
Maximilian Krah is pictured on page 6 of the September 2010 publication along with the following, accompanying text:
“Maximilian Krah. German. Lawyer. Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, Vienna, Austria. Lawyer with substantial international experience. Currently a Board Member of an Austrian foundation. Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of non-profit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.”
The full name of the company mentioned above is Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef and Marcellus. Jaidof is the seat of the SSPX District headquarters in Austria.
The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?
Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?
What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jew, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.
In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain.
Krah is instructed to find an attorney to defend Williamson. He opts for Matthias Lossmann as defense attorney, a strange choice. It is strange, because Lossmann is a member of the extremist Die Grünen party (The Greens), an organization that is well-known in Germany as a water melon: green on the outside, red on the inside. A party that is pro-feminist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and harbors Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament in its ranks. Besides his frontline involvement in the 1968 Red turbulence in the universities in France, he is a known advocate of pedophilia, as his autobiography demonstrates. What was Krah thinking of, then, in choosing such an attorney to represent a Catholic bishop? Was Lossmann really the only attorney in Germany prepared to take this case?
Krah’s choice is strange for a second reason. Krah is a member of a political party, but not the Greens. Krah is a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, in the east of Germany, of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel also comes from the east of Germany and is commonly referred to in that country as “Stasi-Merkel” after revelations and photographic evidence came to light hinting that she was recruited and formed by the Stasi, the former East German State Secret Police; a common approach made to young people, particularly those seeking professional careers, in the former Communist State of the German Democratic Republic. The same Merkel that publicly reproached Benedict XVI for having lifted the so-called “excommunication” of “holocaust denier” Williamson, and demanded that the Pope reverse the decision.
Krah is pictured on the editorial page, page 3, of a CDU publication, of May 2006, in the link below:
Link: Die Dresdner Union, May 2006.
He portrays himself in the journal as some kind of Christian (though we are informed via SSPX faithful that he attends the SSPX chapel in Dresden), yet chooses an attorney for Williamson that could not have been worse.
Remember, too, that after the first Der Spiegel hatchet job on Williamson, Krah turned up at the British HQ of the SSPX in London at short notice and sought to get Williamson to do a second interview with the disreputable magazine. Williamson refused to do so, in spite of the fact that Krah had come with these journalists with the express sanction of Bishop Fellay! How in God’s name could Mgr. Fellay have thought that a second bite at the apple by Der Spiegel journalists would help the cause of Williamson or the SSPX? Go figure.
Moreover, consider the approach of both Krah and Lossmann in Williamson’s first trial. There was no attempt to defend him, though it is plain that Williamson had not broken German law, contrary to public perceptions generated by the media. What occurred, according to non-Catholics who attended the trial, was a shocking parody of a defense: Krah, unctuous, smug and mocking in respect of the bishop; Lossmann, weak, hesitating, insipid. Both effectively “conceded” Williamson’s “guilt,” but nevertheless argued for “leniency.” At no time did they address the legal questions at hand, questions that did not relate directly to the “Holocaust” and its veracity or otherwise, but as to whether or not the provisions of the law actually applied to the Williamson case. In other words, a Caiphas defense.
It can, therefore, come as no surprise that Williamson decided to appeal the Court’s decision, and to engage an independent attorney who would address the actual legal questions of the case. That Bishop Fellay, on the basis of media reports, ordered him publicly to sack this attorney or face expulsion is a great surprise, one might even say a scandal, for such situations require knowledge of all the facts, serious reflection, and sagacity. The Press Communiqué demonstrated none of these requirements, and merely represented one more example of Bishop Fellay’s unexplained public hostility to Mgr. Williamson. It is significant that the DICI statement referred to Williamson’s new attorney as someone who was associated with “neo-nazis,” this being a reference to the German National Democrats, an organization that has been in existence for about 50 years and has elected members in some regional German parliaments. If it had been “Nazi” it would have been banned under the German Constitution a long time ago – as many such groups have found out over the years in Germany. Moreover, while DICI chose the term “neo-nazi,” the British Daily Telegraph chose “far right,” as did those well-known anti-semitic journals, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz.
Did Krah have an input into this communiqué? We cannot know for sure, but we do know something about Krah that is not common knowledge. Maximilian Krah is Jewish. He presents himself as some sort of ‘Christian’ in the link provided above, yet we find a more revealing picture of Maximilian Krah, at this link below, in attendance at a fundraising event in New York during September 2010.
Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.
However, Krah is at the financial center of the SSPX; he has done no favors to Williamson and his case by his statements and actions; and may be responsible for things yet unknown or unseen.
Since his arrival on the scene, traditionalists have witnessed
1) The abrupt disappearance of important theological articles from District websites regarding Judaism and the pivotal role played by our “elder brothers,” as Bishop Fellay referred to them this year, in Finance, Freemasonry and Communism, none of which could have been construed as “anti-semitic” by the time honored standards of the Catholic Church.
2) Bishop Williamson being continuously and publicly denigrated, humiliated and grossly insulted.
3) The communist journal, Der Spiegel, being favored with arranged interviews and stories to keep the “Williamson Affair” on-the-boil, thereby tending toward the “marginalization” of Williamson.
4) A scandalous and erroneous article being published in The Angelus, in which the faithful were taught that a Talmudic rabbi was a saint, and that the said rabbi was positively instrumental in preparing the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the conversion of St. Paul.
All these facts combined necessarily raise a whole series of questions. These questions can only be answered by those in a position to know all the facts. In this case that person is Bishop Fellay, since he is the Superior General, has unrestricted access to all aspects of the Society’s work, and obviously has taken Mr. Krah into his confidence on both the financial and legal levels.
This writer is making no accusations or insinuations against Bishop Fellay at any level. He is simply requesting that he make public reply to the following questions in order that the doubt and worry, which is widespread among the clergy and faithful since the events of last year, is allayed, and soothed by the balm of Truth.
1) Were you aware that Maximilian Krah, who currently has significant power and influence in important areas of the internal workings of the SSPX, was Jewish when he was taken into your confidence?
2) Who introduced, or recommended, Maximilian Krah in his professional capacity to the Society of Saint Pius X?
3) If you were not aware of Krah’s background and political connections, why was he not carefully investigated before being brought into the inner-circle and inner-workings of SSPX?
4) Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?
5) Who are the shareholders of Dello Sarto AG? Are they all clergy of the SSPX or related congregations? Are the shares transferable through purchase? In the event of the death, defection or resignation of a shareholder, how are the shares distributed? Who in any of these cases has the power to confer, designate, sell or otherwise dispose of these shares? You? The Bursar? The Manager? The Board Members? The General Council?
6) Why is the Society of Saint Pius X engaged in financial activities which may be common in modern society, but which are hardly likely to be in conformity with Church teaching pertaining to money, its nature, its use and its ends?
7) Why was Krah allowed to keep the pot boiling in the “Williamson Affair” by arranging interviews and providing stories for Der Spiegel magazine? How could an alleged Christian Democrat be the intermediary with a notorious communist journal?
8) Why was Krah permitted to impose upon your brother bishop an attorney belonging to the extreme left-wing Die Grünen?
9) Why was your brother bishop threatened with expulsion from SSPX for merely hiring an attorney who was actually interested in fighting the unjust and ridiculous charge of incitement? Is it not the case that those of the Household of the Faith must take precedence over those who are without?
10) Can you explain why your public attitude to Williamson has changed, why you have continuously belittled him in public – while he has not responded in kind at any time?
11) What do you intend to do about Mr. Krah given that his position within the Society is one of influence, but who cannot seriously be regarded as someone who has the best interests of Catholic Tradition at heart? Will you move as quickly to resolve this question as you have in respect of Williamson?
There is no malice meant or intended in this communication. There is quite simply a tremendous fear for the future of the SSPX and its direction
For those who think that the writer is muckraking, I would like to point out that it was me that made public the impending sell-out of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it took place. I received brickbats for the relevant post at the time, and some calumniated me – but I was shown to be correct after a short period. This writer has not posted anywhere since that time. He does so now because he possesses information, as he did in regard to the Redemptorists, which needed to be made known widely for the good of Catholic Tradition. Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.
with her pious, anti-scholarship, hypocritical blather. I propose a moratorium on intellectually void attempts at pinning Nazi crimes (real and imagined) on Christendom until there has been 60 years of equally intense examination of the relationship between Susannah Heschel’s religion, rabbinic Judaism, and Israeli crimes against humanity. What are the chances of such a line of study bringing such fellowships, grants and honors as THESE?
… Christian theologians, Catholic and Protestant, reassured Germans that Nazism was in full accord with Christian principles. This was not a marginal effort; at the 1934 Oberammergau passion play, watching Jesus being hoisted on the cross, the audience saw a parable of the Third Reich, calling out: “There he is. That is our Führer, our Hitler!”
Hitler became Christ, the redeemer of Germany, thanks to a reinterpretation of the Gospels: Jesus was not a Jew, but an Aryan who came to redeem them from the Jews who sought their destruction. Karl Adam, the prominent German Catholic theologian, affirmed in 1933 that Hitler was the one “prophesied by our poets and our wise men” who suffered in his fight for Germany’s salvation. Adam continued in 1941: “Christ’s teaching was entirely anti-Jewish in its tenor (that is why he was crucified).”
Redefining Jesus as an Aryan began during the nineteenth century and intensified in the decades before and during the Third Reich. Jesus, theologians argued, was born in Galilee, an area populated, they claimed, by racial non-Jews, including Aryans from Iran; his message was welcomed by Galileans, in contrast to the Judean Jews who put him to death. Grundmann, together with theologians, pastors, bishops, students—both Protestant and Catholic—established the “Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life,” financed by the Protestant church. They published a new version of the New Testament, purged of positive references to Jews and Judaism, redefined Jesus as an Aryan Galilean, and downplayed the role of the Jewish apostle Paul. In addition to their New Testament they distributed a dejudaized hymnal and catechism to churches throughout the Nazi Reich. Grundmann argued that Jesus’ intimacy with God established a morality that was utterly opposed to the law-based morality of Judaism—laws that forbid murder, for example—presumably in case Christians had qualms about Nazi orders to do just that.
No religion advocates murder [Susannah Heschel’s religion, rabbinic Judaism, does], though plenty of religious leaders across the centuries have justified horrendous acts through their manipulative readings of scriptures and history. One of the most egregious and best-documented examples is, of course, the behavior of German Christians during the Third Reich. Pope Benedict could gain the respect of world opinion by acknowledging what historians have amply demonstrated: that well-intentioned, pious Christians—and not just atheists—committed heinous acts. Christian teachings are no guarantee against atrocity and, in the context of the Third Reich, actually came to justify the Holocaust. (Susannah Heschel, “Atheist Nazis? The Pope’s Cheap Atonement,” Religion Dispatches,
In 2008 Israeli Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger called for a final solution ethnic/religious cleansing of Gaza saying its inhabitants should be moved to the Sinai Desert where a state would be built for them paid for by Britain, the European Union and the United States. News report and video here:
In 2010 Helen Thomas said that Judaic people should leave land they unjustly forced Palestinians from and return to their homes in Poland, Germany the U.S. and elsewhere.
In 2008 Chief Rabbi Metzger thanked G.W. Bush for his support of “Israel” and in particular for waging an unjust war against Iraq. News report here:
Israeli Chief Rabbi Thanks Bush for War On Iraq
Helen Thomas has consistently opposed the unjust, catastrophic war on Iraq.
If we don’t stand for those who stand for justice when they’re attacked we deserve no better than this: a world enslaved by crushing rabbinic double standards and hypocrisy. I can’t imagine what encourages the rabbis more than for us to flee in cowardice as they stone our most courageous people.
What about the nuclear weapons the warlike Israeli state has already in its possession?
… semi-annual consultation of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the National Council of Synagogues (NCS), May 12, in New York. The consultation was co-chaired by Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and NCS Chairman Rabbi Alvin Berkun …
Jewish and Catholic participants … expressed grave concern about the Iranian government’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, a topic they said should be brought to the attention of congregations in both communities …
Catholic participants at the consultation included Cardinal William Keeler, Archbishop Emeritus of Baltimore; Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta, Chairman of the Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs; Bishop Basil H. Losten, Former Bishop of Stamford for Ukrainians; Auxiliary Bishop Denis Madden of Baltimore; Christian Brother David Carroll, former Associate Director at Catholic Near East Welfare Association; Father Lawrence Frizzell, Seton Hall University; Atonement Father James Loughran, Graymoor Ecumenical Institute; Msgr. Guy Massie, Ecumenical Office of the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York; Father Dennis McManus, Special Assistant to Archbishop Dolan; Father James Massa, USCCB staff; and Father Robert Robbins, Ecumenical Office of the Archdiocese of New York.
Jewish participants included Rabbi Jerome Davidson, Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Beth El, Great Neck, New York; Rabbi Lewis Eron, Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Judith Hertz, NCS Advisor; Rabbi Richard Marker, Chairman of the International Committee for Jewish-Christian Consultation; Rabbi Joel Meyers, Executive Vice-President Emeritus of the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly; Mark Pelavin of the Reform Action Center, Washington; Rabbi Daniel F. Polish of La Grangeville, New York; Carl Sheingold, Ph.D., Executive Vice-President of the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Jacob Stein, NCS advisor; Rabbi Jonathan Waxman, Congregation Beth-El in Massapequa, New York; Rabbi Jeffrey Wohlberg, President of the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly.
A rabbi, Tzvee Zahavy, who operates under the guise of a scholar, has written a comment on a text thought to be a lost section of St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Jews:
Kevin at biblicalia has posted the Ending of Second Oration Against the Jews: Roger Pearse [weblog HERE] has posted and released to public domain a translation of the until recently missing ending of the Second Oration Against the Jews by St John Chrysostom [HERE].”
The text from the “Silver[sic] Tongued” orator (died 407 CE) contains such gems as, “Now then, let me strip down for the fight against the Jews themselves, so that the victory may be more glorious—so that you will learn that they are abominable and lawless and murderous and enemies of God. For there is no evidence of wickedness I can proclaim that is equal to this.”
We can only reiterate that scholarship aside, it is always hurtful for us to revisit how far back Christian antisemitism goes and what grave and unfathomable damage it has done to our ancestors.
What Rabbi Zahavy (evident in his censorship tactics) does not want discussed is the fact that the great sages of his religion, rabbinic Judaism, have taught hatred that has no parallel in the Christian canon and that many of these teachings originate centuries before the golden-tongued Church Doctor, St. John Chrysostom, when Christians were a fledgling minority persecuted by the synagogues. The great Rabbi Zahavy is well aware of the genocidal, racial-supremacist dictums of the great sage of rabbinic Judaism, Shimon ben Yohai, the Birkat ha-Minim and other hateful teachings of the rabbis which date to the 1st century A.D. But he doesn’t want the am-haaretz discussing those those things because they interfere with the illusion he attempts to create of rabbinic Judaism as blameless, ultimate good and opposition to it as ultimate evil and insanity.
It seems to me that if Rabbi Zahavy is due sympathy for hurt caused by the writings of St. John Chrysostom which he suggests he experiences as he plays golf, writes, forms young minds at prestigious American universities and relaxes in the comfort of his New Jersey abode, then the Palestinians of Gaza are due at least as much sympathy for the hurt they experience as their homes are destroyed and their family members are killed by Israeli soldiers ever more informed by the hateful teachings of the sages of Rabbi Zahavy’s religion, rabbinic Judaism.
Isn’t there a double standard at work here? Can it be that rabbinic Judaism is not an enlightened tradition; that it cannot withstand the same scrutiny commonly meted out to Christianity and Islam? Is that why the rabbi expects that his criticism of Christianity stand unchallenged? I have taken the time to study the matter and I believe the answer is yes.
It takes a special kind of Pharisaic chutzpah for a representative of the hateful religion of rabbinic Judaism to smugly attack the Christian Fathers as hateful, but Rabbi Zahavy has it, and he seems able to persuade others to go his way, and I doubt it is by means of reason. But this will change, and indeed, it is changing. The internet is not Rabbi Zahavy’s classroom.
Hypocrite! (Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 15:7, Matthew 22:18, Matthew 23:13, Matthew 23:14, Matthew 23:15, Matthew 23:23, Matthew 23:25, Matthew 23:27, Matthew 23:29, Matthew 24:51, Luke 13:15)
For counterfeit Israel it’s not helping that matters, but the image thereof. The work has hardly begun in Haiti but having accomplished their PR goals the Israelis are already on the long journey back to the Israeli state–mere miles from the humanitarian disaster in Gaza which they caused and where they do not offer aid.
And the modern Hebrew language Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv is where the real scoop is often buried: