Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 14th, 2008 #1
F.W. Braun
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,463
jewsign Jewish Subversion of the Catholic Church

Editor's Note: Following is a lengthy, but fascinating secular account from a very reliable senior editor of the now defunct LOOK Magazine on January 25, 1966. Roddy's account is not far from the truth of how the Jews dared to invade the doctrines and dogmas of Holy Mother Church. What makes this so interesting is both when it was written, shortly after the close of the Second Vatican Council in volume 30, no. 2 and the influence back then of the American press, most notably the Zionist bias of The New York Times as Gabriel Garnica points out in his column today. It also shows the intent of the progressivists to undermine the Faith for political purposes. Long before Nostra Aetate, long before the shameful apologies and wimpering at the wailing wall, the agenda had already been set to form a new church that would be politically correct in the advancement of the State of Israel and power to Zionist interests in forming a New World Order. No man can serve two masters and the Vatican II church opted for mammon over the Church founded by Christ.
Old November 14th, 2008 #2
Curtis Stone
Senior Member
Curtis Stone's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,057
Curtis Stone

Originally Posted by F.W. Braun View Post
Editor's Note: Following is a lengthy, but fascinating secular account from a very reliable senior editor of the now defunct LOOK Magazine on January 25, 1966. Roddy's account is not far from the truth of how the Jews dared to invade the doctrines and dogmas of Holy Mother Church. What makes this so interesting is both when it was written, shortly after the close of the Second Vatican Council in volume 30, no. 2 and the influence back then of the American press, most notably the Zionist bias of The New York Times as Gabriel Garnica points out in his column today. It also shows the intent of the progressivists to undermine the Faith for political purposes. Long before Nostra Aetate, long before the shameful apologies and wimpering at the wailing wall, the agenda had already been set to form a new church that would be politically correct in the advancement of the State of Israel and power to Zionist interests in forming a New World Order. No man can serve two masters and the Vatican II church opted for mammon over the Church founded by Christ.
What happened to the church from say, 1964 to 1974, was the exact psychic equivalent of what happened to native religions under the Christian missionaries.
Old November 14th, 2008 #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760

Thanks for this post! I'm planning to print it to hand out to some friends.

I recently listened to an old De Nugent interview of some traditional Catholics. They know about the jewish role in our demise. Many serious Catholics want the West to survive in its traditional organic (White) form.
Old November 14th, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The Plot Against the Church, by Maurice Pinay (1962)
Old April 29th, 2009 #5
Curtis Stone
Senior Member
Curtis Stone's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,057
Curtis Stone
Default Hutton Gibson Newsletter, April 2009

Includes his reply to the latest SPLC bitch and a derogatory KKK mention.

"He That Is Not With Me Is Against Me"
Published by
Alliance For Catholic Tradition


G. K. Chesterton was born into Calvinism, which his sunny disposition and good sense rejected. He spent years, he writes, constructing his own ideal religion, and when it was done he discovered that it was the Catholic religion. I was saved all this trouble by the good sense of my ancestors. But as I was instructed in Catholicism over the years I came to appreciate its perfection. Chesterton would have buried the postconciliar "church" in mirth even before Vatican II ended, but he has left the job to us. Let us not hesitate!

I put four years in the World War Two army. Most of my spare time went into arguing religion. I never lost an argument, largely because of the inadequacy of the opposition. I realized that despite my Catholic instruction, including a seminary high school, I simply lacked enough knowledge. So I read Father Walter Farrell's A Companion to the Summa. He led me painlessly through all St. Thomas Aquinas' theology. I studied many of God's attributes and perfections, though neither I nor Farrell nor Aquinas would dare to presume that we had covered them all. What created mind could comprehend its Creator?

I was led through God's clearly demonstrated omnipotence, whereby He created all that we can see or comprehend, His benevolence whereby He loves what He creates (though not necessarily how we have improved it), and His justice, which is best demonstrated in Christ's Crucifixion. What struck me most was the seeming contrast between God's most perfect, permanently effective, irresistible Will and human free will which too often has the foolhardiness to oppose the Divine Will.

The truth that was driven home to me --for the first time, despite all those years in the Catholic education system--was the seriousness of sin. Every sin results from the unwarrantable preference for our own puny free will over God's Will.

What unmitigated gall! Who do we think we are? Freedom is not only not justification; it can get us damned!

* * * * * *

God created us all. If He wanted us all identical, He could have stopped with Adam. None of us had the choice of parentage or race. Discrimination for color or race is stupid. But other reasons for discrimination are built or educated into us. I would not go for a meal with a man who habitually blows smoke in my face or kicks the waiter. I tend to avoid militant atheists. I would not accept employment in a leper colony. Should you wish to infer that I would not frequent the haunts of sodomites, feel free. I have the right to choose my company, and to protect both my health and my reputation.

When I go to church I have an absolute right to the real Mass celebrated by a real priest. This is my obligation, and I must fulfil it. I have no right to accept a substitute for either merely because either condition is unavailable. These conditions were imposed by God Himself. I cannot compromise what belongs to God. So why am I a terrorist? Obviously this term far better fits those who have stolen my ordinary means of salvation.

These thieves who have conspired to deprive the ordinary Catholic of his opportunity to worship God as He prescribed, and even more foully to deprive God of His due worship, obviously oppose God and His established Catholic Church. They have demonstrated that they work according to a well-organized plan. They have a common allegiance, to a creature or creatures in rebellion against their Creator. How they expect to be rewarded escapes me. Or is it reward enough to kill the Catholic Church and make salvation infinitely more difficult for its adherents? The very scope of the plot, its near universality, and its chief objective, to thwart God's Will, suffice to identify the moving spirit, our oldest enemy, Lucifer.

At a racetrack would you back with your soul's salvation a horse that had finished last in his only race?

If you perceived the situation as above described, would you not be obliged in charity to all mankind to expose and denounce all aspects of this plot, and to strive to frustrate it?
Suppose impossibly that Lucifer could succeed, he would not thereby escape hell. He has nothing to gain. He is motivated solely by hatred. Revenge against God is impossible, so he attacks God's creatures.

* * * * * *

St. Patrick's feast has come and gone again.

But he himself has never left. He came first as a slave, but returned as the quintessential apostle-missionary to this people whom Chesterton had "eulogized" (Ballad of the White Horse) as the great Gaels of Ireland whom God created mad, for all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad. This seems to me the clearest common sense.

St. Patrick devoted his entire life to the conversion of this well-disposed people, and succeeded to such an extent that Irish missionaries converted the hordes of barbarians which engulfed the Roman Empire. And this spirit still motivates us. No one wants to be alone. We all want to see our friends and acquaintances--and everyone else--in heaven. Catacombs may suit some, but the joy of true (missionary) Catholicism must be shared. It is far too great to keep to ourselves.

It can be shared only in its original entirety. Christ commissioned his Apostles teachers. They never sought out the heads of false sects for negotiation--as do the contemporary ecumenical substitutes for the Catholic Church--to accommodate futile pursuit of salvation--to compromise God's truth as though it belonged to them. Clerical failure to fulfil the duty to obey Christ's final mandate cannot concern us. We still adhere to an essentially missionary Church--to which St. Patrick converted us.

We appreciate to the extent of our human limitations the utter reason found among religions only in Catholicism. In addition we find in such Old Testament revelations as the Books of Isaias, Daniel, and Wisdom, prophecies which Jesus Christ fulfilled to the letter, and which could never have been fulfilled at any time since. We read in the Acts of the Apostles the enthusiastic reaction to His Message at its first presentation to a crowd wholly Jewish in religion, which also saw in Him the fulfillment of all their prophecies.

Then we turn to the reaction of the Temple authorities ⎯who had provided for and received absolute proof of Christ's Resurrection from the dead--equally absolute rejection. Then we couple this with Christ's most solemn words at His Ascension (Mark 16:16): Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

These are God's own words; shall we not believe them? We must conclude that the Temple authorities--and all who followed them in rejection of Christ--were damned.
This is unbearable! All these generous, quick-witted, artistic friends will go to hell? All the flowers of the field to the incinerator? All these natural comedians, often capable of laughing at themselves, will wail in torture for eternity? And we are to discuss with them how we may accommodate the anti-religion that will have accomplished this horror? What course can we take in conscience or in charity except to try to convert them to Catholicism?

* * * * * *

Our Catholic education instruction manuals, as stated above, seldom if ever explicated the direct opposition between the human and divine wills involved in every temptation to sin, though they clearly implied it. They omitted as well the deadly menace cloaked in the public beneficence of Freemasonry. My father's generation understood this well, as did most Catholic immigrants to the United States. But our school system could well have warned us.

* * * * * *

Some one forwarded the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of anti-Semitic organizations. Behold, in their very midst is listed our Alliance for Catholic Tradition. SPLC charges that, in addition to the accusation of embracing anti-semitism, that all-embracing hate crime, our theology is typically rejected by the Vatican and mainstream Catholics in general. The Vatican's current loose theology conforms to and continues to implement the documents of the Second Vatican Council, as far as innovation can be fraudulently imposed. To represent this deformation of doctrine as theology is both reprehensible and irresponsible.

Anyone who queries Vatican II can't be all bad. It is detestable for any number of good reasons, ranging from outright condemned heresy (e.g., that all religions are salvific) through illogicality to mere boring obfuscation of well-known doctrine.

If, however, we are presented as anti-Semitic for rejection of the Second Vatican Council, it would seem to follow that the Second Vatican Council is pro-semitic in its theology. Now this entails self-contradiction insofar as the Second Vatican Council claims to speak for the Catholic Church. The Church, having established the status and content of the Bible, is incompetent to retract or to reinterpret it, in particular the historical content of the New Testament.

When Judas returned those thirty pieces of silver paid him to betray Jesus Christ, the Temple authorities could not return them to the Temple treasury:
St. Matthew's Gospel 27:3. Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, 4. Saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. 5. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed and went and hanged himself with an halter. 6. But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver [unthinkable to leave them for the sweeper!], said: It is not lawful to put them into the corbona, because it is the price of blood. 7. And after they had consulted together, they bought with them the potter's field, to be a burying place for strangers. 8. For this cause that field was called Haceldama, that is, the field of blood, even to this day.
What is this but the clearest acknowledgment of the chief priests' and ancients' intentional involvement in a successful plot to kill Jesus Christ?

From the time of Abraham the Jews treasured the prophecies of their Messiah. They knew the time and the place of His coming. They knew where to direct the Magi. They knew exactly what He meant in saying (John 8:58): Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM--as shown by (8:59): They took up stones therefore to cast at him--for blasphemy.

The Temple authorities even set up a guard to witness Christ's Resurrection, then bought the soldiers' silence. They had to be thoroughly convinced of the fact, or they would not have paid off; but in despair resulting from ignorance, or proud refusal, of God's infinite mercy, they denied the obvious facts, and thereby denied salvation to their adherents, descendants, and proselytes.

But now the descendants of the non-Semitic proselytes charge any traditional Catholic with the crime of anti-semitism, nearly always committed by the aforementioned non-Semitic proselytes against Near East Arabs, mostly Semitic descendants of Abraham. Traditionally, Catholics have always hated heresies but not heretics, error but not the erring. In our books, the first and worst heresy is post-Christian Judaism, first held by the Jews who rejected the fulfillment of their own immemorial prophecies. Christ said: (Mark 16:16) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Are we to believe Him or the descendants of the condemned who lie under the same prospect. If we cannot convert them, they will probably go to hell. We cannot convert them if they can prevent us from professing our faith in Christ, which profession somehow violates their Semitic rights.

We appreciate, however, the truth of SPLC's charge that the Vatican rejects our theology, as held by the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries. We rather suspect that the Vatican has received far more than thirty pieces of silver.

We doubt that the SPLC has directly contributed financially to the replacement for the Catholic Church. The SPLC and its elusive prowling spirit, Morris Dees, contribute more to our civil rights by such obviously beneficial activities as removal of the Ten Commandments (passed on by the Semites) from the Alabama Supreme Court building in which the SPLC occupies office space.

Meanwhile we hear from several sources that Morris Dees and his SPLC once defended the rights of members of the Ku Klux Klan. This gives us hope that traditional Catholics, to whom our "Church" grants neither rights nor hearing, can call upon those sterling, effective, diligent defenders of the downtrodden, Morris Dees and his SPLC.

Annunciation parish in Houston, Texas

Issues a four-page leaflet for announcements every Sunday. Two pages would suffice, so the other two are devoted to issues of great interest. The Ides of March issue ignored Julius Caesar to delve into the unprecedented Vatican-ordered visitation of all women's religious orders in the U. S. A., excluding cloistered, contemplative orders.

The article cites the drop in and aging of the membership. The current count is 59,000, less than one-third of the 1965 approximate 180,000. Yet, says the article, "The specific motivation behind the visitation of women religious is not clear."

Rome obviously has a problem. All those aging nuns must maintain their tasks, including property maintenance and care of those who are or should be retired, all without help of the young sisters who formerly refilled their ranks. The problem can, and probably will, be solved by suppression of convents, and even whole orders, and selling off two-thirds of their available quarters.

Florida Court sets atheist Holy Day

In Florida an atheist brought a discrimination case against Christians, Jews, and observances of their holy days. It was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days. After listening to the lawyer's passionate presentation the judge dismissed the case.

The lawyer objected: "Your Honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? Christians have Christmas, Easter, and others. Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur, and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

"But they do," said the judge. "Your client, counselor, is woefully ignorant."

"Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

"The calendar says that April 1st is All Fool's Day. Psalm 14:1 staes 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' It is the opinion of this court that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."

What may we assume from this? The judge is a Protestant. In the Douai Version the verse is Psalm 13:1.

* * * * * *

Man in white yarmilke write with forked computer.

Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!

An unforeseen [I'll bet!] mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly [according to this invalidly ordained "bishop" of Rome] but not legitimately suddenly appeared [was staged?] as something completely different: as the repudiation of [theologically impossible] reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the [pastoral] Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church's path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the [openly heretical] Council - steps which my own [unbiased? orthodox?] work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as [non-existent] peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news [and Catholic doctrine]. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which - as in the days of [last antipope] has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope's concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of Faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church. [Typical strategy of the postconciliar "Church" --let us create a problem in order to "solve" it.]Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication.

The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions.

An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the [new!] College of Bishops with the [anti] Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment - excommunication - with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. [Return to non-existent unity!]

The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return.

This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions.. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level.

The fact that the Society of St. Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. [Actually, both!]
As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. [He stole our line!]

There needs to be a distinction, then, between the discipli-nary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved.

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" - the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope - to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [From one useless bureaucracy to another.]

This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes [two of our best examples of schism and heresy].

The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world's Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church's teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces [and ignores] the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries [as re-examined, re-interpreted, and accommodated to modern times], and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren't other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms:

"You... strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32).

Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the Hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). ["being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." Even the translation has been updated.] In our days, when in vast areas of the world the Faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. [So who and what killed the missionary effort?] Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God Whose Face we recognize in a Love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1) - in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light [So what dimmed it if not the Ecumenism of Vatican II and its five implementers?] which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.

Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their Faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is interreligious dialogue [disobedience by definition to Christ's mandatory "Go teach."]. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to Love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est. <God Is Love>

So if the arduous task of working for Faith, Hope and Love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them? [They would probably remain solvent, as the postconciliar aberration faces bankruptcy!]

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow Herself to be generous in the knowledge of Her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise [contingent upon her continuing missionary effort!] made to Her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope [the hellish nerve of this persecutor and isolator of tradition!]- he too loses any right to tolerance; He too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself'. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. .....

[Benny surely went out of his way to find his quotation. Having found it, he weasels his way out of having chosen it by calling it a rhetorical excess. Could he not have made his point by fuller quotation as in St. Mark's Gospel? 12:29-31. "And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Not the whole law, then but a poor second, resembling the essential. But Benny's selection (accidentally?) pushes Vatican II's emphasis on man.]

But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood free-dom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is Love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide - even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered Me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the Faithful who in these days have given Me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from My heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.
With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain
Yours in the Lord,
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI, Vatican,10 March 2009 [What a wonderful example of the theology(?) of the great Renewal! But let us pursue Ratzinger back into his tenure as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith.]


Commencing his speech in his address (January 29, 1993) at the Waldensian "Evangelical Center", Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of ecumenism saying that its "ultimate aim is, obviously, the unity of the churches in the one Church," underscoring that (it is) "the unity of the Church of God to which we tend."

But we ask ourselves: if the "Church is one" (and is that not the "Catholic Church"?), why are the "other churches" there? Or perhaps the Cardinal is saying that even the "Catholic Church" is one of the "churches" that are to unite in the future to form the "one true Church." But if the "Catholic Church" is already the "one true Church," wouldn't the "aim" have been already achieved? But if the Church is not "one" already, then ecumenism, such as was willed by the Vatican II, should have as its aim the abjuration on the part of the "heretics" and "schismatics" of their "errors." And that goes without a doubt, for the other "churches" are but "sects," conventicles destined not to unite themselves, but to fade away!

But if these "churches" of which Ratzinger speaks, are instead to "unite" into the "one true Church," then the "Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith" wants to bring us to accept that error which Pius XI had already condemned in his Encyclical "Mortalium Animos", which reads in fact: "And here it will be opportune to identify and to remove the error, which lies at the root of this question and of the various initiatives by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches. Those who favor this view quote these words of Christ time and again: 'That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,' (Jo. XVII, 21; X, 16) as if Jesus thereby expressed a desire and a prayer that has not yet been granted. For they think that the unity of faith and government - distinctive marks of the Church - has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not exist today; it may indeed be desired and it may even be attained through a little common will, but for the moment, as things are, it is just an idea. They add that the Church is of its nature divided into sections, made up of several churches or distinct communities, which, divergent as they are, hold in common but some articles of doctrine, while they differ for the rest and each maintains its own rights."

How, then, can the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, defend himself? For he, against Pius XI, has indeed expressed himself thus: "This therefore the goal, the aim of every ecumenical effort: to attain the real unity of the Church, which implies a multitude of forms which we cannot as yet define."

But then, Your Eminence, the unity, according to you, now does not exist? Is it only apparent? You, in fact, state elsewhere: "I wouldn't dare, for the time being, suggest for the future any concrete, possible, and conceivable realizations."

It was obvious, therefore, that the Waldensian Professor Ricca held in high appreciation the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, as they coincided with his own thinking. In fact, after recalling the eight centuries of strife between Catholics and Waldensians, Ricca said, "... why are we together? We are here together because, if it is true that we know well who we are, and know well enough who we have been, we don't know, however, who we will be. It is the same reservation on the part of the Cardinal in not proposing models, in not knowing; it is the very attitude that, all told, binds us together."

Hence we Catholics, as the Waldensians, do not know yet what the Church will be like! But is this not one more erroneous distortion on the part of Cardinal Ratzinger, who here appears unable to reconcile his statements with the indefectibility of the Church? But what model of a Church can he propose to the Protestants other than the one that Christ himself desired, founding his Church upon Peter? How can a "cardinal" not know what the Church ought to be like, two thousand years after Christ founded her? Cardinal Ratzinger thinks, perhaps, like the heretic Teilhard de Chardin, that the Church is still evolving toward its Omega point, final goal of this ecumenism of Vatican II?

Let us not imagine that unity may be attained without evolution. We shall pass through "unity in diversity." Ratzinger explains: "This model could, I think, be expressed by the well-known formula of the 'reconciled diversity,' approved by Professor Ricca: "This base can serve as a starting point: the very concept of 'reconciled diversity' is of Lutheran origin."

Cardinal Ratzinger would like the Church of Rome to turn into a pluriform church, based on a Lutheran pattern! And that would be accomplished - always according to the Cardinal! - "by walking together, in a humility respectful of each other, even where the compatibility in doctrine or practice of the church has yet to be attained; it consists in the willingness to learn from each other and to accept each other's corrections, in joy and gratitude for each one's spiritual treasures, in a permanent essentialization of one's own faith, doctrine and practice, which must be continually purified and nourished by Scripture, while keeping our eyes fixed on the Lord."

1st: How can we "walk together" while acting differently?

2nd: If the "Church of Christ" is the Church of Rome, and the "Seat of Truth," how can she even be "corrected" by the heretics? How can the Church "respect" the Lutheran heresy and schism? What distinguished the Protestant "churches" or "sects" from the Church of Rome?

3d: what does "in a permanent essentialization of one's own faith" mean?

This idea of Ratzinger's is proper to all German theology: "The search for ... the essence of Christianity, has been typical of German theology for more than a century! Recall the works of L. Feurbach (1841), of A. Harnack (1900), of K. Adam (1924), of R. Guardini (1939), of M. Schmaus (1947), and Karl Rahner's proposal of a synthetic formulation of the Christian message. ... Ratzinger's research on the essence of Christianity clearly bears the mark of its time, ... 'the post-Christian age of faith,' characterized not so much by negations of this or that truth of the Faith, but rather by the fact that Faith, as a whole, seems to have lost its drive, its capacity to interpret the world, as opposed to other views which seem, if nothing else, endowed with a higher operational capacity." (23)

This approach, if put into practice, would destroy Faith itself. Pius XI in "Mortalium Animos": "The supernatural virtue of Faith has as its formal cause the authority of God revealing; and this cause does not allow ... distinction. All true Christians, with the same faith as they believe the dogma of the Holiest Trinity, believe the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; and the Incarnation of our Lord, as they do the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, in the sense ... defined by the Vatican Council. [Because] these truths have been solemnly sanctioned and defined by the Church at different times, ...are they perhaps not equally certain, or not equally to be believed? Has not God revealed them all?"

Ratzinger does not explain the essence of Faith, or what its "superstructures" could be. In his conclusive reply, however, the "Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith" indicates that his thought "coincides with that of Professor Ricca" with regard to the word "essentialization." (24).

That is grave! At a time in which the problem is precisely the absence of God, ought it not to be our primary concern to bear witness to the living God?

Instead, in full agreement with Professor Ricca, Cardinal Ratzinger speaks of "essentialization" of Faith, of that "essentialization" which the other modernist, the Dominican Father Congar called "ressourcement." And the Cardinal, in addition, observes that this process, which he deems "positive," comes from the other "churches," hence the Catholic Church would be continually purified... by the "heretic sects!"

According to Ratzinger, "The Church of Rome would have the duty to let herself be purified and enriched by the other churches (...), to acknowledge the sister churches and to love the communities of the other churches, for the Lord uses the different communities for each other's good, to make us capable and worthy of the ultimate unity" (25).

So God would be consenting to "heresies", whereas, prior to the Vatican II, it was taught that God permits them, as he permits any other evil! And again - always according to Cardinal Ratzinger! - God would consent, on a temporary basis, to the different communities ("divisions") as they would perfect each other! And the Catholic Church, in this manner, would be "purified," and would strive equally with the other "churches-sects" toward a revolutionary "unity" of a "New Church" which would evolve!

We should conclude that Cardinal Ratzinger is endeavoring to put us on the path that leads toward this unknown, future Church, hence abandoning the pre-Vatican II Church, which we have always believed to be the eternal and immutable Church of Christ!

Not so! Even the "Church of the origin" - always according to Cardinal Ratzinger - was merely a "model," united "in the three fundamental elements: Sacred Scripture, Rule of Faith, and Sacramental Structure of the Church." (26)

Was the Church of the origin not united, perhaps, under the Magisterium and the Government of the Pope? Was there not, perhaps, the same Faith present in all of the Christian communities? How, then, could Ratzinger one day dare to declare Pius XI's "Mortalium Animos" consistent with Vatican II? Pius XI himself says therein, very clearly, that ecumenist, or pan-Christian theory "paves the way to naturalism and atheism" and prepares "a self-styled Christian religion far removed from the one Church of Christ," and which "is the path to the neglect of religion or indifferentism, and to modernism," and which "is a foolishness and an absurdity!"

[From THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH to this point originated from Msgr. Luigi Villa's pamphlet on Ratzinger (heavily cut). We lack space for the footnotes, which may be checked in the original and its translation.]

Elizabeth Gerstner, foundress of Una Voce, warned us never to talk to Ratzinger because he could talk anyone into anything. We are indeed fortunate that he writes; he is far less persuasive on paper, where we have time for analysis.

Don Luigi has demonstrated that "Cardinal" Ratzinger has publicly embraced heresies while filling an office originally intended to preserve and defend the Faith. We must conclude that he was ineligible for the papacy, and that he has now usurped the supreme office whereby he can advance his ecumenical agenda without opposition. He can, therefore, excommunicate for failure to accept as gospel some of the logistically absurd aberrations contrived by doctrinaire "historians." (A bad joke? Read the next one!)

If that fails, for failure to accept the Second Vatican Council and all its heresies, we can be subjected to that unbiased final authority on Catholic doctrine and practice, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Given the fact that all our canon laws are written in Latin and all our dogmas are defined in Latin, why has the study of the Latin language been made optional in nearly all Latin rite seminaries? How can a priest function in ignorance of the Church's official language?

Argument Corner

Objection--You lack humility. You must understand that Canon Law is subject to interpretation by experts and to precedents in their application and use.

Reply--Humility seems off the point. We understand the legal principle that what is not clear cannot be a binding law. You fail to realize that your personal application of 1918 code Canon 188 §4 must--despite the clearest possible intent ("by the fact itself," "without any declaration") of law made to protect the Church from heretical clergy, hierarchy, and popes--be ratified (in violation of Pius II's Exsecrabilis) by a subsequent council or pope. Yet your legal expertise cannot tell us how, in the Church's prevalent pitiful state of flux, to find a genuine subsequent council or pope.

Objection--So what are your precedents?

Reply--Under the present unprecedented situation, we must look for similar conditions. To end the great Western Schism, two claimants (one genuine) to the Papacy submitted resignations to a legally convoked council then in session so that the Holy See could be legally filled by a new pope.

In 1130 AD we find a perhaps closer parallel situation, in which Pietro Pierleone had himself elected by an illegally convoked conclave, although Innocent II had just been properly elected. Pierleone filled the papal office in Rome for eight years, proving by his every official act that he was not Catholic. Shortly after his death the Holy Roman Emperor brought a German army to Rome and re-installed Innocent II. The legally convoked Lateran Council (1138) condemned each and all Pierleone's decrees and rescinded all his appointments. He is listed (Anacletus II) among the antipopes, whose long list includes Benedict XVI Ratzinger and his four immediate predecessors in the Holy See.

Objection--You remain stubbornly attached to your own interpretation.

Reply--No interpretation here. We cite the law as unmistakably written, "by the fact itself" (demonstrated public adherence to heresy) "without any declaration" (the demonstrated public heretic loses every office in the Catholic Church, because, among other cogent reasons, public adherence to heresy excludes the demonstrated public heretic from the Catholic Church). Your failure to accept this lies not in the intellect but in the will.

Objection--I cannot imagine a dynamic Church being fossilized--in a museum curio of medievalism. Dynamism is growth-evolution and one cannot remain static, to become genuine Catholics. Unless we open doors, the Church, as you would want it, would soon die out. Let's make Love--the pivot that makes the world go round--rather than rituals, the letter of the law.

Reply--Dynamism was one of Paul VI's catchwords as he de-energized the Church. Our doors were always open for people to enter. And they entered in droves for nineteen centuries, attracted by the missionary effort energized by the Holy Ghost and the stability found within. One good reason that we now have so many enemies is that the "Church" has sabotaged the missionary effort--our greatest, most practical evidence of love, and an essential mark of the Catholic Church--in favor of Ecumenism which dialogues with soulless and mindless religions as though they had something to improve what Jesus Christ established for all time. Paul VI replaced our mandatory worship of all ages under the pretext that he had modified "ritual and rubrics."

Civilization had descended to its lowest level since the Deluge when Christ came. What sustained the world for nineteen centuries? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as established by its Victim. Observe the speed at which our civilization disintegrates with the support of its idolatrous Montini-Bugnini replacement!

* * * * * *

[In line with our policy of facing urgent current problems squarely, unflinchingly, and even head-on, we present this jewel of an article inspired by a séance conducted in 1917.]

Sherlock Holmes

A complex brainchild of Arthur Conan Doyle, cannot, we maintain, possess greater intelligence than his creator.

Sherlock exceeds in performance all contemporary classical violinists. His logical and analytical skills defy comparison. His super-intelligence resides at such a level that he finds these routine chores boring and must relieve his ennui by use of habit-forming, deleterious drugs.

All recall "Elementary, my dear Watson" and "Quick Watson, the needle!" Fewer probably remember "I say, Holmes, doesn't your brother, Mycroft, work for the government?" or Sherlock's retort "My dear Watson, Mycroft is the government!"
Consider the ramifications. Doyle here endows Mycroft with equal or superior mental status to Sherlock's. With what habit-forming, deleterious drugs could he relieve his ennui? Certainly not scopolamine ("truth serum")!

Doyle attributes incredible mentality to the Holmes brothers, who obviously furnish neither evidence nor example. Indeed to propose that one man can surmount the self-contradic-tions inherent in operating even the simplest government strongly implies mental exiguity of the proponent.

The entire question resolves itself when we discover that Arthur Conan Doyle replaced the most logical certainty of his time, the Catholic faith, with the utter foolishness, not to say diabolism, of contacting departed spirits via the (happy?) medium of spiritism (spiritualism).

Please share this newsletter with family, friends and members of your church.

Skyline Movement, LLC, 47 W. Polk St., Suite 100-408, Chicago, IL 60605, USA
Blood on the Menorah (1948) Robert Mitchum. In post-war Europe, an American newspaper man foresees the coming doom of transition to a Judaic society. Worth seeing. (Dir: Bill White, 99 mins.)

Last edited by Curtis Stone; April 29th, 2009 at 11:53 AM.
Old May 19th, 2009 #6
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[Good example of Notre Dame's corruption and subversion by dollar-loving, jew-truckling water carriers for ZOG.]

What Notre Dame Taught
by Tom Piatak on May 17, 2009

Notre Dame

Notre Dame taught a clear lesson today, in its decision to have President Obama as a commencement speaker and to award him an honorary degree. That lesson is this: American politicians can freely embrace abortion and face no negative consequences at all. Any pro-abortion politician who climbs to the top of Benjamin Disraeli’s “greasy pole” will get nothing but applause and praise from those who now run Notre Dame.

The Second Vatican Council defines abortion as an “unspeakable crime.” Not so Notre Dame. Father Jenkins’ effusive introduction of Obama never hinted that abortion is an “unspeakable crime.” According to Father Jenkins, nothing is “unspeakable” because what matters is that we have a “dialogue,” even though “Difference must be acknowledged, and in some cases even cherished.” Amazingly, he praised Obama’s supposed courage in coming to a place that showered him with applause, that vigorously arrested all pro-life demonstrators coming onto campus, and that provided him with a photo opportunity more effective than millions of dollars spent on campaign ads in demonstrating to Catholics that they need not worry about a candidate’s support for abortion in deciding how to vote: “Most of the debate has centered on Notre Dame’s decision to invite and honor the President. Less attention has been focused on the President’s decision to accept. President Obama has come to Notre Dame, though he knows well that we are fully supportive of Church teaching on the sancity of human life, and we oppose his policies on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.” How Notre Dame opposed Obama’s policies was not described. In fact, it is not at all clear from Notre Dame’s own statements that it does oppose Obama’s policies on abortion and stem cell research. Notre Dame’s official press release on the commencement noted that Obama’s “stance on abortion was likely unacceptable to some” at Notre Dame. And Father Jenkins could not even bring himself to say that the policies Obama supports are wrong, much less evil. Describing things as they are would apparently interfere with the “dialogue” Father Jenkins is so excited about.

Any politician watching today’s spectacle would have to conclude that the worst risk he runs from such as Notre Dame in supporting abortion is that he will be given an honorary degree, applauded, and told that it is important to “dialogue.” This lesson is especially harmful to the dwindling band of pro-life Democrats. Given the national Democratic party’s ironclad support for abortion, pro-life Democrats take a stance that prevents them from aspiring to their party’s presidential nomination. And, if such politicians take a pro-life stance for fear of Catholic opposition, Notre Dame sent a powerful signal today that they limit their ambitions for no good reason.

Obama has not been reticent in voicing his support for the “unspeakable crime” of abortion. Obama does not even claim to be “personally opposed” to abortion. Instead, he said during the campaign that he would not want his daughters “punished” with a baby if they engaged in premarital sex. His unstinting advocacy for abortion is a matter of public record, and he did not retreat from it at all at Notre Dame. Instead, he indicated in his speech that he has already learned that he has nothing to fear from Catholic prelates eager for “dialogue.” His praise for the late Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago obscured the salient point that nothing Bernardin said or did caused Obama to modify in any way his support for abortion. Even some of the Obama lines that drew applause at Notre Dame at least hinted at his opposition to Catholic teaching. Obama drew applause when he called for “reducing unintended pregnancies”—a likely reference to the federal funding for artificial contraception that Obama supports—and when he called for “health care policies” with “respect for the quality of life”—the same terminology used by those advocating for euthanasia.

It should not have been like this at a Catholic university, particularly at a Catholic university as inextricably intertwined with the American Catholic identity as Notre Dame. As John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, “But today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of [abortion’s] gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.” By awarding Obama an honorary degree and showering him with applause and praise, Notre Dame has assisted mightily in obscuring the gravity of abortion. And, when Obama appoints the next pro-abortion justice to the Supreme Court, signs a law providing for the federal funding of abortion, or signs the Freedom of Choice Act—all things he is committed to doing—he will be able to say, with some justice, that he is doing so with the imprimatur of Fr. Jenkins and the nihil obstat of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees.
Old May 19th, 2009 #7
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,865

Vatican 2 must be seen in the light of only being guidelines. Since 1958 when the Jews wrested complete control of the Catholic Church there are no absolute values to be found in Catholicism anymore. Like it or not like it, the pre-Roncallian church had absolute values, one of them being if you weren't a baptized Catholic you were of little value and faced "damnation". Certain actions were sins-period. Today, they call for "understanding" and "dialogue". Catholicsm today mirrors the Jew philosophy of live and let live. It is of no value to decency and especially of no value to the White man.
Old August 16th, 2009 #8
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[couple good reader comments from Majority Rights pushing, essentially, the traditional Catholic or E. Michael Jones line on the history of protestantism as a jew-aided revolt against the jew-suppressing church.]

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on August 15, 2009, 12:02 AM | #

To guessedworker:
Freemasonry, the Enlightenment, and the Protestant Reformation were products of Jewish instigation in order to dismantle Christendom.

The Catholic Church has always taught the suppression of the Jews. Jews were not allowed to live outside their ghettoes and not allowed access to certain jobs and to government. Jews were not allowed to move around freely in many areas of Christendom. Furthermore, the Jews were under periodic pograms.

This because of the punishment laid down in their law.

The Jews sought to escape their punishment---and so the destruction/breakup of Christendom was brought about. The “Sola Scriptura” which is a Jewish methodology was taught to rebel Christians and/or skepticism was encouraged in seekers to break away from the church.

The Enlightenment and Freemasonry were inspired by gnostic/Cabalistic/materialist elements from Europeans and Jews who sought to free themselves from the Church. Central to this whole notion is the re-introduction of the materialist/atomistic works of Democritus, Lucretius and others from Classical Antiquity with the high egalitarian slant.

Radical Protestantism fueled by Jewish anti-hierarchical views and extreme egalitarianism unleashed first the American Revolution which fueled the French Revolution. Freemasonry, heavily endowed with Cabbalistic points, headed both Revolutions and with the Enlightenment spawned Liberalism. Freedom. A new political ideology. With the Church broken, and the Kings and aristocracy taken away, the warrior intelligentsia, was removed and the commons took over. Liberalism fueled, as the name it implies, liberal policies that began with the liberation of the Jews. Once Church, Monarchy, and Aristocracy were removed, they gained power. In England, like the paradigm of Ruth in the Bible, Jews heavily intermarried into the aristocracy corrupting their allegiance to their kinsmen.

They gravitated to power centers. First to Spain which became the first maritime worldpower. But the Catholic Inquisition along with Aristocratic Blue Blood power broke and unmasked their strategy. England with its radical Flemish and Scottish Protestantism protected the Jews and for help in Cromwell’s Rebellion, were returned to England. There is a Protestant/Jewish nexus.

It is all about them materialistically bringing about their idea of their scriptures of world dominance and that was accomplished by both the American/French Revolutions that “destroyed Aristocracy and Aristocratical culture”. Both destroyed the ever European form of Church and State. Nature abhors a vacuum and the Jews stepped in and have become our new “aristocracy”. Liberalism is a gnostic, cabalistic, Atheist movement of Freedom. It is all nihiist.

Europeans are a warrior, Masculine races. Our societies mimic military organization. That society mimicing military order became Feudalism. Europe is based on agrarianism and the art of war. That are the two mainstays of instrinsic European culture. Jesus transferred the faith to Europeans because we see transcendentically. We operate in the Metaphysical world. The Faith was transferred to us. The Jews are a very materialistic people, very wordly oriented. Not so the European. The vision of Valhalla, the warrior hall consumes our thought. Duty, Honor, Glory are all transcendent concepts that describe what a Man is. What is Man. We are a very Masculine race combined with high spirit and a metaphysical outlook.

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on August 15, 2009, 12:24 AM | #

In order to Destroy Christianity---the European races must be destroyed---and it is all Satanic.

Judiasm relies on “orthopraxis”. Orthopraxis means “right action”. The not eating of certain foods, this ritual or that ritual. Again you can see the materialism, despite a faith in God, of the Jewish practice of their religion. Notice also the lack of art, of three dimensional art. They have a minamalist, monomanical methodology to their culture and religion.

Christianity is the opposite of Judiasm. Apostolic Christianity is based on “orthodoxa”, right belief. This means that the faith is Transcendent, Metaphysical. Christianity is based on Truth, Truth being a metaphysical thing, like beauty. Truth and beauty are not material but Transcendent. Apostolic Christianity is a European religion. The ancient Greeks, the first Europeans, laid down the laws for Truth. The First being the principle of non-contradiction from Paramenides. The principle of non-contradiction is the product of a Masculine, logically oriented mind---peculiar to only Europeans. Asian Syncretism is the opposite of this. Christianity can not survive amongst Asian Syncretism nor Semitic monomanicalism. Upon this foundation of Paramenides, Socrates added the principle of identity and that of consistency; all logic based. A sign of the Masculine mind. Socrates begins the Scientific spirit which is the hallmark of Western culture and civilization. Greek Metaphysicalness, combined with Roman/Latin pragmatism, forms Western Cutlure and these two streams combined to form a medium for the growth and maintenance of Christianity. Christianity can not survive outside of Europe. Christianity may be spread to other lands, but its orthodoxy can only be guaranteed by Europe’s races who have this Masculine Transcendent mind and outlook.

Destroy Europe---you destroy Christianity. This is why.

Life is War. And the lesson of the Illiad to Western Man is that our world is connected to the world above. The war above is mimiced, paralled, is shadowed down here. We are in a Cosmic battle, and we are but pawns in a chess game but with a twist, it is a two way street, we have the power down here to affect the outcome. We share in that. Our people were decieved with the idea of Freedom; and so we destroyed our kings, our aristocracy, and our Church; and ended up being enslaved by the beings that hate us.
Old August 16th, 2009 #9
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The above is a prejudiced Catholic view. From the White perspective, because of its insane and false beliefs about the nature of man, the whiteskin Catholics kept the jews around to fuck with and conduct mutually beneficial operations until the jews were able to break free and then subvert the institution. The correct policy, as Jones's history shows, but he himself does not understand, was to identify the jews as biological threat to the White race and exterminate them.

The Catholics toyed with the jews for two reasons:

1) to keep them around as witness to their crimes of rejecting/murdering Christ

2) to convert them to the true path

The comment dropper says the Church suppressed jews, but that's not accurate. The church had a policy of benign (from the jew POV) neglect. As long as jews weren't subverting Christendom's culture, they were free to carry on their shenanigans. We see today the fruition of Catholic shortsightedness and anti-biological bigotry led. If jews are merely unconverted Christians, and if converting them is the number-one priority, then protecting yourself agains the problems they cause is at the most job #2.

History falsifies two Catholic claims about jews.

a) they only became jews when they rejected Christ. In fact, the jew's behavior patterns are reflected through its entire history.

b) jews are merely Christians who haven't been converted yet. Jews in fact are a biologically distinct group at war with every other.

Catholic disrespect for what it considers God's creation is manifest in its absolute unwillingness to study the jew phenomenon to a deep enough level to understand it. The result of this failure is the free-running jew subverting the church. Whether this is good or bad for Whites is very much an open question, despite the commenter's opinion.
Old August 16th, 2009 #10
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
Igor Alexander's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander

Jesus transferred the faith to Europeans because we see transcendentically. We operate in the Metaphysical world. The Faith was transferred to us. The Jews are a very materialistic people, very wordly oriented. Not so the European.
Apostolic Christianity is a European religion.
Christianity can not survive outside of Europe. Christianity may be spread to other lands, but its orthodoxy can only be guaranteed by Europe’s races who have this Masculine Transcendent mind and outlook.
Absent here is the universalism that is one of the biggest drawbacks with Christianity seen from a racial perspective.

We are in a Cosmic battle, and we are but pawns in a chess game but with a twist, it is a two way street, we have the power down here to affect the outcome.
Also absent is the annoying fatalism some Christians suffer from.
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.

Last edited by Igor Alexander; August 16th, 2009 at 07:56 PM.
Old August 16th, 2009 #11
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
Igor Alexander's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander

Jews in fact are a biologically distinct group at war with every other
I don't 100% agree with the statement that jews are a biologically distinct group. Ignoring that there are black and Chinese jews, who aren't numerous enough to warrant making a fuss over, you've got the Ashkenazi and Sephardic jews. It's clear the Ashkenazi jews view the Sephardics as inferior.

Both groups seem to be heavily mongrelized. I've seen Ashkenazi jews that could've been poster children for the Hitler Youth. They looked more "Aryan" than I do. They're not even uncommon.

I've seen Sephardic jews that I wouldn't have been able to tell apart from Meds or Arabs.

I've also seen groups, like the French Canadians, that physically reminded me of jews, probably because there's been a certain amount of inbreeding among them as well.

I know some jewish scientists have conducted studies claiming jews have distinct genes, but I'm skeptical of this research since it dovetails a little too nicely with Zionist claims over Palestine.

Jews are a tribe, not a distinct race, though I won't deny that there's something biological to their behavior.
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
Old August 16th, 2009 #12
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
Igor Alexander's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander

Originally Posted by KMRATHELL View Post
Catholicsm today mirrors the Jew philosophy of live and let live.
The "Jew philosophy of live and let live"? As it's being applied today in occupied Palestine? As it's being applied to whites?
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
Old August 16th, 2009 #13
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle

"For Disraeli to lay claim to being a Jew, however, he needed to redefine the term, for he was no longer theologically a Jew but a Christian. He did so by replacing the bonds of belief and practice with the bonds of race. Disraeli was, in his own view, as Jewish as his friend Lionel de Rothschild, for they both belonged to the same race. As Sidonia declares in "Coningsby," "Race is everything; there is no other truth." Moreover, like other racial thinkers, Disraeli associated racial purity (and the refusal to intermarry and absorb outsiders that protected it) with power, vigor, and survival. The Jews were 'an unmixed race of a first-rate organization.'"
Old August 16th, 2009 #14
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle

And the opposite: "Christ is Everything; there is no other truth."

One view based on facts/evidence, the other on transcendence.

(Even though ultimately both sides hate reality.)
Old June 14th, 2011 #15
America First
Senior Member
America First's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First

Though Christian church organizations today are used in the Genocide of remaining White's World wide.

Remember when Russia was taken over by a NYC/London jooish Cabal coup due to horrible circumstance's of WW 1. This was done by a majority of jooish leaders who saw it to that Russia was renamed the U.S.S.R. and then the Revenge and theft could go full steam ahead.

Christian churche's were bombed burned and destroyed, during the so called revoltion. As the Russian orthodox clergy were murdered by hanging.

Later when the Communist's attacked Spain they too attacked and raped Church
Clergy, Nuns, and leaders.

Gemany stopped this violent take over of Spain.

Yet our media Lied About This piece of history attacking Franco as a bad man.
Christians today are like most non believers who love TV and have empty heads.

As of this day June 14, 2001 Haitian's are still being placed in all WHITE communities by jooo inspired evanjellyculls around the Western U.S. Why ?

Genocide ?

It was the USSR under Stalin that helped put out b.s. stories after 1945 about six millon etc.

Remember this if your a White troll or lurker, the USSR was given every Eastern Nation like Poland that the WEST went to war over their FREEDOM.

Back when Czar Nicky Romanov was murdered the Church then was not an enemy of White people, but after the slaughter the joo Communist's then went after Christian's full steam after they took control of Russia.

The Truth is the issue,so lets not forget the Truth is what we should want no matter what the issue is.

Remember there is 1500 years of Christian History where our brethern/ancestors were Baptised Christian.
You can't erase this, it matters not what we believe today our selves, these facts are fact.
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh

Last edited by America First; June 14th, 2011 at 03:58 AM.
Old June 14th, 2011 #16
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
MikeTodd's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329

The RC church is an inherently subversive institution.
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
Old July 6th, 2011 #17
Mike Parker
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker

Malachi Martin's Double Agent Status Documented

By John Grasmeier
June, 2007 has obtained numerous incriminating documents proving not only that Malachi Martin was indeed the infamous Vatican II “double agent,” but also that his duplicitous activities during the Council ran far deeper than had been previously thought.


During the Second Vatican Council, Martin acted as an assistant and translator to Cardinal Augustin Bea, head of the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity (SPCU). At the time, a major focus of the SPCU was the Jewish declaration portion of Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document that addressed the Church’s relations with other religions. Cardinal Bea would later be referred to by Archbishop Lefebvre as an “instrument of betrayal.”

In January of 1966, Look Magazine ran an article entitled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking,” a lengthy, in-depth look at the influence various Jewish lobbying groups had over the final draft of Nostra Aetate. In the article, Senior Editor Joseph Roddy tells of an unnamed Jesuit priest who held a key position in Rome during the time the Second Vatican Council was in session. The priest, described as a “double agent who "could never turn down work” and a “savior in the diaspora,” would use his position to gather and disseminate inside information to the secular press and the Jewish lobbying groups, who would in turn use that information in their efforts to influence the Council fathers – particularly the progressive American bishops. Although the priest’s actual name is withheld, several pseudonyms he used for his various activities are revealed.

As “Michael Serafian,” he wrote “The Pilgrim” (Ferrar, Straus & Giroux, 1964), a tell-all book on the politics, key figures and inner dealings of the council. As “F.E. Cartus,” he penned two timely articles, one for Harper’s Magazine and one for the American Jewish Committee’s influential intellectual periodical “Commentary.” As “Pushkin,” he would feed “inside tips and tactical leaks,” often in the form of notes slipped under doors, to journalists of major media organizations.

This all took place many years before Malachi Martin became a cult figure and public author who wrote books under his own name. Although word began to get around in certain circles that Martin and the pen-names were one in the same, it wasn’t until 5 years after he left Rome, when he wrote “The Encounter” (Ferrar, Straus & Giroux), that the first solid nexus was made between Martin and the double-agent priest. On the back cover of The Encounter, it states clearly that Malachi Martin did indeed write “The Pilgrim” under the pseudonym Michael Serafian.

Despite the indisputable self-admission that Michael Serafian was Martin's pen name, many of his devoted fans would claim that there was no evidence that he was the mole priest identified in the Look article who wrote for the American Jewish Committee and used his position in Rome to pass sensitive information to the press. What follows, will indisputably show not only that Martin was the double-agent priest in the Look article, but that the “warm friendship with the AJC” described by Joe Roddy was far warmer than anyone, including Roddy, had suspected.

The documents referenced below were made available to AQ by the Manuscripts Department of the New York Public Library. They are part of the Ferrar, Straus & Giroux collection, which contains correspondence and documentation on the publishing company’s dealings with many of its authors. They are available to any and all. None have been altered in any way shape or form.


Exhibit A: Setting up the Swiss bank account – This memo, dated March 19, 1964 was written by FSG treasurer Robert Wohlforth (RW) and sent to Robert Straus (RWS). Roger Straus is the president of Ferrar, Straus and Giroux and the sole heir to the Guggenheim fortune. The memo describes a discussion the two had regarding “The Pilgrim contract” and what steps needed to be taken to set up a Swiss bank account.

Exhibit B: Zachariah Shuster receives royalty payments from Martin’s book, “The Pilgrim" - This extraordinarily fascinating sheet of paper must be colloquially described as the proverbial “doozey.” It’s a Ferrar, Straus and Giroux royalty statement listing payouts and deductions for The Pilgrim. Only instead of the payee being the author of the book, Malachi Martin (aka Michael Serafian), the payee just happens to be Zachariah Shuster of the American Jewish Committee.

Exhibit C: Zachariah Shuster wonders where the check is – Zachariah Shuster of the American Jewish Committee writes a letter to FS&G treasurer wondering why a check that was destined for a Swiss bank account hasn’t yet arrived. He follows up with a confirmation then receives a response from Ferrar, Straus and Giroux treasurer Robert Wohlforth.

Exhibit D: Martin’s services are requested by the AJC – Here we have Marc Tanenbaum, Director of Interreligious Affairs for the AJC, accepting a gracious offer from Roger Straus to use Malachi Martin as he sees fit. Tanenbaum thinks the idea is a good one, stating that “Serafian (Martin) could provide a genuine service if he were to deal with the crucial issue of the deicide problem…” Although the hoped for late summer deadline would not be met, in the January 1965 issue of the AJC publication, Commentary, Martin, as F.E. Cartus, writes an article entitled “Vatican II and the Jews,” At the beginning of the third paragraph, it reads in part as follows:

“Roman Catholic believers drew a whole range of practical conclusions from these premises. The Jews as a people-not only the Jews of Christ's time but Jews of all time-were guilty of having killed Christ, the God-man: theologically speaking, they were deicides.”

Not only does Martin dutifully write the article (containing a vast amount of insider information) as requested, but he exceeds all expectations when he fabricates a statement on the Jews that he attributes to Pope John XXIII, claiming it was written shortly before his death and was to be read on a set date in all Catholic Churches worldwide. That story HERE.

Exhibit E: Robert Straus receives Martin’s assignment from the AJC – Robert Straus acknowledges receiving Tanenbaum’s letter and notes that he simultaneously had received the assignment for “The Pilgrim” to write the article for the AJC publication.

Exhibit F: Roger Straus wants to discuss Martin with Podhorez – Roger Straus wishes to discuss a letter from Michael Serafian (Malachi Martin) with Norman Podhorez, the editor of Commentary, where the article was to appear. It’s unclear what is meant when Straus states they should discuss the matter as a “possible post mortem.” Perhaps he was referring to the fact that the hoped for timeframe of late summer couldn’t be met.

Exhibit G: Straus makes undeniable connection between Martin and F.E. Cartus – Roger Straus writes to a British publisher telling him to look for an article by pseudonym Michael Serafian (Martin) that will appear in the September 1965 issue of Harper’s Magazine. As promised, an article by F.E. Cartus entitled “The Vatican Council Ends – Reform on borrowed time?” by F.E. Cartus appears in the September edition of Harpers.

Exhibit H: An ledger with interesting transactions – A ledger that was created to show “actual payments to or in (sic) behalf of Michael Serafian,” offers some interesting insights. On line 1, it shows the check sent to Zachariah Shuster on June 25, 1964 (see Exhibit C). On line 3, it shows the net royalty payment that is shown on line 29 of the document at Exhibit B. On line 2, it shows another payment to Zachariah Shuster that does not have any corresponding documentation in the FS&G collection. On line 5, it shows a payment of $500 to Abe Karlikow. Abe Karlikow was the director of the American Jewish Committee’s European office, based in Paris, France. On line 9, it shows Martin’s last payment as being on June 7, 1965. Just a few weeks later, on June 24, 1965, Martin would receive a $7,350 (around $48,000 in 2007 dollars) fellowship grant from the Harry F. Guggenheim foundation. The founder of that foundation, Harry Frank Guggenheim, just so happens to be Roger Straus’ uncle on his mother’s side.

In conclusion

There is no doubt whatsoever that the double agent described in the Look article by Joseph Roddy was in fact Malachi Martin. The document at exhibit G undeniably ties Michael Serafian - who is undeniably Malachi Martin - to the F.E Cartus pseudonym.

Joe Roddy was somewhat remiss, in that the relationship between Martin and the American Jewish Committee was far more than “warm friendship.” The relationship was outright collusive. Zachariah Shuster and Abe Kalikow were receiving payments on Martin’s behalf that were laundered through a Swiss bank account set up specifically for that purpose. Marc Tanenbaum requested custom propaganda for the AJC periodical “Commentary,” which Martin happily provided. Shuster and Kalikow were attached to the European office of the AJC in Paris, France, which just so happens to be where Martin fled to after he left Rome.

Martin was paid well for his services. According to the Straus ledger (exhibit H), during the latter half of 1964, he received a total of $3,651.03. According to the Federal Reserve consumer price index calculator, that would equal $24,202.80 today. In the first half of 1965, he received $4,282.85, which works out to $27,940.50 in 2007 dollars. Immediately after receiving his last payment from Straus in June of ’65, Martin receives a grant from Straus’ uncle’s foundation for $7,350 or $47,950 adjusted to 2007. In fairness to Martin, it must be noted that he took that grant in monthly payments over 15 months following the time it was awarded to him. The fact remains however, in the year’s time that spanned from June of ’64 and June of ’65, Martin was paid, granted, or received on his behalf at least $100,000 adjusted for inflation. This sum only includes what has been documented by AQ as being paid from Guggenheim and FS&G from in that one year span. It does not include other payments, if any, from Guggenheim and FS&G that AQ doesn’t have a record of. It does not include any payments Martin would have received for writing the articles for Commentary and Harpers. It does not include any other possible income sources. In the summer of 1963, Robert Kaiser claims that Martin “always had a wallet was stuffed with hundred dollar bills,” that he believed was provided by the AJC. In any case, he most certainly didn’t do the AJC’s bidding for free. It’s more than safe to assume that Martin had income aside from that which AQ has been able to document 40 years after the fact.

While Malachi Martin was supposed to be working on behalf of Holy Mother Church, the Holy See and his brother and sister Catholics, he was working for secular publishers, secular media organization and Jewish interest groups.
Old July 6th, 2011 #18
Perception Manager
Roy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,794

Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
Malachi Martin's Double Agent Status Documented
The smoking gun which unmasks the conspiracy theory that the kikes usurped the Catholic church.

I wonder what Martin Luther would say today about the Catholic church, or any Christian church.
Old July 6th, 2011 #19
Zeth O. Grady
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 785
Zeth O. Grady

I would like someone to explain how Jews can "subvert" something that they originally created.
Old October 25th, 2011 #20
Jack Smith
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4
Jack Smith

the jews created christianity and the church in the first place, they couldn't have invaded the doctrines, they wrote it in the 1st place.

jesus was a jew
His parents were jews
His 12 apostles (rip-off of the 12 zodiac signs) are jews
The first practicioners of christianity were jews
And best of all, look down the line of popes and research how many of them were RACIAL jews!!

The Subliminal Message of the Judeo/Christian Bible:
Jewish Supremacy over Gentiles

There is a secret Jewish "priesthood" that goes back thousands of years. This "priesthood" controlled and always had a much higher level of knowledge way beyond anything the majority knew. They allowed the populace to work as in building the cathedrals and when new societies were established, this society of mages would hijack the positions of religious and political power and ensure that any advanced knowledge in circulation was removed from the public domain and into their secret schools and organizations. The ruling hierarchy of the Vatican are nothing more than organized crimminals who have caused humanity untold destruction, misery, suffering, and grief. The Catholic Church and Christian religion are staffed with at the higher levels, and tools of the Jews who are their masters. The Jews are the ones who control the Christian Churches, especially the Catholic Vatican from which all other Christian sects evolved.

At the upper levels, they know the true power of the sun, magnetics, the mind, the effects of planets on human behavior, how to manipulate time, energy, they have used their secret organizations to create institutions in the public arena such as religions and political parties to remove occult knowledge and keep it out of circulation. The Inquisition was a prime example, for even to speak of anything occult or esoteric was to sign one's own death warrant.

In order to maximize power for their agenda, xian churches were built upon Ley Lines. Ley Lines are areas within the earth that have ioncreased geo-magnetic energy. The human body is composed of and runs on bio-electricity. Our thoughts are made up of electrical impulses. Through meditation and working with our own energy centers, we can hone our thoughts to have a stronger electrical output and to affect our environment. When one who is knowledgable uses earth energy in addition to this directed thought energy, this greatly amplifies the power behind the thoughts and direction of the energy through the will. Pagan temples were destroyed and xian churches were erected in their place. Special rituals were also conducted at these energy crossings within the earth grid. Human/animal sacrifices and such produced extreme fear in the victim. This directed fear energy- what they use to control was pumped into these vortexes of earth energy. What happens is this energy, magnified thousands of times creates a vibrational state within the earth field in which we all live. From what I understand, it encircles the earth like a spider web. This is the reason why xianity has such a powerful hold on many. Fear is the four letter word that controls the world and it is very effective.

In addition, the lying preaching, chock full of emotion and the doctrines that were repeated endlessly inside of these structures had all the power they needed to do their job. Along with using the energy of the ignorant congregation, a constant and powerful supply of energy was and has been available to be directed and manipulated by enemy adepts for the damnation of the people. Ancient works of art through the Renessiance are proof of the control the xian church had upon the people in every aspect of their lives. There are very few paintings, sculptures and other works of art that do not depict the nazarene or the virgin bitch and company. This also goes for music during the time period. To create any number of non-xian works was to subject one's self to be condemned as a heretic. The prayer energy alone that has gone into this foul institution is beyond the imagination. One person alone who fixates upon a thought or idea generates thought energy; think what millions can do.

Unfortunately, given the greed, this has not been enough for the nefarious aliens and their human slaves who run this ring of destruction. There had to be war. The human energy output is most powerful in times of great fear, when facing death or when dying. The more violent, the better. Anyone who is familiar with the old testament of the Bible should be well aware of the endless wars promoted by the so called "Jehova" WHICH IS JEWISH DOMINATION OVER, AND MASS MURDER, TORTURE, AND GENOCIDE OF GENTILES. THIS SICK PERVERTED FILTH IS FORCIBLY DRUMMED INTO THE MINDS OF GENTILES FROM DAY ONE, CREATING A POWERFUL SUBLIMINAL THOUGHTFORM, WHICH HAS MANIFESTED INTO REALITY.

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin says, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

Exodus 15:3
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

Exodus 17:13
And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

Exodus 23:27
I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).
("goy" or "goyim" - plural, are Jewish derogatory words for "Gentile/s" the root "goeti" is the root word of "Devil." Satan is the God of the Gentiles and our True Creator God. "Satan" means "enemy" in Hebrew.

Exodus 32:27
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Leviticus 26:7
And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

Univ. of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein's philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against 'goyim,' a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).

Numbers 21:3
And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

Numbers 23-24:
Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain.

QUOTE FROM THE JEWISH TALMUD: Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

Numbers 25:16
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Vex the Midianites, and smite them:

Numbers 31:7
And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

QUOTES FROM THE JEWISH TALMUD: Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

Deuteronomy 2:20
(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;
A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead:
As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even unto this day:
And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.)

QUOTE FROM THE JEWISH TALMUD: Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.
And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."
Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.

Sanhedrin 57a. "When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep."
Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us:
Only unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto the cities in the mountains, nor unto whatsoever the LORD our God forbad us.

Deuteronomy 7:1
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Deuteronomy 7:21
Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.


Deuteronomy 7:25
The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

Deuteronomy 12:27
And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.
Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God.
When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;
Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

Human energy is not enough, there had to be animal blood sacrifices as well:
Exodus 20:24
An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

Exodus 24:4
And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.
And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

More instructions from jehova for blood sacrifice:
Exodus 23:18
Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning.

Exodus 29:10 And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock.
And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar.
And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar.
But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.
Thou shalt also take one ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram.
And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round about upon the altar.
And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces, and wash the inwards of him, and his legs, and put them unto his pieces, and unto his head.
And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
And thou shalt take the other ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram.
Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.
Also thou shalt take of the ram the fat and the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and the right shoulder; for it is a ram of consecration:
And one loaf of bread, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer out of the basket of the unleavened bread that is before the LORD:
And thou shalt put all in the hands of Aaron, and in the hands of his sons; and shalt wave them for a wave offering before the LORD.
And thou shalt receive them of their hands, and burn them upon the altar for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour before the LORD: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
And thou shalt take the breast of the ram of Aaron's consecration, and wave it for a wave offering before the LORD: and it shall be thy part.
And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave offering, and the shoulder of the heave offering, which is waved, and which is heaved up, of the ram of the consecration, even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is for his sons:
And it shall be Aaron's and his sons' by a statute for ever from the children of Israel: for it is an heave offering: and it shall be an heave offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifice of their peace offerings, even their heave offering unto the LORD.
And the holy garments of Aaron shall be his sons' after him, to be anointed therein, and to be consecrated in them.
And that son that is priest in his stead shall put them on seven days, when he cometh into the tabernacle of the congregation to minister in the holy place.
And thou shalt take the ram of the consecration, and seethe his flesh in the holy place.

Leviticus Chapter 1
And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of "a sweet savour unto the LORD".
And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.
And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.
And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.
And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar:
And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes:
And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

Leviticus Chapter 7
Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy.
In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar.
And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards,
And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away:
And the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a trespass offering.

Leviticus 7:14
And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.

Leviticus 7:27
Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Here, more blood sacrifice is needed to remove the curse of leprosy jehova has inflicted:
Leviticus 14:34

When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;
And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:
And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:
And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:
But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.
This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall,
And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house,
And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot:
To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy.

More examples of Jewish blood sacrifices to Jehova:
Leviticus 8:14- 32
Leviticus 9:1- 24
Leviticus 14:1- 5
Leviticus 14:12-28
Leviticus 23:12-21
Numbers 19:1- 7


catholicism, christianity


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 PM.
Page generated in 0.26719 seconds.