Archive for the ‘Maximilian Krah’ Category

The Rothschild-Gutmann Money Behind the SSPX Kosher Imperative

November 1, 2012
Traducción parcial al Español aquí: MAS DE LA FUNDACION JAIDHOF

(All images below may be enlarged by clicking on them)

‘The Remnant’ has published an ‘interview’ with SSPX lawyer and asset manager Maximillian Krah in which he makes a statement regarding his involvement with a Jaidhofer Foundation:

Siscoe:  Another company name that is mentioned is Jaidhofer Foundation. Can you discuss this company?
Krah:  Yes, this is linked with the SSPX … There is a family in Austria which wanted to donate to the SSPX, but did not want to donate directly. They wanted to establish a foundation that would support the SSPX.  And in every foundation you need some trustees.  It’s a kind of trust, and I am one of the trustees.  I was chosen by the family who established the foundation …  This foundation is supporting the SSPX and using the money which was donated by this family. As an example, it is supporting the new Seminary project in Virginia …

Below is a picture of Maximillian Krah at Jaidhof with members of the Austrian Gutmann family he describes above as benefactors of the SSPX:

From the Rothschild family archive we find some background on the Gutmann family and how its wealth was amassed:

The steel heart of Czechoslovakia, as Frankova names it, was once owned by the Austrian Rothschilds, in partnership with the Gutmann brothers [Wilhelm and David] … It is Salomon von Rothschild who, in 1844, bought the iron works, and founded the United Coal Mines of Vítkovice and Austro-Hungarian Blast Furnace Company … Salomon’s English cousins helped fund the creation of De Beers in 1887.

http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/vitkovice

The Jewish Encyclopedia gives us the proper name of the Gutmanns who partnered with Salomon Rothschild:

GUTMANN, WILHELM, RITTER VON: …In 1853 he and his brother David established the firm which, during the war of 1859-60, despite the difficulties then surrounding business ventures, supplied coal for all the railroads, for all the great factories throughout the empire, and for the cities of Vienna, Budapest, and Brünn. Gutmann Bros. leased some coal-mines from the Rothschilds in 1865, and purchased outright other valuable carboniferous properties in Silesia, Galicia, and Hungary. The close connection between coal and the production of iron easily led the Gutmanns to combine their interests with the Witkowitz iron-works, which they afterward owned conjointly with the Rothschilds and the counts Larisch and Andrassy. With Kuffner they built (1871) the first sugar-factory in Austria …

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6962-gutmann-wilhelm-ritter-von

From the Jewish Encyclopedia we find that Wilhelm von Gutmann partnered with the Rothschilds in financing a rabbinical seminary in Vienna:

ISRAELITISCH-THEOLOGISCHE LEHRANSTALT: Rabbinical and teachers’ seminary in Vienna, founded 1893 at the suggestion of Wilhelm and David von Guttmann and with the assistance of Albert von Rothschild and Freiherr von Königswarter, and opened Oct. 15 of that year. It is subventioned by the Austrian government, by the “Cultusgemeinden” of Vienna, Prague, and Lemberg, and by the “Landesjudenschaft” of Bohemia, and is governed by fifteen curators. The first president was Baron von Königswarter, who, at his death, was succeeded by Moritz Karpeles; the latter was followed by Moritz Edler von Kuffner.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8305-israelitisch-theologische-lehranstalt

From an obituary for one of Wilhelm von Gutmann’s sons, Moritz, we find that he was a relative of the Rothschilds of Vienna:

Below is a historical overview of the Gutmann family and its ownership of the Jaidhof property, which the Austrian branch of the SSPX is based from, beginning with the Rothschild partner Wilhelm Ritter von Gutmann bringing us to the present heir Guntard Gutmann who is pictured above with Maximillian Krah at an SSPX chapel on the Jaidhof grounds:

Below is a brief history of the Jaidhof property and its ownership including how the Jaidhof castle was given to the SSPX by the Gutmann family:

Below is a webpage from a “Europa Institute” which Guntard Gutmann seems to serve as an advisor on matters including think tanks and economics. He’s credited as working for many years as an international banker. This Europa Institute seems to be associated with the Acton Institute which serves to acclimate Catholics to predatory economics and ‘neo-con’ politics. It’s figurehead, Fr. Sirico officiated at the first homosexual ‘marriage’ in the U.S:

Also see:

Maximilian Krah’s Zionist, Philo-Judaic, ‘Neocon’ bona fides

SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner’s Visit to Israeli Military Special Forces Base Documented

Maximilian Krah’s Handler, Oren Heiman Co-Chairs Zionist Organization with Former Head of Mossad, Meir Dagan

SSPX Bishop Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner Attends Israeli Fundraiser

Bonetus

Advertisements

Bonetus

September 18, 2012
Followers of the Kosher-Catholic containment operation “Rorate-Caeli” may recall “New Catholic” (scroll down to the comments) turning his audience over to a guest contributor by the name “Bonetus” with the endorsement, “We are pleased to introduce our new contributor, Bonetus, a very wise and pious man.”

And with this prodding of the traditional goyim to learn at the feet of the “very wise man,” “Bonetus” proceeded with a transparent, condescending agenda of defining the boundaries for acceptable speech on the topic of ‘The Jews’ beginning by dredging up a ridiculous paen to the alleged racial prestige of today’s Khazar ‘Jews’ of whom it is alleged “Christ was born according to the flesh” and “the Immaculate Virgin Mary [is] already their sister according to the flesh” in blatant mockery of St. John the Baptist, St. Paul, and Jesus Christ who had no tolerance for such racial boasting, even from true genetic Israelites of His time.

I mention “New Catholic’s”  heralding of the “very wise [Judaizing] man” “Bonetus” as an introduction to documentation on the early 16th century figure, “Bonetus,” the rabbi/physician/’prophet’/astrologer to who is commonly regarded as the most corrupt pope in the history of the Church, the Borgia pope, Alexander VI.

Contemporaries of Erasmus: a biographical register of the Renaissance and Reformation, Volumes 1-3, Page 196

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

BONET DE LATES or LATTES (known in Hebrew as Jacob ben Immanuel Provinciale):

Physician and astrologer; known chiefly as the inventor of an astronomical ring-dial by means of which solar and stellar altitudes can be measured and the time determined with great precision by night as well as by day; lived in the latter part of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth. Originally from Provence, and belonging to a family that had its origin in Lattes near Montpellier, he was forced to leave Provence with the rest of his brethren and settled in Carpentras. Thence he went to Rome, where he became physician to Pope Alexander VI. (1430-1503), and later to Pope Leo X. (1503-13). At this time he became rabbi of the Jewish community, to which he was able to render much assistance. He married the daughter of the physician Comprat Mossé of Aix. Bonet described the use of his instrument in a treatise written in Carpentras, the full title of which is: “Boneti de Latis, Medici Provenzalis, Annuli per eum Composti Super Astrologiæ Utilitate.” It appeared as a supplement to the “Calculatio Composta in Rima de Juliano de Dati,” Rome, 1493, and was dedicated to Pope Alexander VI. At the end Bonet craves pardon for his bad Latin, on the score of being a Hebrew. The treatise was republished by Jacob Faber of Etaples, together with his own commentary on John Sacrobosco’s “De Sphæra Mundi” and Euclid’s “Geometry,” Paris, 1500. Editions were also published in 1507, 1521, and 1534. Two editions appeared later at Marburg, in 1537 and 1557. In bad Latin, Bonet wrote a treatise entitled “Prognosticum,” published at Rome in 1498, and dedicated to cardinals Valentiniani and De Borgia, in which he predicted the coming of the Messiah in the year 1505 [!]. A full account of the book is to be found in Abraham Farrisol’s manuscript, “Magen Abraham,” or “Wikuaḥ ha-Dat.”

A pupil of the above-mentioned Jacob Faber, Charles Bovillus, 1470-1553, relates in the preface to his “Dialogi de Trinitate” that he met Bonet de Lates in the Roman ghetto in 1507, and went to his house in order to see the ring that he had invented …

It is evidence of the position held by Bonet at the papal court that on Oct. 13, 1513, [‘Christian Kabbalist’ Johannes] Reuchlin begged him to use his influence in order that the examination of the “Augenspiegel” [his defense against the heresy proceedings against him] should not be given into the hands of a commission made up of strangers [that is, believing Catholics], at all events not of Dominicans. Further, Bonet’s intercession seems to have been successful.

Bonet is known to have had two sons. One, Joseph, continued to remain in the papal favor; the other, Immanuel, was also in the service of the pope, from whom he received a regular salary.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3526-bonet-de-lates

 

Dear reader, a certain contingent of traditional Catholics is attempting to resurrect the most depraved aspects of corrupt Renaissance era, Judaizing, superstitious, usurious ‘Catholicism’. Beware.

Also see:

The ‘Christian’ Nobleman/’Court-Jew’ Relationship

“Sistine Secrets”

Maximilian Krah’s Handler, Oren Heiman Co-Chairs Zionist Organization with Former Head of Mossad, Meir Dagan

June 15, 2012

This is a followup to yesterday’s posting, SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner’s Visit to Israeli Military Special Forces Base Documented.

In that posting documentation shows that Bishop Fellay’s lawyer and business partner Maximilian Krah accepted the invitation of his friend Oren Heiman to visit a base of the “Maglan” special forces unit of the Israeli Military.

Oren Heiman is the U.S. Chairman of a Zionist organization, “Yesh Sikuy” (“Israel’s” Hope) of which the Executive Chairman is the former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan.

See the screenshots below. Bishop Fellay’s lawyer and business partner Maximilian Krah directly associated himself with this “Yesh Sikuy” organization by ‘liking’ it on ‘Facebook.’

http://sikuy.org.il/en/?page_id=7

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:snNTg8F3YVcJ:www.facebook.com/SikuyUSA%3Ffilter%3D3+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner’s Visit to Israeli Military Special Forces Base Documented

June 13, 2012
In 2010 it was revealed that Bishop Fellay’s lawyer and business partner, Maximilian Krah attended a fundraising event for Tel Aviv University. Another attendee at that event was a man named Oren Heiman. Oren Heiman is a classmate of Maximilian Krah at EMBA-Global which was analyzed HERE.

From Friends of the ‘Israel’ ‘Defense’ Forces we find that Zionist fanatic, Maximilian Krah accepted the invitation of Zionist fanatic Oren Heiman to visit a base of the “Maglan*” special forces unit 212 of the Israeli military:

When Oren Heiman decided to get married in the desert in … Israel, he wanted to celebrate with all of his friends. Oren, a lawyer at Shibboleth [boutique law firm] who spends much of his free time involved with Jewish philanthropies, is also studying in an executive MBA program at Columbia and he invited his classmates, many of whom had never been to Israel …

His friends gathered from all across the world, and Oren invited them to join him on a base visit with the Maglan unit, a special forces unit of the IDF. The group met the Master Sargeant and several combat soldiers from the unit, and they had the opportunity to try on uniforms, practice climbing ropes, visit the firing range and the tanks and observe soldiers in training.

Oren’s guests … came away with a clear understanding of the important work of [Friends of the ‘Israel’ ‘Defense’ Forces] and the need to support the soldiers.

www.fidf.org/page.aspx?pid=719

In the images below, dated Apr 14, 2011, we see Maximilian Krah, among other things, happily wearing the uniform and beret of the “Maglan” special forces unit of the ‘Israel’ ‘Defense’ Force and waving a ‘victory’ sign.

Maximilian Krah (left) at base of “Maglan” special forces unit of the ‘Israel’ ‘Defense’ Force

SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay’s lawyer and business partner, Maximilian Krah (rear, waving a ‘victory’ sign) wearing the uniform and beret of the “Maglan” special forces unit of the ‘Israel’ ‘Defense’ Force

*Maglan is Hebrew for Ibis, the bird of much occult significance, particularly for it’s association with the Egyptian god Thoth who was depicted as having an Ibis head.

SSPX Superior Bishop Fellay’s Zionist Business Partner Kicks Günter Grass’ Corpse

May 12, 2012

“Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and has great respect for Mary, and this certainly places Islam nearer to our religion than say, for instance, Judaism, which is far more distant from us. Islam was born in the 7th century and it has benefited to some degree from the Christian teachings of those days.

Judaism, on the other hand, is the heir to the system, which crucified our Lord. And the members of this religion, who have not converted to Christ, are those who are radically opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ. For them, there is no question whatever of recognizing our Lord. They are in opposition to the very foundation and existence of the Catholic faith on this subject. However, we cannot both be right. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lord and Savior or He is not. This is one case where there cannot be the slightest compromise without destroying the very foundation of Catholic faith.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre)

More than one month after Günter Grass published his poem identifying Zionist fanatics and their nuclear weapons as the actual threat to world peace; weeks after the subsequent media lynching of Grass in response, SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay’s lawyer, asset manager and general business partner, Maximillian Krah arrives in the wake of the fray to get a few kicks in himself. We shouldn’t interpret Krah’s tardiness as mere cowardice, however. Lord knows, with Bp. Fellay’s repeat performance of the 1960’s Bolshevik takeover of the Church reaching its finale, Krah must be a very busy man; there being so many laity-financed properties in so many nations to account for.

The context of Krah’s attack on a Zionist-ravaged corpse is an apologia pro Israel Fictus (defense of Counterfeit Israel) in the style of Ordo Templi Orientis’ Judaic guru, James Wasserman according to which ‘Israel’ is the bastion of Western civilization and bulwark against ‘Islamic barbarism’ which threatens to overrun the world and rob us of Scholastic learning, music, wine, mini-skirts and Madonna– no, not the mother of Jesus venerated by Islam and mocked by Judaism–but that Kabbalah-imbued floozy called ‘Madonna’ who Krah ‘likes’ according to his Facebook page.

In defense of Counterfeit Israel, Krah invokes the spectre of Islamic misogynist tyranny while failing to mention that women are currently being spat upon, terrorized and beaten by Judaic ‘modesty patrols’ in Counterfeit Israel, and in Western Judaic communities, for wearing dress far less provocative than the mini-skirts Krah champions.

Shall we follow Templar Krah into a crusade against a spectre of tyranny to the benefit of another far more anti-Christian tyranny?

For all Krah’s rhetoric in support of Scholastic learning, there’s none evident in his thinking. Neither is there much understanding of the founder of the SSPX who rightly viewed Judaism as a greater evil than Islam.

Can this lawyer of such extreme philo-Judaism not be aware of the talmudic equivalents or worse examples of nearly every outrage Islam is accused of, or is he just employing the talmudic double-standard?

If any reader happens to run into Krah, perhaps they might ask for his thoughts on the rabbis of Judaism giving themselves permission to betroth 3-year-old girls by raping them. This is the authoritative teaching of the rabbis of the Talmud and the towering ‘sage’ of Judaism Moses Maimonides that informs that depraved nation which Krah calls “Israel,” and this barely scratches the surface of Judaism’s depravity.

Nearly invariably, real or imaginary Muslim outrages invoked as justification for the Zionist crusade can be matched or exceeded by Judaic outrages nearly invariably permitted by rabbinic law which are covered up by the kosher establishment of which Max Krah is clearly a part. 

Krah’s apologia, like all Zionist apologetics, presupposes ignorance, amnesia, moral depravity, pharisaic love of double-standards or some combination thereof in its audience. There is nothing, literally, nothing for a Christian to support in the Jesus and Mary-hating, master-race religion of Judaism and its nuclear-armed terrorist base of operation, Counterfeit Israel.

Also see:

The Remnant’s Conspicuous Blind Spot

SSPX Joins Crusade to Rehabilitate Templars

The “Church Militant” With Rabbis in Command

Decoding the T-Party (Talmud Party)

Benedict XVI, Hexagram Mitre Make Cover of Foreign Policy Magazine 

A Lesson in “Globalism” 

Bernard-Henri Lévy Indicted for Playing the Great Game

‘Noahide Law’ Peddling Rabbi Incites the Mob re:Sharia Law

Former Israeli Chief Rabbi: “Gentiles” Exist Only to Serve “Jews”

SSPX Bishop Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner is Fundraiser for Racial Supremacist State  

A Christmas meditation by Bishop Richard Williamson

December 21, 2010

Bp. Williamson’s message and its timing calls to mind the practical wisdom in Frank Capra’s film, It’s a Wonderful Life. It seems a fitting time to juxtapose the celebration of the Incarnation of the benevolent, self-sacrificing God of all creation against the god of this world who destroys men’s souls through temptations of temporal gain.

From the time that Jesus cleared the money changers from the Temple of Jerusalem until not too long ago, suspicion of money men was characteristic of Christian culture. But 17 years before the Hollywood(!) release of It’s a Wonderful Life, the Vatican had brought in Bernardino Nogara to manage its finances in 1929 on his condition that he would not be restricted in any way by Church teaching. This was only an echo of the Renaissance Vatican’s use of Judaic bankers unrestricted by Church teaching and permitted by Orthodox Judaism to employ predatory economics. And it seems this tradition from the supposedly utopian pre-Vatican II era is upheld by traditionalist Bishop, Bernard Fellay of the SSPX, all much to the detriment of the Gospel of the Lord who execrated mammonism.

There’s a scene in It’s a Wonderful Life which imparts a lesson of great value. With the Bailey Building and Loan Association near collapse, George Bailey visits the town moneylender and slumlord, Henry Potter who makes a proposition. Potter offers George Bailey an ‘opportunity’ to work for him in exchange for a large salary, the biggest house in town, business trips to New York and Europe with a three year contract. The Bailey Building and Loan Association–the only obstacle to Potter controlling the entire town–would, of course, be allowed to collapse and its shareholders would become victims to Potter. At this realization George Bailey, a man of responsibility and self-sacrifice only momentarily cajoled by Potter’s temptation, rejects the offer in disgust.

It’s not said explicitly what would happen at the end of the three year contract proposed to George Bailey, if the contract was even honored, but the rest of the story makes clear that if the Bailey Building and Loan was broken, and Potter’s control of the town was consolidated, the best George Bailey might hope for would be to assist Potter in the predation on the people he once defended from it–for a pittance.

One can’t help but see how this once commonplace wisdom was lost to the Irish who recently squandered their birthright for a few years of illusionary prosperity. But this is only a stark example of the same story being played out throughout Europe and the world. When the house of prayer becomes a den of thieves it can only follow by necessity that the rest of society will be taken by the same thieves.

See:

A Christmas meditation by Bishop Richard Williamson

Bishop Williamson tells his side of story on threatened "expulsion" from SSPX

December 2, 2010

See:

Bishop Williamson tells his side of story on threatened “expulsion” from SSPX

Developments in the Williamson appeal matter during the past week

November 29, 2010

From: Prof. Arthur R. Butz, PhD.

Date: November 27, 2010

Subject: Developments in Germany in the Williamson appeal matter during the past week concerning his “holocaust minimization” broadcast on Swedish TV and filmed in Germany

32 minutes after lawyer Nahrath, a member of the rightist NPD, informed Judge Eisvogel that he had been added to Bishop Richard Williamson’s legal team, Nahrath received a phone call from Der Spiegel. It is speculated that Der Spiegel’s source of news on the new development had to be its friend lawyer [Maximilian] Krah, an associate of the lawyer Lossman who resigned when Nahrath was added to the legal team.*

In order to placate the priestly Catholic fraternity of the SSPX, Williamson said he will drop his lawyer Nahrath, and his appeal, and asked that the SSPX pay his fine. SSPX Superior Fellay agreed, but the next day Fellay publicly denounced Bishop Williamson and repeated his order to Williamson to drop Nahrath or be ejected from the SSPX. Then Williamson told Fellay that he would continue his appeal but drop Nahrath, reasoning that “A willow will bend whereas an oak will snap and break.” Through all of this Williamson never actually spoke to Fellay. Williamson retained a new lawyer on Nov. 26, politically neutral and with a good professional reputation, but thus far not publicly identified.

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/11/developments-in-williamson-appeal.html

*Williamson’s defense lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told German Press Agency dpa that they had “amicably ended” their cooperation, indicating that this was in part due to Williamson’s decision to hire another lawyer. He said the name would soon be made public.

“You will then see why I no longer feel called for,” he added.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/holocaust-denying-bishop-s-lawyer-pulls-out-of-case-ahead-of-trial-1.325231

SSPX Bishop Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner is Fundraiser for Racial Supremacist State

November 29, 2010


Bp. Fellay’s Lawyer/business partner Maximilian Krah among patrons at September 27, 2010 American Friends of Tel Aviv University Fund Raiser

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 –

January 2009
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
http://www.dasoertliche.de/?id=10700323337…&arkey=14612000

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
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl…D813%26prmd%3Db

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.”

Link: EMBA-Global
http://www.emba-global.com/EMBA-Global_Cla…tember_2010.pdf

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.

ENTER KRAH

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.
http://www.cdu-dresden.de/index.php?mo=mc_…40107b868a48%7D

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
http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen…0_AlumniAuction

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.

Your Excellency,

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

POST SCRIPT

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.